Quantcast

5 Reasons Why Poor People Vote For Republicans

Image via Reuters

Image via Reuters

Have you ever wondered why so many poor people vote for Republicans, even though Republicans do very little to help them? Here in Louisiana, Republicans have taken every state-wide seat in government, and they couldn’t have done it without convincing the poorest people in the state to vote against their self interests.


Over last few decades, Democrats have been losing ground with rural and working class voters, and here are five of the reasons why I think traditional populist Democratic strongholds like Louisiana or West Virginia have turned their backs on the party.

5. Liberals can be really elitist: I hate to have to say it, but it’s true and I’ve been guilty of it myself. How often do you see liberals respond to conservatives by asking if their parents were brother and sister or using any number of other ad hominem attacks? It’s a regular occurrence in the comments on liberal Facebook pages and websites, and it’s not productive. I get it, it feels good to blow off steam and let that conservative person who frustrates you so much know how you really feel. However, if all you know how to do is attack someone’s character by calling them stupid or a shill, you’re not going to persuade them to see things from your point of view. What it will do is further alienate more moderate conservatives who could be convinced that some gun restrictions aren’t a bad idea, just to give you an example.

4. Racism: I’m putting racism in here because there’s almost never a discussion about why poor people vote conservative without racism being cited as a reason. While there are certainly racists who identify as Republicans, simply writing everyone off as racist for voting Republican is stereotyping, stupid, and counterproductive. It’s also elitist and condescending, which is a problem many liberals have, as mentioned above. It is true that quite a few Democrats left the party after Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and became Republicans, but those people tend to be 70 or older.

3. They’re “pro-life”: Few things besides gay marriage get religious conservatives more worked up than abortion. Having grown up in the “pro-life” movement, I can tell you that while some religious people (especially Catholics) tend to support Democrats on economic issues, they’ve been told by their pastors that they could go to Hell for voting for someone who is pro-choice. I can remember our pastor (who was allegedly soliciting other men during his off time) when I was a teenager warning about how liberals were evil and that a vote for a candidate who wasn’t 100% “pro-life” would put our souls in mortal danger.


2. Fox News: In order to keep people voting the way you want, you need a propaganda source. My friend Chad R. MacDonald from QuietMike.org explains how Fox News serves the Republican Party so well:

Throw Fox News into the mix, which Politifact recently reported as disseminating more false information than truth. When you travel through Red States, Fox News is on in most gas stations, fast food restaurants, and public areas. An unabashedly conservative media outlet, Fox News continually broadcasts a right wing agenda to its viewers.

They blame The Other; immigrants, ethnic minorities, LGBT Americans, and women, while saying people need to “take America back” They repeatedly bash the President, give platforms to lobbyists and corporate shills, and constantly work to undermine progress and support obstructionists. They do all of this while telling the viewer that they are the chosen people of God and America.

Then they tell you the most important part, everyone else is lying to you. Don’t touch that dial. Fox News creates fake “wars” on Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, and whatever will shock their audience. This paranoia is sown to distract their viewers from voting from the GOP’s real war on poor people. (Source)

1. Religion: Calvinism is one of the two major camps in modern Christian American theology and predestination is part of Calvinist teachings. To many people it sounds like a horrible concept, but it explains part of why poor people vote for Republicans. In a nutshell, everything including the fate of your eternal soul was determined by God, and there’s nothing you can do to change that. If you’re poor, it’s part of “God’s plan” and it is not our duty as individuals or the government to help. If someone is rich, then they were chosen to be rich by God, and we shouldn’t punish them by making them pay more in taxes. Calvinism and the belief in predestination are rarely mentioned in political discussions, but they’re a huge factor when it comes to conservative Protestants and how they think.

As long as Republicans continue to exploit these advantages and we fail to counter them, poor people will continue to vote for the GOP – especially if we continue to write them all off as being poor, racist, ignorant rednecks when so many of them are not. We can convince people not to vote against their self interests over and over again, but it will take time and a lot of patience.



Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Forward Progressives

Comments

Facebook comments

  • poppaDavid

    If you find someone who is a Christian and who takes their news from FOX, please ask them if they have ever heard of the book of Revelation? I imagine they have. Ask them if they have heard of the “Mark of the Beast”? Again, I expect it is “yes”. Then ask them what letters have the value of “6” in our alphabet and our number system?

    The simple, correct answer is “F”, “O”, “X”

    Now, ask them why they follow the Anti-Christ?

    • QB59

      Well it would be interesting to watch as their heads explode.

    • Jl Keim

      thats pretty good on the numbers , never saw it before

      • poppaDavid

        I wasn’t expecting it. I was trying to see what names were possible from the alphabet for “666”, when I made the list of letters with the value of “6”, there it was.

    • grover5995

      The Bible also warns us about following false prophets.

      • poppaDavid

        Jesus described the final judgement. He said that those who GAVE food, clothes, shelter to people would we welcomed into the kingdom, and he said that those who did not GIVE food, clothes, shelter to people would be kept out of the kingdom. Those who turn their back on people in need, are not true prophets of Christ.

        “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven… ” Matt 7:21

      • Patrick Milliken

        I’m aiming for Hell simply by default. I’ll likely end up in Purgatory in spite of my best efforts.

      • Julie Coomer Sanderson

        Yes, and Republicans believe the exact same. Polls have proven that Republican’s are MORE charitable than Democrats. The bible also says, that God helps those who help them selfs. We believe in helping people but want to give a hand up and not a hand out. But do not take that as we feel that there are not people in genuine need of help, because we do.

      • poppaDavid

        You don’t find “the Lord helps those who help themselves” in the Bible. It comes from Aesop’s fable “Hercules and the Waggoner”. Aesop was a Greek pagan. Jesus on the other hand gave us the parable of the Good Samaritan where he told us to help those who are unable to help themselves and who have no means to repay our kindness. Conservatives should take their instructions from Jesus not a pagan.

        The research (e.g. Margolis & Stances, MIT 2013) indicates that Conservatives tend to give more to religious organizations, while liberals tend to give more to non-religious organizations. In the whole, neither give significantly more from their personal wealth than the other.

        So, what is left is how they direct their taxes be spent.

      • Crysta

        Most of that supposed “charity” ends up in the pastors pocket…

        And why the hell arent you offering JOBS to the poor? HMM?

      • Beaugrand_RTMC

        Cite the source for those alleged “polls,” please.

    • Frank Lazar

      While Foxx annoys me as much as it does the next intellectual, I don’t follow this numeralogical dance of yours. F, I get, the other two, I don’t.

      • poppaDavid

        Numbers greater than 9 have multiple digits. In numerology multiple digits are reduced to a single digit by adding them together. 10 = 1 + 0 = 1, 11 = 1+1=2, 15 = 1+5=6, 24 = 2+4=6.
        My finding is not unique. Numerous examples from outside sources are available by Googling “numerology numeric values chart”.
        Since this “Biblical warning” is intended for American Christians only use the charts for the English alphabet. Remember to emphasize that “God wants to warn them” so He made the message as simple as possible. And be sure to add “the Devil is so arrogant of his ability to ‘fool the elect’ that he didn’t bother to hide the mark (or God is so powerful that he compelled the devil to use that mark).

      • Cliff Isaac

        There is nothing biblical about numerology it is an occult practice and not a warning from god.

      • poppaDavid

        Perhaps yes, but if you have read Revelation then you know about the Mark of the Beast, which IS a numerological reference. If you accept the Bible as the literal word of God, “666” is significant to the End Times.

      • Cliff Isaac

        Revelations is not meant to be literal are your dreams taken literal. No they are not they are interpretive. I do take the words of christ literal when he says that the dead know nothing and that no one will know when he comes back or who the antichrist is but there will be signs. I am a conservative libertarian,pro lifer, small government and as the great a
        Abraham Lincoln has said “I am not concerned with whether god is on my side. I am only concerned with whether i am on his side”.

      • poppaDavid

        If you do not take the Bible literally that’s fine by me. You can pick and choose to follow any parts you like. Please accept that others may choose different parts and they may come to the same conclusions as the current Roman Catholic Pope, that Jesus wanted people to hold people with more love than they hold money.

    • PAldrighetti

      I sometimes remind people that the name Ronald Wilson Reagan has six letters in each word. Therefore. 666.

      • Condensate

        You amaze me. I didn’t think it possible to find someone as assbackwards stupid as you lol.

    • Cliff Isaac

      The numeral symbol, originally quite unrelated to the στ ligature, developed from the letter Ϝ, which stood for the sound /w/ in early pre-classical forms of the Greek alphabet. This symbol became obsolete as a letter during the classical era but remained part of the Greek alphabet-based system of numerals, where its value of 6 corresponded to its original place in the alphabet.

      • poppaDavid

        Do you believe that God talks directly to his people through the Bible? Do you believe that God has the power to speak to Americans using their alphabet and their numbers? Do you believe that a message that is clear and unambiguous is more likely than something that requires manipulation? Using our alphabet and our numbers “666” is “FOX”, because there are only three 6’s in the warning, and only three letters have the value of “6”, and they are in alphabetical order.

        The message is quite clear. Stay away from the pronouncements of FOX.

      • Cliff Isaac

        You are seriously grasping at straws and you sound like a left wing nut conspiracy theorist. You and your liberal advocate laughing together about how you would blow peoples minds with this numerical fake revelation. LOL

      • poppaDavid

        You can read the Bible as well as I. The mark is 666, and the letters “F-O-X” have the value 6-6-6. I suppose it is significant that you would deny the literal nature of the Bible to keep your affection for FOX and their agenda.

      • Cliff Isaac

        I am not denying anything. Execpt that your premise is wrong. Using your logic I suppose to be consistent, shouldn’t we currently campaign for the death penalty for homosexuals? For that matter, aren’t we obliged to promote execution for disobedient children and Sabbath-breakers, both capital crimes under the Law?

        The simple answer is no. Here’s why. Just because a biblical command is intended to be understood literally, does not mean it is intended to be applied laterally, that is, universally across the board to all peoples at all times in all places.

        Consider this situation. Jesus told Peter to cast his net in deep water (Luke 5:4). That’s exactly what Peter did because he took Jesus’ command literally, in its ordinary sense. He had no reason to think otherwise. However, because Jesus’ command to Peter was literal does not mean the same command applies laterally to everyone else. We’re not obliged to cast nets into deep water just because Peter was.

        Here’s another way of looking at it. No matter what state you live in, the California legal codes are to be read literally, but don’t have lateral application to all states. They only apply to those in California.

        In the same way, the words of the Mosaic Law, like those of all laws, are to be taken at face value by anyone who reads them. Yet only those under its jurisdiction are obliged to obey its precepts.

        The Jews in the theocracy were expected to obey the legal code God gave them, including the prohibition of and punishment for homosexuality. It was not the legal code God gave to gentiles, however. Therefore, even if the words of the Mosaic Law are to be taken literally by those under the jurisdiction of that code, this does not mean that in our current circumstances we are governed by the details of the provisions of that Law.

        A clarification is necessary here. Am I saying that nothing written in the Mosaic Law is ever applicable to Christians or other gentiles or that there are no universal moral obligations that humanity shares with the Jews of Moses’ time. No, I’m not saying that.

        Though Moses gave legal statutes for Jews under the theocracy, that Law in some cases still reflects moral universals that have application for those outside the nation of Israel. Yes, we can glean wisdom and moral guidance from the Law of Moses for our own legal codes, but there are limits. Working out those details is a different discussion, however.

      • poppaDavid

        You distance yourself from Conservative Christians. That’s fine by me, because they do hold for a literal interpretation of the Bible, all of it, even if you don’t. In fact there is one in California who wants to get a law on the books to kill homosexuals, like the Bible says.

      • Cliff Isaac

        You are full of it. Its seems you associate conservative libertarian christians like myself to be members of the westboro baptist church. Lol Despite the overwhelming fact that they have been repeatedly denounced by the christian community and legitimate churches.

      • poppaDavid

        Actually I associate conservative libertarian Christians like you with Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Scott Walker, etc. And judging by their campaign rhetoric they recognize that the Republican base is closer to the Bible Belt Christian than to the Roman Catholic Pope.

      • poppaDavid

        And, I associate you with the Conservatives in Congress who have sponsored HR 2802 & S 1598 to allow employers push their religious belief unto workers and to fire women who get pregnant on their own time, for the infraction of “unmarried pregnancy”.

      • Cliff Isaac

        HR2802 would prohibit the IRS from revoking tax exemption from churches that refuse to officiate same-sex weddings. The bill was introduced in both chambers with 36 Republican cosponsors for the Senate version and one Democratic and 129 Republican cosponsors for the House version. S1598 was sponsored in 2013 by chuck schumer (D-NY) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI). The incident you are talking about happened 5 days ago. Here is why..Under federal law, an employer generally may not discriminate against an employee for religious reasons. However, the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act includes an exemption for religious employers, including religious educational institutions, (this was a church day care)that may in some circumstances allow discrimination that would otherwise be prohibited.
        According to the church, employees are required to sign-off on an employee handbook at the time they are hired that clearly states the church’s moral code of conduct, based upon the church’s Christian teachings. “We’re not trying to be hurtful, we’re just following our personnel handbook which is rooted in our statement of faith and our biblical beliefs,” the church’s pastor told WTVR about Kellam’s termination. Again you are full of it. Stop following the looney liberal propaganda. I consider your comment about me being associated with those good men to be a compliment even if a condescending one. Better them than to the hypocritical propaganda pushing pope.

      • poppaDavid

        So you do approve of an employer firing an unmarried woman solely because she is pregnant and unmarried?
        Pity. Jesus would have said, “who ever is without sin may cast the first stone” and then he would not pass judgement over her. Not much Christ in that form of Christian.

      • Cliff Isaac

        I acknowledge the right for a church to do so under the Civil rights act, but at the same time it wasn’t because she was an unwed mother. That church employs many unwed mothers but because she was living with a fiance and hadn’t estabilshed a time frame for the wedding, plus the fact that she claims to not have signed any code of conduct required by all employees. She would therefore be ineligible for employment there. Any other business under the civil rights act does not have that right. Just like I acknowledge the right of gays to marry under the ruling of the supreme court even though I disagree with the way it was passed in that the supreme court does not have the right to pass laws without congress. Jesus did pass judgement on others because he was the sole authority under God. Granted the judgement was sometimes condemnation of the merchants doing business in his father’s house but mostly forbearance toward those who were unwilling to repent and forgiveness to those who were. The current pope has politicized itself towards the left.Tragically, we cannot turn to the contemporary Catholic Church. When the pope keeps a hammer-and-sickle crucifix; when the pope declares free-market capitalism, the one economic system that has lifted masses of people out of poverty, to be largely evil (“the dung of the devil”); when Cuba’s Cardinal Jaime Ortega declares that there are no political prisoners in Cuba; and when the pope issues an encyclical on global warming while the oldest Christian communities in the world are exterminated, it is clear that while one can still turn to individual Catholic priests and lay leaders for moral guidance, one cannot turn to the Church and its pope for moral guidance. On the contrary. One must fight back.

      • poppaDavid

        You referenced “free market capitalism” as if it really exists and claimed that it is the one economic system that has lifted masses of people out of poverty.

        I doubt that you have the evidence to demonstrate that the markets in essential commodities are free, rather it is a euphemism for markets where cartels and monopolies are allowed to control the majority of economic activity under the mask of a “free market”. e.g. there is a free market in grain if you deal with Cargill, ADM or Monsanto. As for “lifting masses”, at present the masses are sliding back into poverty while the wealth is concentrating at the top. It isn’t that free markets are bad or don’t work, it IS that we don’t have them. And that is what the Pope recognized.

        The earliest description of Christian economics was religious communism. I don’t recall even one example of Jesus speaking about abortion or homosexuality, but there are plenty of examples of him attacking those who seek money and power.

      • Cliff Isaac

        It sounds like you are advocating for communism being better than capitalism. If that is so then how do you explain that America’s poverty line has increased from $23/a day to $63/ a day adjusted for inflation?Or that China alone has recommitted itself to capitalist polices after being able to bring 300 million people out of poverty in the last 30 years by refusing foreign aid from the UN freeing up the markets and trade. While conversely Africa had accepted that same foriegn aid in the 1960’s and again in the 80’s and is need of it still announced in 2011. In regards my reference to free market capitalism it is free in the sense that anyone can enter into it if they are willing to take on the risk of failing. As for a purely free market. No economic system exists in its pure form in the real world—all capitalist systems contain some elements of socialism, and vice versa.

        Ronald Nash outlines the distinctions between free market capitalism and socialism: “One dominant feature of capitalism is economic freedom, the right of people to exchange things voluntarily, free from force, fraud, and theft. Capitalism is more than this, of course, but its concern with free exchange is obvious. Socialism, on the other hand, seeks to replace the freedom of the market with a group of central planners who exercise control over essential market functions. No competition allowed, becuase you own nothing.

        Christians who believe socialism (or communism) is a more desirable system than capitalism do so trusting that centralized control or command economy will create a more just means of sharing scarce resources. Those who call for a socialist economic system do so on the basis of Acts 2:44–45 that describes Christians in the early church sharing all things in common. They fail to consider, however, the implications of Acts 2:46–47 that describes Christians eating with others in their homes and Acts 5:1–4 that tells of their freedom to own and sell private property.

        The Bible as a whole supports an economic system that respects private property and the work ethic. (See especially Proverbs 31; Isaiah 65:21–22, Jeremiah 32:43–44, Acts 5:1–4 and Ephesians 4:28.) Rodney Stark’s definition of capitalism is biblically sound: “Capitalism is an economic system wherein privately owned, relatively well-organized, and stable firms pursue complex commercial activities within a relatively free (unregulated) market, taking a systematic, long-term approach to investing and reinvesting wealth (directly or indirectly) in productive activities involving a hired workforce, and guided by anticipated and actual returns.

        Stark argues that capitalism centers around property rights, free markets, free labor, cash/credit, management, and a work ethic that looks upon work as a virtue, not a vice. He maintains that capitalism began in the early Christian monasteries, long before the Protestant Reformation and Adam Smith. No where else in the world was the middle class ever revered as the self made man until the United States of America was created. Now about your comment about Jesus he does say that thou shalt not kill and science proves that an unborn child can feel pain at 13-20 week and yet there have been abortions done well past that time frame and you don’t consider that murder? Now about homosexuals jesus does not specifically reference them, but then again I never said he did either. 🙂 He does give reference to eunuchs being born from the womb and being made that way by men and those that do so for the glory of god in respect that marriage is not meant for them. Matthew 19: 4-9. I have already made my stance on gay marriage and I don’t approve along with other members of the gay community for different reasons. As long as I am not forced to attend or officiate I will acknowledge their right to do so under the law. Their right to marry ends with my right to practice my beliefs as a christian. Just like my right to have use a gun ends with someone’s right to have life unless they are threatening my right to life.

      • poppaDavid

        Abortions. Last time I checked, there were about 100 third term abortions in the U.S. in a year. About 91% are in the first trimester, and 9% in the second trimester. So essentially all abortions are before the 20th week and the pain issue.

        I notice that you quote Jesus as saying that you must obey the commandments to obtain eternal life. Goes against Paul saying that you only need faith on Jesus as your personal savior. Either way, the Bible does cover what it means by “kill” and it doesn’t include abortion.

      • Cliff Isaac

        Paul was given authority by christ to take his place in his physical absence. Paul does not contradict christ’s commandment to love thy neighbor as you would love yourself.
        Does that not include following the moral basis of the ten commandments? It most certainly does. Christ didn’t abolish the mosaic law he added to it in way that was comprehensible. Knowing full well that we will all be judged and have to atone for our sins. Even if certain individuals say they have faith they will have to prove it by wether or not they lived by faith.
        As far as your abortion stats you are way off. 61% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy; 18% happen between the 9th & 10th weeks; 9.6% happen between the 11th & 12th weeks; 6.7% happen between the 13th & 15th weeks; 3.5% happen between the 16th & 20th weeks; and 1.1% of all abortions (16,450/yr) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.

        Abortion photos depicting the age ranges cited above can be viewed here: CBR Abortion Photos

        Likelihood of abortion:
        An estimated 35% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least 1 previous abortion.

        Abortion coverage:
        67% of all abortion facilities offer at least some abortion services after the 12th week of pregnancy. 9 in 10 managed care plans routinely cover abortion or provide limited coverage. About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds, virtually all of which are state funds. 16 states (CA, CT, HI, ED, IL, MA, MD, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA, and WV) pay for abortions for some poor women. There are 1.2 million abortions performed a year in the U.S. alone nice try on down playing the abortion issue with fake numbers.

      • poppaDavid

        I am not a Conservative, I try diligently to use real numbers.

        According to UCSF Medical Center, the first trimester runs through the 13th week. The difference between my numbers and you numbers is the 1.4% from the 13th week.

        You say that there are 16,450 abortions after the 20th week. The second trimester ends at 26th week. Do not confuse the 20th week with the 26th.

        You claimed “Paul was given authority by christ to take his place in his physical absence.” No. The New Testament says that Peter and James had that authority. However, if you want to believe that a human was given authority to overrule the teachings of the Son of God, I guess you may.

      • Cliff Isaac

        That still does not negate the fact that 16,450 abortions occur after the 20th week. Which is when the unborn child can feel pain and move around and is typically when parents find out the sex of the child. The only one who seems confused about this is you. I never said the second trimester ended on the 20th week. I also never said that a man was given authority to OVERRULE the teachings of chirst. The authority given to the apostles including paul was to preach the good news of what christ had did for mankind, heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons and baptize in his name through the holy spirit. For it was only through Christ that they were able to preform miracles. Do not confuse the continuation of the teachings of Christ with overruling them. You not being a conservative has no revelence in this conversation. You are being dishonest in you dealings with me by twisting my words to mean something different than their original intent and putting words in my mouth.

      • poppaDavid

        98.9% of all abortions take place before the 20th week, that qualifies as almost all. There are 16,450 human caused abortions after the 20th week. There are about 26,000 natural abortions “stillbirths” after the 20th week per year. We have a rate of 1/160 pregnancies. Finland has 1/500 pregnancies.

      • Cliff Isaac

        You stated thay only 100 abortions occur in the third trimester. False

        The ABC article estimates that less than 1% of all abortions take place in the third trimester. Even at a rate of 1%, third-trimester abortions would add up to over 9,000 a year. However, statistics on the number of late-term abortions are notoriously unreliable. Several former clinic workers, such as Carol Everett, have said that late-term abortions were performed in their facilities and went unreported. The 2008 case of Kermit Gosnell, who killed hundreds of third-trimester babies, many of whom were born alive and then killed with surgical scissors, is more evidence that there may be more late abortions done than is commonly believed. Before his arrest, Gosnell had flown under the radar of most pro-life groups and attracted little attention. How many more Kermit Gosnells are out there?

        The general argument that one hears in pro-choice circles is that late-term abortions are performed only for the direst of reasons. Groups like Planned Parenthood say that all late-term abortions are done because the unborn baby is horribly deformed or dying, or because the woman’s life is in danger. In reality, third-trimester abortions, usually done by induction (an injection of Dioxin into the fetal heart or amniotic fluid to kill the baby, followed by inducing labor to expel the dead child) are more dangerous to women than merely allowing them to give birth naturally. And many of the late-term abortions for “fetal abnormality” are done on babies with nonlethal defects such as Down syndrome. Ninety percent of all Down syndrome pregnancies end in abortion.

        In After Tiller, Dr. Susan Robinson, who performs third-trimester abortions at her clinic in Albuquerque, admits that not all the women who come in for late abortions are there because of a deformity or flaw in the baby.

      • poppaDavid

        The liberal Fox News reports that “only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks gestation) approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed.”

        Your earlier source gave 1.1% for all abortions after 20 weeks. Given the reality of legal issues, there is no rational reason to believe that those abortions are delayed until they become illegal. 1.1% in weeks 20-24? They do 3.5% in weeks 16-20.

        You insist on confusing abortions in the second half of the gestation period with abortions in the last trimester.

      • Cliff Isaac

        Yeah that article is 12 years old hardly a reliable source.

      • poppaDavid

        BTW, Gosnell was accused of eight deaths, not hundreds. And he didn’t follow the law. Like any good capitalist he just provided what the market demanded. There is a place for law in the market.

      • Cliff Isaac

        As everyone now knows, Gosnell’s clinic, despite its dignified-sounding name, “Women’s Medical Society,” was actually a “house of horrors” more reminiscent of the Nazi doctor Josef Mengele than a legitimate medical practice. Here’s how the grand jury summarized Gosnell’s operation:

        This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths.

        The grand jury’s report is horrifying not just for what it reveals about Gosnell’s crimes, but because it documents that a lot of what is now universally condemned about Gosnell’s abortion business was known throughout the Pennsylvania regulatory agencies for years – but no one lifted a finger to stop it.

        The sun started to shine on all this when the case went to trial. Eyewitness testimony painted an otherworldly picture of a Nazi-like torture clinic, with one Gosnell employee saying “it would rain fetuses – fetuses and blood all over the place,” and another recalling one baby expelled alive into a toilet and observing the infant “was like swimming” and “trying to get out.”

        There is no way the demand of 8 abortions with each costing less then $2000 each would cause a good capitalist to preform these atrocites he was a murderer who regularly employed non licensed teenagers and adults that were sometimes drop outs to preform these murders for years. There is no way after all those years and all the testimonies that there were only 8 deaths.

      • poppaDavid

        A “Good” Capitalist will go for the maximum profit, if providing 8 abortions will generate $16,000 to the top line without adding to the fixed costs, it will increase the bottom line. Of course he is a good capitalist.

      • Cliff Isaac

        Oh yes because every good capitalist loves to commit atrocites at great risk and minimal profit that could end their business permanently. How very Hobbesian of you. Cronyism does that not free market capitalism there are various forms of capitalism some good some bad.

      • poppaDavid

        Capitalism rewards risk, that is part of the conservative mantra. The truth is, that capitalists take risks and try to make profit from delivering goods and services that other turn away from. Immoral people make good capitalists because they will deliver goods that moral people would not touch.

        Your utopian “free market” capitalism doesn’t exist independent of crony capitalism. The market allows it, and since crony capitalism delivers more profit to those in power and it is preferred by them.

      • Cliff Isaac

        I am not talking about a utopia. It doesn’t reward risk that is greater then the benefit would be able to cover . Statism is what rewards great risk that would otherwise close down the risky business. Cronyism only exists because of state intervention. Laissez-faire is a French phrase meaning “let it be” (literally,”Let do”). It is generally understood to be a doctrine that maintains that private initiative and production are best allowed to roam free, opposing economic interventionism and taxation by the state beyond that which is perceived to be necessary to maintain individual liberty, peace, security, and property rights. Free-market anarchists take the idea to its full length by opposing all taxation not conservative libertarians like myself.
        In the laissez-faire view, the state has no responsibility to engage in positive intervention to force equal wealth distribution or to create a welfare state to protect people from poverty, instead relying on charity. Laissez-faire also embodies free trade, namely that a state should not use protectionist measures, such as tariffs and subsidies, and bailouts in order to curtail trade through national frontiers. It also contains the idea that the government should not create legal monopolies or use force to damage de facto monopolies.
        In the early stages of European and American economic theory, laissez-faire economic policy was contrasted with mercantilist economic policy, which had been the dominant system of the United Kingdom, Spain, France and other European countries, during their rise to power.
        The term laissez-faire is often used interchangeably with the term “free market”. Some use the term laissez-faire to refer to “let do, let pass” attitude for matters outside of economics.
        Laissez-faire is associated with classical liberalism, libertarianism, and Objectivism. It was originally introduced in the English-language world in 1774, by George Whatley, in the book Principles of Trade, which was co-authored with Benjamin Franklin.
        As far as Israel is concerned the latest strategy employed by those who wish to strangle Israel is called BDS. It may sound harmless, but do not be fooled. It stands for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, and not only is it poisonous for Israel, but for the world as well. Israel is one of the freest countries on earth, where everyone — including Arabs — benefit from that freedom. If Israel continues to be singled out by BDS and suffocated economically, the damage would ripple throughout the globe. Yes they have socialist ties in their parlimentary democratic governnent, but Israel is leading the world in medical advancments, technology, and agriculture. Painting them with such a broad stroke term as saying they are communist as to be compared with that of the Iron Curtain is intellectually dishonest.

      • poppaDavid

        If you are going to quote verbatim from “The History of Economic – The Centrist Party”, you ought to give them credit.

      • Cliff Isaac

        Credit was given when the quote was attributed to George Whatley’s Principle of Trade. A Free market is utopian in of itself but I was refering to the actual practice of Laissez-faire Economics which also called free market capitalism. Sweden’s biggest social and economic successes took place when Sweden had a laissez-faire economy, and widely distributed wealth preceded the welfare state. Hence your observation is misplaced.
        I don’t question whether or not Israel is a communist country. I know it isn’t a communist country. A Socialistic parlimentary democracy is a more accurate term even though they have many capitalistic start ups that has helped their economic recovery. Yes they have a two year requirement to either serve in the military or an administrative position. Choice is not inherent in a communist country.

      • poppaDavid

        If Israel isn’t communist, what do you call a nation where the government takes land from individual private land owners for government use, and then provides that land to Kibbutz? You do know Kibbutz don’t you, voluntary communist farming and business communities.

        What do you call a nation where the medical system requires you to participate in one of four state plans? No choice there, comrade.

        You just cannot bring yourself to admit that a voluntary communist or socialist economy could exist.

      • poppaDavid

        Socialism isn’t communism, unless you are a Marxist. Socialism combines private enterprise with government programs that benefit the citizens, funded by taxes that are voluntarily approved by the citizens.

      • poppaDavid

        No, plagiarism is plagiarism. George Whatley is correctly given credit for supporting Laissez Faire principles by the text you purloined. You quoted several paragraphs from the Centrist Party web site without attribution. As a communist you took from them what you needed. As a capitalist you should have paid them the courtesy of acknowledging the as your source.

        BTW, this is the second time I took the time to locate your source. The last time you stole a number of paragraphs from a pro-life web site and presented it as your thoughts.

      • Cliff Isaac

        Israel is the only country in the world that is constantly under direct threat by neighboring countries. Also the only country in the world who’s legitimacy is questioned by the UN and surrounding countries. Even after the 6 day war palestine still holds their citizens in refugee camps. While israel has fully integrated their refugees into their society. So yes i do support israel and their right to exist as a jewish state. Since they have been the only ones willing to give up land in exchange for a peace agreement.

      • poppaDavid

        Your knowledge of history is too small, or your willingness to exaggerate comes too easily. Every native American population gave up land in exchange for a peace agreement. Israel is not unique in that.

        The “refugees” inside of Israel were invited by that government to assist them in out populating the existing residents. Similar to the Europeans colonists invited into the American settlements to out populate the native Americans.

        You use of the word “refugee camps” is propaganda. The refugee populations in Gaza and the West Bank live in cities that they built. They may not have integrated into Gaza or the West Bank because their homes were bulldozed and their property is sitting under a communist Kibbutz in Israel and they want to go home.

      • Cliff Isaac

        The native americans constantly tried to defend their land but it was futile . They either had to give up land for peace or die trying to keep it. Israel is unique in that they won their defensive wars and still gave the land and oil of the Sinai peninsula to egypt in exchange for peace.
        In 2000 Israel had offered 95% of the west bank including half of jerusalem and all of the gaza strip that was aquisitioned during the Arab-Israeli war.
        In the geographic area known as palestine their has never been a non jewish state in that area. The refugees in the west bank and gaza strip live in squalids built by the UN. The refugee’s in those places still recieve supplies from UNRWA. How is that propaganda?
        Mahmoud Abbas was elected president in 2005 after Arafat’s death. He and Israeli Prime Minister Sharon subsequently agreed to a truce, and in March 2005, Israeli forces began handing over control of Jericho and other West Bank towns to the Palestinian Authority. Subsequent violence, however, halted and reversed the process. A few Israeli settlements in the N West Bank were evacuated in 2005 in conjunction with the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. By mid 2009, Israel had eased its control over a number of towns while not restoring full PA control.
        They were not given to the kibbutzim.
        In 2011, the number of Palestinian refugees on UNRWA rolls had risen to nearly five million, several times the number that left Palestine in 1948. One-third of the registered Palestine refugees, about 5 million, live in 58 recognized refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The other two-thirds of the registered refugees live in and around the cities and towns of the host countries, and in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, often in the vicinity of official camps. (Source UNRWA)
        During the years that Israel controlled the Gaza Strip, a consistent effort was made to get the Palestinians into permanent housing. The Palestinians opposed the idea because the frustrated and bitter inhabitants of the camps provided the various terrorist factions with their manpower. Moreover, the Arab states routinely pushed for the adoption of UN resolutions demanding that Israel desist from the removal of Palestinian refugees from camps in Gaza and the West Bank. They preferred to keep the Palestinians as symbols of Israeli “oppression.”

      • poppaDavid

        You say, “In the geographic area known as palestine their has never been a non jewish state in that area.”

        Technically, “Jewish” only refers to the descendants of the tribe of Judah, the Southern Kingdom. So the Kingdom of Israel would be a non jewish state, technically.

        Besides that, the Philistine states, Phoenician states, Moab, Ammon, Damascus, and Edom all were non-jewish states in Palestine.

        Herod was not a jew, his kingdom was Hasmonean. The Samaritans did not practice the Jewish religion and they had states off and on through the Ottoman times. The Jewish Sassanid Commonwealth (614) may have been Zoroasterian. The Christians established the Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099-1293 AD) that lasted longer than the kingdoms of Saul, David and Solomon combined(1050-930 BCE). In 1872 the independent province of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem was created. It lasted until the British established the British Mandate of Palestine which has the distinction of killing, wounding, imprisoning or exiling 10% of the Muslim population in the 1936 Arab revolt. Which weakened them sufficiently to allow the European Jews to conduct the 1948 conquest of Palestine.

      • Cliff Isaac

        Your asertions are based on misconceptions, error, and outright invention. Here are two sources to prove it.
        “In recent history the area called Palestine includes the territories of present day Israel and Jordan. (“Palestine has never been the name of a nation or state. It is a geographical term, used to designate the region at those times in history when there is no nation or state there. The word itself derives from “Peleshet”, a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as “Philistine”. The Philistines were mediterranean people originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They reached the southern coast of Israel in several waves. One group arrived in the pre-patriarchal period and settled south of Beersheba in Gerar where they came into conflict with Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Another group, coming from Crete after being repulsed from an attempted invasion of Egypt by Rameses III in 1194 BCE, seized the southern coastal area, where they founded five settlements (Gaza, Ascalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gat). In the Persian and Greek periods, foreign settlers – chiefly from the Mediterranean islands – overran the Philistine districts. From the time of Herodotus, Greeks called the eastern coast of the Mediterranean “Syria Palaestina”.

        The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs. The name “Falastin” that Arabs today use for “Palestine” is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Greco-Roman “Palastina”; which is derived from the Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine’s invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea.

        The use of the term “Palestinian” for an Arab ethnic group is a modern political creation which has no basis in fact – and had never had any international or academic credibility before 1967.”

        by Joseph E. Katz
        Middle Eastern Political and Religious History Analyst
        Brooklyn, New York)
        “From 1517 to 1917 most of this area remained under the rule of the Ottoman Empire.
        Ottoman Empire was dissolved at the end of World War I. Its successor, modern republic of Turkey, transferred Palestine to British Empire control under the Lausanne agreement that followed WW I.
        In 1917 Great Britain issued the Balfour Declaration for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”. In 1922 Britain allocated nearly 80% of Palestine to Transjordan. Thus, Jordan covers the majority of the land of Palestine under British Mandate. Jordan also includes the majority of the Arabs who lived there. In other words, Jordan is the Arab portion of Palestine.
        The residents of Palestine are called “Palestinians”. Since Palestine includes both modern day Israel and Jordan both Arab and Jewish residents of this area were referred to as “Palestinians”.
        It was only after the Jews re-inhabited their historic homeland of Judea and Samaria, that the myth of an Arab Palestinian nation was created and marketed worldwide. Jews come from Judea, not Palestinians. There is no language known as Palestinian, or any Palestinian culture distinct from that of all the Arabs in the area. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. “Palestinians” are Arabs indistinguishable from Arabs throughout the Middle East. The great majority of Arabs in greater Palestine and Israel share the same culture, language and religion.
        Much of the Arab population in this area actually migrated into Israel and Judea and Samaria from the surrounding Arab countries in the past 100 years. The rebirth of Israel was accompanied by economic prosperity for the region. Arabs migrated to this area to find employment and enjoy the higher standard of living. In documents not more than hundred years, the area is described as a scarcely populated region. Jews by far were the majority in Jerusalem over the small Arab minority. Until the Oslo agreement the major source of income for Arab residents was employment in the Israeli sector. To this day, many Arabs try to migrate into Israel with various deceptions to become a citizen of Israel.
        Even the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Arafat himself, is not a “Palestinian”. He was born in Egypt. The famous “Palestinian covenant” states that Palestinians are “an integral part of the Arab nation” — a nation which is blessed with a sparsely populated land mass 660 times the size of tiny Israel (Judea, Samaria and Gaza included).
        All attempts to claim Arab sovereignty over Israel of today, should be seen with their real intention: The destruction of Israel as a Jewish state and the only bulwark of the Judeo-Christian Western civilization in the Middle East.” -http://www.science.co.il/History-Palestine.php

      • poppaDavid

        Good on giving sources.

        You said, “In the geographic area known as palestine their has never been a non jewish state in that area.”

        I pointed out that the non-jewish states of Edom, Ammon, Moab, Philisine states, Phoenician states, Herod’s kingdom, Jewish Sassanid Commonwealth, Kingdom of Jerusalem and the independent province of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem ALL were non-jewish states in the area known as palestine.

        You replied, “Your asertions are based on misconceptions, error, and outright invention. Here are two sources to prove it.” And then you gave a source that placed a Greek (non-jewish) state in Palestine as the Gerar, with a second Greek (non-jewish) state in Gaza/Ascalon/Ashdod/Ekron/Gat. Duh, you provided examples that disproved your “never been a non jewish state in the area.” Thank you. And BTW, the books of the Maccabees indicate that the Philistines continued through at least 164 BCE.

        Then you provided a long piece by the Israel Science and Technology website. That contains some factual errors.

        It says, “Palestinians” are Arabs indistinguishable from Arabs throughout the Middle East.”

        Which ignores the work by Michael Hammer of University of Arizona and a second research by Almut Nebel at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. The data suggests that, genetically, Palestinians are identical to Jews, but with a small mix of Arab genes. That is, Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite, and Ethiopian Jews share a common gene pool with Palestinian and Syrian non-jews that is distinct from the Arab gene pool.

        http://www.pnas.org/content
        /97/12/6769.full

        Rather than arriving from Arabia in the last century or two, Palestinians arrived in Canaan with Abraham and have been there since. Most likely, Palestinians were Jews and Samarians who converted to Islam after the conquest of Palestine by the Arabs. Which should give them land rights ahead of Jews who left the land 1900 years earlier.

      • Cliff Isaac

        Wow you just made that all up didn’t you. You are a very good story teller. I must say that you paraphrase a hypothesis by Almut Nebel suggesting that palestinians are distinct from jews and arabs. When in fact that is not what he says at all. I quote ” A multidimensional scaling plot placed six of the seven Jewish populations in a relatively tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians. Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora.” Futhermore Palestine didn’t exist in the years of Abraham. Gerar wasn’t even located in the west bank or gaza know as palestine today. Nor did any of your examples establish a non jewish state. They were invaders and had no legal standing to be there. Palestine has never been a unified non jewish nation state with its own culture and language distinguishable from surrounding countries. It has only been a non jewish territory under foreign rule. With the exception of the Jewish Sassanid Commonwealth which refers to a Jewish vassal state not a non jewish state.

      • poppaDavid

        “I must say that you paraphrase a hypothesis by Almut Nebel suggesting that palestinians are distinct from jews and arabs.”

        No, Palestinian genes are closer to Jewish genes than they are to Arab genes. I provided the url to the graph of showing that the various jewish markers surround the Palestinian and Syrian markers. Ashkenazi and Roman Jews are genetically closer to Palestinians and Syrians than they are to North African or Near Eastern Jews.

        You quoted it, did you read it?

        “…seven Jewish populations in a relatively tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians…”

        “…these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different…”

        If the Jews who dispersed into the world are descended from the Israelites and Jews of King Solomon’s time, then so are the Palestinians who stayed in Canaan the whole time. If the people who left want to claim an inheritance, the people who stayed have a stronger claim.

        You write, “Futhermore Palestine didn’t exist in the years of Abraham. Gerar wasn’t even located in the west bank or gaza know as palestine today.”

        Genesis 21-22 describes the meeting of Abramham and King Abimelech of Gerar in the land of the Philistines. Is that a lie?

        You are big on drawing sharp distinctions between the words “Palestine” and “Philistine”. In Hebrew the words for the land “Palestine” and the people “Philistim” are the same except for the ending consonant.

        Hebrew: פלשתינה Palestina

        Hebrew: פְּלִשְׁתִּים Plištim

        You write, “Nor did any of your examples establish a non jewish state.”

        The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem certainly was non-jewish, unified, and had a culture and language distinct from the surrounding muslims. Why do you ignore that one?

        Whether you like it or not, the Philistines and Phoenicians both had established kingdoms with culture, language and religion that were totally unrelated to Abraham.

        You write, “ They were invaders and had no legal standing to be there.”

        By your standard the Jews who invaded Palestine in 1948 have no legal standing. A lot of people agree with that.

        By your standard Abraham and his family have no legal standing as he was an invader from Ur of the Chaldees. But, if you want to give him standing to form a nation. Okay, then his grandson Esau started the nation of Edomites. His nephew Moab started the nation of Moabites. His nephew Benammi started the nation of Ammonites. His grandson Jacob started the Northern kingdom of Israelites. As a descendant of Esau, Herod the Idumean started a unified Edomite kingdom. And lastly, Abraham’s great-grandson Judah started the Southern Kingdom of Jews.

        They were all independent kingdoms, and with the exception of the Southern Kingdom, none of them were descended from Judah, so none were Jewish. You want to make modern Israel special so you reject anything larger as “foreign rule” and anything smaller as not “unified”. You insist that they must have a distinct language and culture even though you accept that the original thirteen colonies became indenpendent states even as they shared a common language and culture.

      • Cliff Isaac

        In the biblical aspect Abraham was the one who resided in the land of the philistines which had no border and therefore was not a country. The king that was from gerar had a border. The Phillistines were all nomads of Canaan from gaza up including abraham. He didn’t invade with an army he simply settled with his tribe. Gerar was south central in Judea. The king Abimelech made a covenant with Abraham in the city of Beer- sheba. Afterwards it was his last day as a nomad because Abraham now owned the water supply in that region after trading his rams to the king. For the king feared Abraham’s god and would have parted with it for free. Abraham could speak and understand the philistine language. Which to this day is mostly lost to history ,but judging from a few proper names. Some indicate it may be non semetic unlike the language of Abraham which was hebrew. We don’t know for sure is the language was completely non semetic or not. All we have is a biblical references that Abraham and the Philistines spoke the same language with different dialects. We do know that the Philistines have died out and have no living decendants. פְּלִשׁתִי is hebrew for Philistine not פְּלִשְׁתִּים which translates to Flstim. Palestina is a latin term coined by the Romans as a insult to the jews as a reminder of their struggle with the philistines and that they should have been erased from the land. The Arabs adopted the name palestina and pronounced it Falistin. Their have been exactly three jewish nation states established through out history and exactly zero palestinian nation states. Lot’s sons were also his grandsons and abraham’s great nephews born of incest. They had no claim to any land because they lived in caves and their peoples eventually became vassal states to the jews under King David. As far as your recount of the Arab Israeli war it was the Arabs that attacked the Israeli’s residing in northern palestine not the Israeli’s The Crusader kingdom of jerusalem was primarily a military outpost in which lordships were exchanged hand over fist between Lords and most often due to a low life expectancy of males were inherited by woman. It lasted less than 200 years and was in constant state of war to be considered independent of any country.

      • poppaDavid

        You say, ”the land of the philistines which had no border and therefore was not a country … The Philistines were all nomads of Canaan” yet you say “The king that was from gerar had a border.”

        Yes, Gerar was a country with a border. Gerar was also the name of the royal city, Abimelech was the king, and he was king of the Philistines. Unless Gen 26:1 is lying.

        You write, “Gerar was south central in Judea. The king Abimelech made a covenant with Abraham in the city of Beer- sheba.”

        Yes, the Philistine king Abimelech was ruler over South central Judea, including Beer-sheba.

        You write, “Afterwards it was his last day as a nomad because Abraham now owned the water supply in that region after trading his rams to the king.”

        No, the Philistines had cities and their own water supply before Abraham got there. Abraham dug the well on the king’s land for his own use and paid for the privilege. Gen 21:30

        The Bible indicates that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob continued to be nomads in the Negev and around Beer-lahairoi Gen 23:62.

        “We do know that the Philistines have died out and have no living decendants.”

        No, you don’t know that. There were Philistines(Palestinians) mentioned in the story of Maccabees. Were they the same people? Who cares. They had their kingdom and they were NOT jews.

        Hebrew: פלשתינה Palestina

        Hebrew: פְּלִשְׁתִּים Plištimלִשְׁת

        Hebrew reads from right to left. The first consonants ( פְּלִשְׁתִּי ) of Palestine and Philistine are identical, even to their diacriticals. They are pronounced the same, except for their last sylable (ם),and ( נה ). The Jewish apologists want to make a difference because that suits their political agenda.

        “Palestina is a latin term coined by the Romans”

        The Bible had refered to the land along the coast as Philistina(Palestine) and the occupants as Philistines(Palestinians) since the story of Abraham. The Greeks under the Selucids adopted that word, spelling it in Greek letters, and pronouncing it with a Greek accent. The Romans adopted that word, spelling it with Roman letters, and pronouncing it with a Roman accent. The muslim adopted that word, spelling it with Arabic letters, and pronouncing it with an Arab accent. The Israeli apologists want to make it different because they NEED to insist that there has never been any other people in that land. That is deceitful.

        “Their have been exactly three jewish nation states established through out history”

        No, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob didn’t establish anything. They were nomads living in Canaan under Philistine kings. Abraham bought a field and cave to bury Sarah from the Hittites Gen 23:16, and Jacob bought land from the sons of Hamor Gen 33:19. There was no kingdom and certainly no “nation state”.

        David and Solomon didn’t have a nation state because they didn’t organize a civil bureauracy. They had a kingdom over tribal leaders that fell apart when Solomon died. It was less of a nation than the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem.

        You write, “Lot’s sons … had no claim to any land because they lived in caves …”

        According to the Bible, King David sent Joab against Rabbah “city of waters”, the royal city of the sons of Ammon, captured it and “all the cities of the sons of Ammon”. (2Sam 12) Ezekiel writes of the Moab cities of Beth-jeshimoth, Baal-meon and Kiriathaim. Jeremiah writes of the Moab cities Kerioth, Bozrah, Dibon, Nebo, etc. Lived in caves? Pffffth!

        At its height,the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem had a territory greater than today’s Israel, and it had fellow crusader states in Tripoli, Antioch and Edessa. Did it last? It lasted longer than the kingdoms of David and Solomon. Was it self sufficient? It got less support than Israel gets. The nation of Israel requires $2.5-3.1 Billion of American assistance every year to stay afloat. Is Israel a nation or an American colony?

      • Cliff Isaac

        Yes the city (it is not a nation or country)of Gerar had a border. Beersheba another city is where Abraham took residence for many many years he built a grove near the well that he dug and paid for not just for the privelage, but owned. He also built an alter on a nearby moutain in which he made a sacrifice of the lamb that god provided in Isaac’s stead. He also purchased a burial site for his wife and himself 20 miles from his home in Beersheba and 20 miles from Jerusalem . Either way the philistines were not a sovereign nation state. Yes the Crusader kingdom of Jerusalem lasted longer than the reign of King David and King Solomon combined, but that was not the end of the sovereign jewish state. Jews have held a presence in Israel for over 2000 years. The first jewish State was established by King Solomon in the building of the first temple in Jerusalem which was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C it was established again in 538 B.C. and lasted until 70 A.D. When the second temple was again destroyed during the Jewish-Roman war. The Jewish people have not been completely exiled from their homeland. The third was established in 1948 with Israel’s declaration of independence even though a third temple has not been built. Only an altar exists. Hence there has never been a sovereign non jewish state in the geographic area known as Palestine. There has never been a palestinian nation governed by palestinians either. That is not to say that a non jewish entity has not taken control of the jewish state of Israel and Judea. What I don’t understand is why the Arab state of Pakistan’s right to exist is not being questioned. But Israel’s right to exist is most definitely questioned even though Pakistan didn’t exist until 1947 with the conquest from the Arab invasion of India. Most Israelis want a two state solution. The PLO, PA, and Hamas want to erase Israel from existence. There will be no peace in giving the Arab palestinians what they want. There can only be peace when Hamas is denounced by the PLO and PA. They haven’t even attempted to curb terrorist attacks by Hamas like they promised back in 1995.

      • poppaDavid

        You state, “there has never been a sovereign non jewish state in the geographic area known as Palestine.”

        That is a false statement.

        For all the history you have quoted, you have never understood that “Jew” is a Hebrew who traced their lineage from Judah, followed the teachings of the Tanakh and worshiped at the alter in Jerusalem. An “Israelite” is a Hebrew who traced their lineage from the Ten Tribes of Israel, followed the teachings of the Pentateuch, and worshiped at Dan, Bethel and Gerizim. A subset of the Israelites exist today as Samaritans who claim to be of the tribe of Joseph.

        The Northern Kingdom was a hebrew state in Palestine, but it was not a jewish state.

        The Kingdoms of Moab and Elam were semitic states, but they were not jewish states.

        You refuse to accept that the “King of the Philistines” was just as much of a king as king David, and that the “land of the Philistines” [1Sam30:16] was every bit as much of a state in Palestine as was the “land of Judah” [1Sam30:16]. The Philistine state was a non jewish state.

        Herod had a state in Palestine, and he was Idumean.

        You finally have admitted that the Kingdom of Jerusalem existed. Were there hebrews in Palestine at the time, yes. Were they the governing body? No. The Crusaders had control over the government and they were a non jewish state in Palestine.

        You pretend that it is somehow important that there has been a jewish presence in Palestine for 2000 years. So? There have been Christians in Palestine for 2000 years, does that make it a Christian state? If the mere presence of some Jews in Palestine qualified as a “jewish state”, then the presence of 100 times more non jewish Palestinians in Palestine would also qualify as a non jewish state.

        You call Palestine the homeland of the Jewish people. Abraham was an Aramean who immigrated to Canaan and his grandson left. Joshua was the leader of an invading hebrew army who took Canaan by force from the residents including other hebrews, and their state was extinguished by the Romans. The Zionists led another invading jewish army to take Palestine by force in 1948 from the residents including other semites.

      • Cliff Isaac

        You write “For all the history you have quoted, you have never understood that “Jew” is a Hebrew who traced their lineage from Judah, followed the teachings of the Tanakh and worshiped at the alter in Jerusalem. An “Israelite” is a Hebrew who traced their lineage from the Ten Tribes of Israel, followed the teachings of the Pentateuch, and worshiped at Dan, Bethel and Gerizim. A subset of the Israelites exist today as Samaritans who claim to be of the tribe of Joseph.” What you don’t understand is that the Tanakh refers to the entire Hebrew Bible. The word Tanakh is an acronym for Torah(The Pentateuch),Nevi’im, and Ketuvim, meaning Law, Prophets, and Writings, respectively. These three categories include all the books of the Hebrew Bible. Torah(includes the Five Books of Moses,Nevi’im includes two sub-groups: the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) and the Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 12 Minor Prophets); Ketuvim includes the rest, in the following subgroups: the Poetic books (Psalms, Proverbs, Job), the Hamesh Megillot (Five Scrolls, including Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther), and three other books (Daneil, Ezra/Nehemiah, and Chronicles). Hebrews are Jews and Israelis.
        You state that “The Northern Kingdom was a hebrew state in Palestine, but it was not a jewish state.” That is a false statement. Hebrew and Jew are interchangable terms in the bible refering to God’s chosen people. You contradict yourself with your earlier argument “Rather than arriving from Arabia in the last century or two, Palestinians arrived in Canaan with Abraham and have been there since. Most likely, Palestinians were Jews and Samarians who converted to Islam after the conquest of Palestine by the Arabs. Which should give them land rights ahead of Jews who left the land 1900 years earlier.” You asert the jews that coverted to islam are palestinians and therefore have land rights ahead of non muslim jews? That is an outright lie due to the fact that israel is older than palestine. All semites decended from Shem and all jews descended from Abraham! Phonecians were the Canaanites that had no unified kingdom/nation only city states. So how could Palestinians most likely be jews and Philistines(greeks) as you previously stated? The fact is they aren’t, because one is a semitic and the other is anti-semitic The importance of mentioning the fact that the jews have been present in the land of israel for over 2000 years is simply to refute your previous claim that they completely abandoned their homeland 1900 years ago referenced in the above quote. You go on to say “The Kingdoms of Moab and Elam were semitic states, but they were not jewish states.” Those states were not in palestine or israel but Jordan and Iran. Why are they relevant? Who cares? They were eventually absorbed into the jewish state and became extinct as autonomus entities anyways. Abraham is described as Hebrew in Gen. 14:13. Is that a lie? When the TWELVE tribes of Israel split up. The 10 northern tribes arrogated to the name Israel after Jacob and the Two southern tribes were known as Judah. They were all Jews.The land was called Canaan not palestine nor phillistia(turkey to syria) nor palestina( latin name for philistine) or even Israel until the reign of King David. Abraham lived in Canaan “the land of the philistines”. It wasn’t a sovereign country/nation state the way Israel was. Number one it had no borders so it had no sovereignty. Number two city states with borders does not constitute a nation state. Thirdly I never denied the existance of the Crusader kingdom of jerusalem. I only pointed out that it was primarily a military outpost and not a sovereign nation state due to fuedal dependencies and the kings that governed from france germany and at one point the king of jerusalem that was appointed was Christ himself. Hence definitely not a sovereign nation state. Palestine has never been a nation state nor a country governed by palestinians for that matter. Nor did the jews invade by force they rightfully took over the territory after defending themselves from surrounding arab countries. There is a difference between invading a country and occupying a territory that doesn’t exist as a country.
        When approaching a city, Joshua and his army gave the residents the choice of leaving unharmed, making peace, or declaring war. Several tribes, such as the Gibeonites, took advantage of this policy, made peace, and were later defended by the Jews when attacked by the tribes who had chosen to make war (Joshua 9-10). I call palestine the homeland of no one because it didn’t exist as a nation/country and never has just like Pakistan up until 1949 and 1967. I call Israel the homeland of the jewish people because it has existed since king david and is in accordance with the declaritive theory of statehood. Unlike your often repeated examples. I can’t understand anyone supporting Palestinian Authority and PLO in their campaign for the destruction of Israel. They don’t want a two state solution the way Israeli’s do.

      • poppaDavid

        Concerning the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
        Under the Declarative Theory of Statehood, a state exists when it has:
        a. a defined territory
        b. a permanent population
        c. a government, and
        d. capacity to enter into relations with other states.

        from http://definitions.uslegal.com

        The Kingdom of Jerusalem met all those criteria to be a Christian state in Palestine. Because it doesn’t specify how much territory, according to that definition a city state like Singapore, Vatican City, or the Philistine city-states could be states too. And they are internationally recognized as nation states today.

        And the Kingdom of Israel ceased to be a nation after the Romans removed their government and their ability to enter into relations with other states.

        Conserning the Nature of Hebrew scriptures. The Hebrews who left Egypt and invaded Canaan held the Torah in common. Most of the Nevi’im and Ketuvim were written after the fall of the Northern Kingdom, and they were scripture of the Southern Kingdom alone. The Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah had similar but different religions and they had different scripture.

        Conserning the meaning of the words Semite, Hebrew, Israelite and Jew. Those who are ignorant of history treat the words as equivalent. They are not, they come from the patriarch of the associated family lines. In the Bible Shem was a son of Noah and his descendents are Semites, which includes Asshur (Assyrians), Aram (Arameans),Elam (Elamites), and Arphaxad (Chaldeans). Eber was a Chaldean and his descendents are Hebrews, which includes thirteen tribes of pure Joktan Arabs and the line that leads to Abram and Lot. Lot was a Hebrew and his descendents are the Moabites and Ammonites. Abraham was a Hebrew and his descendents are the Hebrew children of Ishmael and Isaac. Isaac was a Hebrew, his son Esau was patriarch of the Edomites and his son Jacob “Israel” was the patriarch of the Israelite tribes. Joseph was an Israelite and the patriarch of the Northern Kingdom, they are Israelites. Judah was an Israelite and the patriarch of the Southern Kingdom, they are Jews and Israelites. They only inherited the portion of Palestine allotted to Judah. Only those who descended from the Kingdom of Judah were called Jews because that is origin of the name – JUDE.

        Conserning the invasion of Palestine. You talk as if Palestine was empty in 1948 and that the Jews just walked in to claim vacant land that they left behind 2000 years earlier. Rubbish. When the Jewish population of Jerusalem was dispersed into the Diaspora they became the Jewish colonies throughout the world. The rest of the population of Palestine remained on the land. Depending upon their history, they were Jews, non-jewish Israelites, non-Jewish Semites, Samaritans, Moabites, Ammonites, Canaanites, Greeks, Philistines, Phoenicians, Idmudians, etc. Some retained their historic religion and culture, some had converted to Judism under Herod, others converted to Christianity under the Byzantine Empire, or they converted to Islam under the various Muslim governments. Those people who continued to live in Palestine are called Palestinians, and you cannot tell their ancestry by looking at their current religion. They don’t need some historical Palestinian government to justify a moral claim to the land that they have lived on, against European Jews who are taking land from them by violence.

      • Cliff Isaac

        Concerning the hebrew scriptures the fall of the northern kingdom was 730 B.C the Torah wasn’t completed until 400B.C. The Nevi’im was completed 200 years after that and ketuvim was completed 30 years after that. You must have forgotten that the hebrew prophets were orators first.The northern kingdom turned away from god and toward idolatry that is why they fell first and were assimilated into the Assyrian nation now know as the lost tribes. Even still the southern kingdom prophesied in the northern kingdom and vice versa before the fall. “Judah” was used to designate the southern kingdom. (1 Kgs. 12:20) Even then, however, the term “Yehudah” also included the tribe of Benjamin, the Levites, and priests. Also, there were those from other tribes of Israel who chose to be part of Judah. (2 Chr. 10:17; 11:14, 16; 15:9; 31:6)
        Mordecai and Esther, from the tribe of Benjamin, were called “Jews,” as were all the exiles from all the tribes of Israel in all the provinces of Persia. (Esth. 2:5-7, 3:13) The remnant who returned from captivity consisted of “Jews,” though its members came from different tribes. (e.g., Ez. 4:23)
        You say that Abraham was not Jewish, because the term “Jew” does not appear until later in history, referring to the descendants of Judah. By that assertion you make a theological separation between “the Jews” and their fathers. But by that reasoning, neither would Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Moses, Aaron, Gideon, Samuel, or Jonah be Jewish. Nor would any of the descendants of Judah who lived more than twenty years before the exile of the northern kingdom, for the term “Jew” did not appear in the Bible until that time. ( 2 Kgs 16:6)
        Nonetheless, the term “Jews” has been given to all those who are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In the Bible it is generally used synonymously with the term “Israel.” By the time of Yeshua, the term “Jew” had become a universal designation for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants, regardless of their particular tribe or place of residence in Israel or the world.
        “Jew” and “Hebrew” are used as equivalent terms. (Jer. 34:9) If a man or woman is a Hebrew, then he or she is a Jew. A Jew is a Hebrew is an Israelite.
        Now concerning the crusader kingdom of Jerusalem it was not an independent nation state because it was beholden to other countries and not recognized as sovereign internationally.

        “For less than 200 years, Palestine/Judea was dominated by the Crusaders, who, following an appeal by Pope Urban II, came from Europe to recover the Holy Land from the infidels. In July 1099, after a five-week siege, the knights of the First Crusade and their rabble army captured Jerusalem, massacring most of the city’s non-Christian inhabitants. Barricaded in their synagogues, the Jews defended their quarter, only to be burnt to death or sold into slavery. During the next few decades, the Crusaders extended their power over the rest of the country, through treaties and agreements, but mostly by bloody military victories. The Latin Kingdom of the Crusaders was that of a conquering minority confined mainly to fortified cities and castles.
        When the Crusaders opened up transportation routes from Europe, pilgrimages to the Holy Land became popular and, at the same time, increasing numbers of Jews sought to return to their homeland. Documents of the period indicate that 300 rabbis from France and England arrived in a group, with some settling in Acro (Akko), others in Jerusalem.
        After the overthrow of the Crusaders by a Muslim army under Saladin (1187), the Jews were again accorded a certain measure of freedom, including the right to live in Jerusalem. Although the Crusaders regained a foothold in the country after Saladin’s death (1193), their presence was limited to a network of fortified castles. Crusader authority in the Land ended after a final defeat (1291) by the Mamluks, a Muslim military class which had come to power in Egypt.”

        Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Crusader.html

      • poppaDavid

        You believe that the term “jews” is given to all who descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Yet you refuse to apply it to all those who descended from Abraham through Ishmael. You refuse to apply it to all those who descended from Isaac through Esau. You refuse to apply it to all those who descended from Jacob, but changed their religion to Samaritan, Christian or Muslim.

        You say that the term “jew” did not appear in the Bible until after the exile of the Northern Kingdom, but you want to call the the Northern Kingdom “jewish”. If the Bible doesn’t apply the term to those people, what gives you the authority?

        The Northern Kingdom continued to exist even after they turned away from jewish theology. They existed as a non-jewish state. And even though the Assyrians removed their aristocracy, the population remained on the land. They are not “lost tribes”, they remain in Palestine as Samaritans, Christians, and Muslims, and they have a just claim on their former lands.

        You want to claim that the kingdom of David was a jewish kingdom, even though the Bible didn’t call it that. Even though David did not have any religious practice in common with current jews. Even though David did not have any of the scripture in common with current jews, except for some of his Psalms. Even though David violated the contracts that Abraham had made with the Philistine king, and with Lot. God said that if the jewish kings would follow him, they would be established forever. They didn’t and God took it away from them. Herod, the last king of Judea, was descended from Esau, NOT Israel.

        You want to claim that the kingdom of Jerusalem “was not an independent nation state because it was beholen to other countries”, even though Israel fails that standard because it requires Billions of American dollars to exist. And you deny that it was recognized internationally even though European nations recognized it as the lawful government of Palestine and muslim nations entered into negotiations with it. Based upon YOUR standard of the Declarative Theory of Statehood, it was a state.

        Worse, you want to deny that it had a legitimate population. When the crusaders first arrived the descendents of the first Jewish Christians were still living in Palestine. Since they converted from jews they had the same claim to Abraham’s land as any jew, and since they were Christians the Kingdom of Jerusalem was their state.

        You want the current crop of jews to inherit all of the land that was held by king David and king Solomon, even though the jews inheritance, at best, could only be the share that was given to the jewish tribes of Judah and Benjamin. While the rest of the territory is the inheritance of Hebrew people who never left the land.

      • Cliff Isaac

        By the standard of the declaritive theory of statehood and the requirements of that criteria the crusader kingdom of jerusalem was not an independent nation state. They were governed by kings living and governing from other countries. There was never a declaration of independence or annexation of the land by any of the ruling countries. It was simply an occupation. So if you legitimize the occupation of the crusades then why not the occupation of the israeli government? The negotiations with the muslims were in regards to surrender agreements as there was never a state of lasting peace between them. Ishmael was never given the birthright and inheritance of Abraham that belonged to Isaac. Nor did Esau recieve the birthright and inheritance that was given to Jacob from Isaac. Judah recieved the blessing of Jacob as the leader of israel that is why christ is called the lion of judah. David was the son of Jesse and was born in Judea. He was a descendent of Judah. Jesus is the descendant of David and acknowledged as a Jew by Samaritan jews for they were considered the worst of jews in those days. Jesus himself acknowledged that he was a jew in the book of John. So if Judah was a jew as you claim as well as I do, and Jesus is a jew. How is it that king david was not a jew? Whom gives you the authority to make that distinction? For the prophesy about the messiah requires that he be a descendent of David. Otherwise Jesus could not be the Christ if in fact david was not jewish. That is where we get the term judeo-christian. Nothing Christ commanded was contrary to the commandments of Moses. As far as Israel not being able to exist as a nation state/country without the U.S. is a flat out lie. Israel has declared its independence and has been recognized internationally as a nation state/country by 149 countries only 25 countries have never recognized Israel with the majority of them being arab countries. 70 % of Israel’s military budget of 15 billion dollars is paid for by Israeli taxpayers. Only 21% of the budget comes from the U.S.(in the form of Weapons NOT Cash), and 9% is paid for by the Defence ministry. So in summary the God of Abraham is the God of Isaac not of Ishmael, the God of Jacob is not the God of Esau and the jews have a stronger claim to the land than that of the 20th century “palestinians” because before 1947 they were Jordanians. In the 1800’s the land of Judea was mostly desolate and ravaged by invaders and war as was reported by Mark Twain and other visitors to the land. With a mixture of about 2000 Jews and Arabs residing there. Only the small jewish communities had cultivated their land and came up with agricultural advances never seen before in the land. During the early 1900’s some Jews immigrated from europe, russia and parts of the middle east due to persecution and anti semitism. There were increases in arab immigration during the years 1921- 1931 as well due to the improved standard of living. Some legal and most illegal with approximately 857 palestinians caught and deported to arab countries. It stands to reason that majority of illegal immigration went unreported. So to say that most palestinians have been there since ancient times is neither comprehensible nor is their evidence supporting such a claim. It is assumed by Justin Mccarthy based on official records of the ottoman and british mandate period that don’t account for illegal immigration and the people who haven’t been caught during the those periods. Herod “The Great” was not the last king of judea his kingdom was divided amongst his sons and grandsons. His father was jewish convert and therefore makes him a nominal jew he was familiar with the customs and practices of the jews even though he was born of an edomite. You accuse me of wanting all of israel and palestine to belong to the jews. When I have clearly stated that i am for a two state solution.

      • poppaDavid

        Herod the Great and king David: which is it? Does practicing the Jewish religion make you a jew or not? Does having descent from Judah make you a jew or not? David didn’t practice the Jewish religion, and Herod didn’t descend from Judah. You are cherry picking to claim jewish leaders where the isn’t.

      • poppaDavid

        You say that in the 1800’s there were 2000 people in Palestine. Garbage! According to the Jewish Virtual Library the population in 1800 was a quarter million Palestinians, 24,000 Jews and 21,800 Christians. By 1915 the population was over 689 thousand. The historic population has varied from over 1 million in Roman times to a low of 200 thousand under the Turkish Empire. No wonder you believe fall for the lie that they came from outside Palestine.

      • poppaDavid

        You claim that Israel doesn’t need the Billions of annual money from the U.S. to survive. That is easy to prove. Reduce the deficit and stop giving them money and tax breaks for donations. Israel knows how that would affect them, that’s why their lobby is so important to them.
        We also bribe Egypt and Jordan with $2 Billion per year to “be nice” to Israel. We could stop that as well.

      • poppaDavid

        According to the Bible Jesus was not the son of Joseph, he was the son of God. Since God is not a descendant of Judah, technically Jesus is not a jew in the lineage of king David.

      • poppaDavid

        You say Samaritans were “the worst of jews”. Wrong. They were not jews at all. They were from the tribe of Joseph not Judah, and they didn’t practice the Jewish religion.

      • poppaDavid

        Birth rights:

        Abraham was given all the land you can see from the top of mount Bethel. Which is about twenty-five square miles. Hardly the current Israeli claim.

        That is what he passed on to Isaac, nothing more.

        The Bible shows that Abraham granted Lot’s descendants the territories of Ammon and Elam.

        The official record shows that Jacob took title to the twenty-five square miles by deceit, it also shows (Gen:36) that Jacob’s claim was to Bethel while Esau’s claim was “away from his brother Jacob” in Seir (Edom). This does not justify the current Israeli claim.

        I do not find any land grant from Jacob to Judah. Where is it? Judah’s allotment was decided in Joshua 18. “Judah shall stay in its territory in the south, and the house of Joseph shall stay in their territory on the north”. No validation for Jewish claims over the Northern Kingdom there.

      • Cliff Isaac

        The amount of land promised was 300,000 square miles not 25. The amount possessed by the israelites was 30,000 square miles not 25 Israel today is less than 8000 square miles . Get your facts straight if you can even call them facts. Joshua 15: The allotment for the tribe of Judah, according to its clans, extended down to the territory of Edom, to the Desert of Zin in the extreme south. Their southern boundary started from the bay at the southern end of the Dead Sea, crossed south of Scorpion Pass, continued on to Zin and went over to the south of Kadesh Barnea. Then it ran past Hezron up to Addar and curved around to Karka. It then passed along to Azmon and joined the Wadi of Egypt, ending at the Mediterranean Sea. This is their southern boundary. The eastern boundary is the Dead Sea as far as the mouth of the Jordan. The northern boundary started from the bay of the sea at the mouth of the Jordan, went up to Beth Hoglah and continued north of Beth Arabah to the Stone of Bohan son of Reuben. The boundary then went up to Debir from the Valley of Achor and turned north to Gilgal, which faces the Pass of Adummim south of the gorge. It continued along to the waters of En Shemesh and came out at En Rogel. Then it ran up the Valley of Ben Hinnom along the southern slope of the Jebusite city (that is, Jerusalem). From there it climbed to the top of the hill west of the Hinnom Valley at the northern end of the Valley of Rephaim. From the hilltop the boundary headed toward the spring of the waters of Nephtoah, came out at the towns of Mount Ephron and went down toward Baalah (that is, Kiriath Jearim). Then it curved westward from Baalah to Mount Seir, ran along the northern slope of Mount Jearim (that is, Kesalon), continued down to Beth Shemesh and crossed to Timnah. It went to the northern slope of Ekron, turned toward Shikkeron, passed along to Mount Baalah and reached Jabneel. The boundary ended at the sea. The western boundary is the coastline of the Mediterranean Sea. These are the boundaries around the people of Judah by their clans.

      • poppaDavid

        Stories have the amazing habit of changing over time. If you want to know what was promised to Abraham read Genesis 13, not the story of Joshua’s invasion of Canaan. The story changed between the two tellings.
        “He went on his journeys from the Negev as far as Bethel, to the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Ai,to the place of the altar which he had made there formerly; and there Abram called on the name of the LORD. …

        The LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, “Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward; for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever.”

        The visibility from the altar at Bethel is less than five miles in every direction because the view is blocked by adjacent hills. You cannot even see Jerusalem from Bethel. Twenty-five square miles is pretty generous.

      • Cliff Isaac

        You can’t even admit that you referenced the wrong chapter in the book of joshua and tried to pass it off as the allotment of judah. Now you are trying invalidate the bible as contradictory because it doesn’t support your opinionated guess that the land promised to abraham, moses , and joshua was twenty five square miles. Even worse you don’t even consider the fact that in Genisis 13 the LORD tells abram to walk the land therefore expanding the promised land as far as the eye can see. Furthermore in Genisis 15:18 it says On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi (river)of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates— the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”. That would be roughly 300,000 square miles. Nice cherry picking though.

      • poppaDavid

        I quoted Joshua 18:5. What is the error? It was a limitation on the land of Judah and the Jews. They were to stay in the South. You want them to take all of Palestine even though the North was reserved to the tribe of Joseph.

        Gen 13:14 comes after Abraham and Lot met at Bethel and divided their land claims in 13:3-12. The plain of Jordan was taken by Lot for his descendants, while Abraham choose to stay in Canaan. After that decision, Gen 12:14, God gave Abraham the land he could see, about twenty-five square miles. Is it a contradiction that one chapter limits the promise to what he could see, while another gives him the land of the Canannites, while another mentions the list you provide? I guess it shows that God has to make corrections in his promises.

        No problem about giving Israel land that is already occupied. God just told Joshua to invade Canaan and kill everyone; men, women and children. “you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite,…” Deut:20 A bit different from “thou shalt not kill”. Sounds like they were following the God of Abraham and ISIS

      • Cliff Isaac

        Judah had the largest share of land that he shared with his brothers. It went from the Nile river all the way up past over half the west bank to jerusalem and then west towards the mediterranean as described in Joshua 15-16. That was clearly more than 25 square miles. Your perjorative approach in comparing the Israelites to ISIS is neither conducive to your argument nor is it comparable. Joshua and his men looked for converts who willingly converted. This includes Rahab the ExHarlot (Josh 2) and the Gibeonites (a particular tribe of Canaanites) (Josh 9).
        They did not force converts at sword-point (or spitefully behead them if their prisoners claimed to convert – something ISIS has been doing)
        Joshua and his leaders placed a higher priority to obeying the Word of God than following a blood-lust call of battle. When it was revealed that the Gibeonites deceived their way into a peace treaty, the elders of Israel refused to destroy the Gibeonites because that would violate their higher priority to keep their word/contract. God rewarded them for this decision. (Josh 9)
        The converts that were added to their ranks did not have to serve as second-class citizens due to their race. This shows that God and the Israelites saw them as peers, not lesser citizens:
        Rahab married into the line of Christ (Ruth 4:18-21; Matt 1:1-16).
        The Gibeonites could call on Joshua and require his army to defend them against their fellow Canaanites that attacked them for defecting (God specifically instructed Joshua to honor their contract with the Gibeonites, clearly demonstrating that the eradication of the 7 Canaanite nations was less important than bringing on board converts ) Josh 10:1-11.
        Approx 400 years later, God punished the nation of Israel with a famine because of an outstanding injustice that Saul inflicted upon the Gibeonites. This shows us that God acknowledged the Gibeonites standing as legitimate equals among the Israelites. 2 Sam 21:1-14
        Future generations of Canaaites that defected were treated by the Hebrews as equal citizens: Aranaugh the Jebusite. Uriah the Hittite. Etc. (Note that the pagans who joined the Hebrews but kept their pagan gods, language and customs were driven away. Neh 13:23-31)
        ISIS does none of these things. Their rampage is the rage of bloodlust, forced “conversions” …and pride.

      • poppaDavid

        You say, “Joshua and his men looked for converts who willingly converted. They did not force converts at sword-point (or spitefully behead them if their prisoners claimed to convert…”

        I see how Israelites treat voluntary converts in Genesis 34, when Shechem the Hittite voluntarily had all the men of his city be circumcised so that he could marry Diana the daughter of Jacob. On the third day, while the men were in pain, the Israelites killed all the men and took their women and property. God put Jacob in the witness protection program, moved him to Bethel, changed his name to Israel and gave him the twenty-five square miles he gave Abraham.

        You say, “Joshua and his leaders placed a higher priority to obeying the Word of God than following a blood-lust call of battle.”

        Actually the word of God was pronounced explicitly in Deuteronomy 7:1-2, smite them, utterly destroy them, and show no mercy.

        If that wasn’t clear, again in Deuteronomy 20:16-17, God ordered them to kill them, leave nothing alive that breathes.

        Moses obeyed the Word of God against Sihon, Deut 2:34 “And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain”

        Moses obeyed the Word of God against Bashan, Deut 3:6 “ … utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.”

        Joshua obeyed the Word of God against Jericho, Jos 6:20-24 “ they took the city. And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. … And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein …”

        Joshua obeyed the Word of God against Ai, Jos 8:24-26 “And it came to pass, when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, … all the Israelites returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword. … both of men and women, were twelve thousand, … until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.”

        Joshua obeyed the Word of God against Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Gezer, Hebron, Debir and all the land around them, Jos 10:28-40 “he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.”

        Joshua obeyed the Word of God against Hazor, Madon, Shimron, and the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, and Hivites, Jos 11:1-23 , “and they smote them, until they left them none remaining. … until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe. As the LORD commanded.”

        Saul almost obeyed the Word of God against Amalek, 1Sam 15:3 “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. … [Saul] utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.”

        He didn’t have sufficient blood lust when following the Word of God, Saul took king Agag prisoner and allowed some animals to live, the Lord said, [Saul] “hath not performed my commandments.”

        And then to demonstrat the correct way to follow the Word of God, Samuel drew his sword “And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.”

        I’m not cherry picking here. The Word of God told Moses, Joshua, and Saul to kill every living thing. Even ISIS doesn’t kill everyone in the cities they capture.

      • Cliff Isaac

        Actually you left out deu.20 10-20: When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God. When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees people, that you should besiege them? However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls.

        This story has unfortunately been misunderstood, and used by haters of Israel to falsely show time type of innate blood-lust.

        Maimonides codifies the seven Noahide Laws which are incumbent on all human beings, and whose violators are subject to the death penalty. One of these laws forbids theft, which includes kidnapping. In taking Dinah against her will, Shechem violated this prohibition. Since the seventh Noahide law requires all people to set up court systems to deliver justice, and the people of Shechem did not set up a court system nor bring Shechem to trial, they also became liable to the death penalty. Simeon and Levi, therefore, were enforcing the law that had been ignored by the entire Shechemite population.

        The famous Maharal of Prague, writing in “Gur Aryeh,” contends that the act of Simeon and Levi was entirely unrelated to the Noahide Laws. He suggests that when a nation is the victims of aggression, they have the right to retaliate against their attackers. In this case, the city of Shechem committed an act of aggression against the nation of Israel, so Simeon and Levi had a right to counterattack.

        This principle surely is something to think about vis-a-vis security affairs in Israel today.

      • poppaDavid

        You write, “This story has unfortunately been misunderstood, and used by haters of Israel to falsely show time type of innate blood-lust.”

        How on earth can Israel’s blood lust be “misunderstood” when their God tells them to KILL EVERYTHING THAT BREATHES when they invade Canaan?

        I notice that you ignored all of the other cities where the Word of God required the killing of every living thing. And the Israelites reveled in their blood lust as they killed every living thing.

        You write, “Simeon and Levi, therefore, were enforcing the law that had been ignored by the entire Shechemite population.

        Garbage. You should read the Bible.

        Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.”

        Exodus 22:16-17 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins.”

        Shechem offered to follow the rules that became the Mosiac Code and pay the “bride price” for Diana. The whole male population of the city were willing to participate in the payment. The city acted in a just manner.

        The seventh Noahide law requres “Maintain justice”, Simeon and Levi accepted the offer from Shechem and then the Israelites acted with treachery and injustice. Israel violated the Noahide law, not Shechem.

        You write, “In this case, the city of Shechem committed an act of aggression against the nation of Israel, so Simeon and Levi had a right to counterattack.”

        What you offer is a lie. The Bible says that Hamor and Shechem said, “These men are friendly with us; therefore let them live in the land and trade in it, for behold, the land is large enough for them. Let us take their daughters in marriage, and give our daughters to them.” That isn’t aggression that is an attempt to live in harmony. Even Jacob recognized that Simeon and Levi were wrong. He didn’t congratulate Simeon and Levi. He said, “You have brought trouble on me by making me odious among the inhabitants of the land … “

        You write, “This principle surely is something to think about vis-a-vis security affairs in Israel today.”

        I agree. Israel violated the Mosiac Code to impose a penalty upon people who were trying to co-exist with them, and then they stole Shechem’s property.

      • Cliff Isaac

        I do read the bible and if you did too you would know that many books of the OT repeat some stories in greater detail. Many times the Israelites attempted to spare the innocent UNLIKE ISIS for example- This is what the LORD Almighty says: `I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'” (1 Sam 15.2)
        The Amalekites were a predatory, raiding, and nomadic group; and are descendants of Esau (and hence, distant cousins to Israel).
        They would have been aware of the promise of the Land TO Israel, from the early promises to Esau’s twin Jacob.
        They did NOT live in Canaan (but in the lower, desert part of the Negev–a region south of where Judah will eventually settle), and would NOT have been threatened by Israel–had they believed the promises of God.
        As soon as Israel escapes Egypt before they can even ‘catch their breath’ the Amalekites make a long journey south and attack Israel.
        Their first targets were the helpless:
        Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. 18 When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God. 19 When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget! (Deut 25.17-19).
        Before the attack on Amalek is initiated by Israel, the innocent are told to ‘move away’ from them: Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, “Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites. (I Sam 15.5). This action would have also served to give the people of Amalek plenty of notice (i.e., time to ‘move away’ themselves), and the impending attack by Saul (especially with the troop counts reported)would hardly have been a surprise. Some of them would likely have fled. We KNOW all of them were not killed, since they ‘lived to fight/raid again’ in David’s time (I Sam 27,30) and even in Hezekiah’s time (200-300 years later!, 1 Chr 4.43).
        So according to you by raping Dinah Shechem didn’t commit an act of aggression against Jacob’s family. That is Bullshit! Simeon and Levi both refused to give Diana to Shechem for they were not circumcised they did not follow the ways of God. They did not understand the symbol of the circumcision for they worshipped false gods and sacrificed children to them. The Israelites were forbidden to mary them for that reason. They thought they could just be circumcised physically without repentence of their worship of idols and false gods. You say Shechem did not violate the Noahide laws. NO he commited Blasphemy,murder, and the adulterous act of rape! A clear violation of the Noahide Law against engaging in erotic conduct that may lead to a prohibited union.

      • poppaDavid

        Concerning Noahide law: please provide the Biblical reference to where it was given to non Hebrews.

        You say, “Many times the Israelites attempted to spare the innocent”. Garbage. God and the Israelites did not acknowlege any “innocents” among the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, and Hivites.

        What do you mean “UNLIKE ISIS”? God commanded the Israelites to kill every living thing in Bashan, Sihon, Jericho, Ai, Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Gezer, Hebron, Debir, Hazor, Madon, Shimron, and all the land around those cities. God commanded the Israelites to kill every living Canaanite, Amorite, Hittite, Perizzite, Jebusite and Hivite. The Bible says that Moses and Joshua carried out that command.

        You quoted God’s command to Saul to genocide the Amalekites. The Bible says, “And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed **ALL** the people with the edge of the sword.” So Samuel hacked the one survivor to death. If you want to say that Saul allowed some to escape then you make the Bible a liar.

        The Bible clearly provides for the payment of a bride price as the penalty for cases of rape in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Exodus 22:16-17. When Simeon and Levi took it upon themselves to execute all of the men in a city they were acting without any justification from Mosiac Law and in clear violation of the “Maintain Justice” law of the Noahide Law. You, like Simeon and Levi, are quite willing to ignore the Bible and turn to rationalizations when you wish to justify murder.

        BTW, there is nothing in the Bible to support your claim that Shechem engaged in blasphemy or murder.

      • Cliff Isaac

        In addition, the Canaanites were the ones who first attacked the straggling Jews, rather than the other way around. One of the Canaanite people groups (the Amalekites) attacked the Jews, while they were travelling in the wilderness (Ex. 17:8-13). In fact, they repeatedly attacked the Israelites, trying to pick off the “faint and weary” stragglers (Num. 14:45; Deut. 25:17-19)—a reference to weak Jewish people (children or the elderly?). When the Jews were weak, the Canaanites tried to wipe them out (Deut. 23:3-4). John Wenham notes, “Ancient armies in this territory did not hold captives. They defeated them totally.”[8] There would have been no mercy for the Jewish people.

        When the Nazis tried to wipe out the Jewish race in the 20th century, no one batted an eye at counter-measures. And yet, clearly, these nations were trying to do exactly the same thing—albeit over three millennia earlier. Instead of using gas chambers and furnaces, the Canaanites would’ve used swords and spears, but the result would have been the same. If God hadn’t commanded war, the Jews would have been exterminated. It was kill or be killed.

        Therefore, the war with the Canaanites was not the destruction of an innocent group of people. It was the corporate capital punishment of a sick, twisted, and barbaric culture. If a modern man was caught perpetrating any of these acts, few would bat an eye at his death sentence. While the destruction of the Canaanites was a severe judgment, their sin was equally severe.
        In fact, God allowed the Jews to rot in slavery for 400 years, so that the Canaanites could have an opportunity to change. He didn’t judge them immediately, because the sins of the Canaanites did “not yet warrant their destruction” (Gen. 15:13; 16 NLT). That is, they were not past the point of no return. However, by the time the Jews came for battle, they were.

        During this 400 year period, the Canaanites knew that God was coming for them. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, which were cities filled with Canaanites. By the time the Jews stood at the border, ready to fight, Rahab told them that they had heard of God’s judgment of Egypt (Josh. 2:10; cf. 9:9). Therefore, the Canaanites defiantly ignored these serious warnings. When Israel would go to war with another nation, they would usually offer a peace treaty first. Deuteronomy 20:10 states: “When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace.” If the people surrendered, they were not to be harmed. However, they would become laborers in Israel. This might seem harsh, but don’t forget the ancient Near Eastern context. When the Ammonites surrounded one of the cities of Israel, they required every citizen to gouge out one of their eyes, as a term of peace and surrender (1 Sam. 11:1-2)! This is why the neighboring nations considered the Hebrew kings to be “merciful kings” (1 Kings 20:31).

        This peace treaty was not offered to these seven people groups in Canaan (e.g. Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jubusites), as Deuteronomy 20:16 makes explicit. This was probably because the Jews originally came to King Sihon (of the Amorites) with “words of peace” (Deut. 2:26), but the king was “not willing” to let them even pass through his land (Deut. 2:30). However, those willing to abandon Canaan were probably spared. For instance, Rahab’s entire family was spared from judgment (Josh. 2:13), because she surrendered to the Jews. The remaining Canaanites were killed because they chose to stay.

      • poppaDavid

        You spend a lot of words trying to rationalize God’s command to commit genocide against the Canaanites. You say, “the Jews would have been exterminated” by the Canaanites. Huh? When Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived in Canaan they were treated with respect and dignity. They were never threatened with violence at all, much less extermination.

        The Bible provides the history:

        When Abram first entered Canaan he was allowed to move freely and practice his religion.

        Even his altar at Bethel was undisturbed while he was in Egypt.

        Abram had disagreement with Lot but not with the Canaanites, even when he built an altar at Hebron.

        When Abram rescued Lot, the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah gave him a victory dinner and offered him spoils.

        When Abraham lied to king Abimelech about Sarah being his sister, the king forgave the insult, gave him a thousand pieces of silver, and allowed him to dwell where he pleased.

        King Abimelech made a covenant with Abraham that Abraham would not deal falsely with the king but according to the kindness the king had done to him.

        When Sarah died, the Canaanites volunteered to GIVE Abraham a burial site in Hebron.

        Abraham died in peace in Canaan and was buried.

        Ismael lived in peace and was buried in peace in Canaan.

        When Isaac lied to king Abimelech about Rebekah being his sister, the king forgave his insult and protected him.

        King Abimelech made a covenant with Isaac that Isaac would do good to the king as he had been treated.

        The Hittites gave wives to Esau.

        Jacob was allowed to buy land at Shalem from Shechem.

        Shechem offered the bride price to Jacob for Dianah, instead Simeon and Levi killed the men of Shalem and stole their wealth.

        Isaac died in peace in Canaan.

        Esau was allowed to become a mighty country of Edom without interference from Canaanites.

        Jacob was buried in peace in Canaan

        You say that the king of Sihon was ‘not willing’ to let them even pass through his land”. The Bible says that “God hardened his spirit” as an excuse that he might be killed and his land taken by the invading Israelites. Get real, it was a setup, the Bible says that he had no choice.

        You say, “The remaining Canaanites were killed because they chose to stay.” Yes, You are correct that the terms of peace were not offered to the Canaanites who had allowed Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to live in peace in their land. Instead, the Canaanites were thrown off of their land by the Israelite invaders or massacred if they resisted.

      • Cliff Isaac

        “Even ISIS doesn’t kill everyone in the cities they capture.” You sound ridiculous. Here is a personal account of what ISIS is like when they invade from twenty-four-year-old Dakheel Hassan who is a Yazidi.
        “When Sinjar fell under ISIS control, the people of my town, Bashiqa, were horrified. Many escaped to safe cities in Kurdistan; especially Dohuk (located in north Mosul and therefore close to Turkey), while others migrated to Erbil and Sulaimani. We were astonished when Sinjar was invaded because it was home to so many Yazidis.

        When the news arrived that Sinjar had been invaded by ISIS, my family and relatives left immediately. I stayed to protect my home in the event that ISIS would reach Bashiqa. But we never thought ISIS would get close because there was an army surrounding my town. At 4:00 am, other young men like me were told to leave as soon as possible. My friend came over and told me to leave. We didn’t have a car at that moment, so I didn’t have the time to grab the things I need. I just took my passport and wallet.

        We had to walk to the mountain of Bashiqa so we could reach some towns for cars to pick us up and drive us to a safer place. We walked for an hour, always looking back to see if there were clashes between ISIS and the army. Other people were running, but my friend and I just walked, never dreaming that this would happen. Then, a relative of mine found us on the road, but we almost couldn’t fit in the car because there were already so many people inside.

        On our way to nowhere, we eventually arrived in the official land of Kurdistan. We were watching people who were very tired from walking and so scared. Some were sick and couldn’t even walk. Others were chasing the shadows of trees.

        I finally met my family and they were planning to travel to Turkey and never come back, because of the fear when they heard what happened in one town in Sinjar. They heard about how Yazidis were taken by ISIS and then killed all the men for refusing to convert to Islam. And then how ISIS took the women and the children.

        At the Iraq-Turkey border there were thousands of Yazidis who were not allowed to leave without having their passport. Turkey wouldn’t let them stand close to the border gates either.

        We lost trust in our army for not resisting ISIS.

        Then, America intervened and stopped ISIS from advancing to Kurdish land. People started to not be as scared and we found a place to live.

        I would only thank the American government for helping the Yazidis, whom were stuck on the mount of Sinjar by taking them to a safe place.

        Since early August and still today, the Yazidi genocide is ongoing. Our girls are being raped, sold and killed.

        Since that time, I don’t see any serious plans to get back our girls or our land.

        I can only say America invaded Iraq in a matter of days, when Iraq was stronger than most countries in the world, and now it can’t recapture Mosul when a disorganized group of terrorists control the area.

        I would ask Obama if he can sleep one day without saying goodnight to his two beautiful daughters before they fall asleep. I would ask if he ever thinks about the hundreds of Yazidi fathers who don’t know how many times their daughter has been raped. It would be insulting America’s intelligence to say the Obama administration never knew this crisis would happen.

        If the American military was close enough to save the innocent people on Sinjar, for humanity’s sake why not attack ISIS the same day it invaded Yazidi towns and slaughtered my people? And I’m not just asking President Obama, who heads the military of the most powerful free nation in the world, I would ask that of all of the world’s leaders who are ignoring this crisis.

        I can say only the Kurdish government is always willing go help humans no matter what their beliefs are.

        After thinking over and over in the first days of fleeing, I couldn’t sleep for a week and never ate. Imagine, ruining all your plans in a matter of hours. Losing homes that our fathers worked for years to build. I can’t describe any more.”

      • poppaDavid

        Nice piece, although it has nothing to say about ISIS “killing every thing that breathes” as God commanded Moses, Joshua and Saul in their invasion of Canaan.

        If you want the United States to get involved killing ISIS, get a declaration of war from Congress – the conservatives control it – and get taxes passed to fund the war.

        Sadam Hussen kept the fundamentalist muslims in check until the fools in the Bush Administration decided that it was America’s job to create a power vacuum in Iraq.

      • Cliff Isaac

        No president democrat or republican has recieved or sought a formal declaration of war from congress since WW2! Yet there has been 21 wars involving the United States since then.
        There is a radical difference between the violence in the Old Testament and Islamic jihad. First, the violence prescribed by God in the Old Testament was intended for a particular time and limited to a particular people group. There was no precedent set to continue this practice beyond what God had commanded. In contrast, the Koran actually prescribes and condones military jihad in the promotion of Islam. At no time in the Bible do we see God commanding His people to kill unbelievers in the promotion of biblical faith. Second, it is beyond dispute that, in its earliest years, Islam was promoted by the sword. It is exactly the opposite for early Christianity. Many of the early Christians were severely persecuted and martyred for their commitment to Christ.
        For the Christian, the final and complete revelation of God is in Jesus Christ, who was remarkably non-violent in His approach. If a Christian engages in violence in the name of Christ, he is doing so in direct disobedience of His Master. Jesus taught that all who live by the sword will die by it (Matthew 26:52). The teachings and example of Muhammad are very different. A Muslim who desires to commit violence in the name of Islam can find ample justification for his action both in the Koran and in the words and actions of the warrior prophet Muhammad.

      • poppaDavid

        You write,”No president democrat or republican has recieved or sought a formal declaration of war from congress since WW2!”

        Do you object to following the Constitution?

        You write, “At no time in the Bible do we see God commanding His people to kill unbelievers in the promotion of biblical faith.”

        What? Try Deuteronomy 20:16-18, it is exactly killing the unbelievers in the promotion of biblical faith.

        “But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.”

        You write, “Second, it is beyond dispute that, in its earliest years, Islam was promoted by the sword. It is exactly the opposite for early Christianity.”

        So what? The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob told his followers to kill all the Canaanites by “the edge of the sword”. Exactly like ISIS. Moses killed everyone in Sihon and Bashan. Joshua killed everyone in Jericho, Ai, Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Gezer, Hebron, Debir, and the surrounding lands. Joshua killed Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusiteds and Hivites. Saul killed everyone of the Amalekites, except for the one Samuel hacked to death with a sword.

        If the teachings of Jesus contradict the commands of God, recognize it for what it is.

      • Cliff Isaac

        “Do you object to following the Constitution?”
        Of course not. At the same time I believe that when Nixon vetoed the War Powers Resolution and his veto was overidden by Congress that the War Powers Resolution is constitutional because it defines the war powers. Not because of the excercise of war power.The War Powers Resolution is nothing more or less than a congressional definition of the word “war” in article I. A definition of this kind coupled with a reasonable enforcement mechanism is well within the power of Congress under a proper understanding of the constitutional system of checks and balances. The definition does not intrude on any presidential prerogative. The mechanisms chosen by Congress to enforce the provisions of the Resolution were reasonable in 1973 ,and those mechanisms remain reasonable today.

      • poppaDavid

        Great. Because your rationale covers the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and a host of other “liberal” actions taken by Congress to define Constitutional power to include social agenda. Thank you for your support.

        However, the War Powers Resolution was vetoed by Nixon because it would put limits on his actions. The War Powers Resolution provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, “statutory authorization,” or in case of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

        Since ISIS has not attacked the United States, its territories or possessions, and it has only attacked foreign troops, our President would need some “statutory authorization” or a Congressional declaration of war. Which is what I would like to see prior to American intervention against ISIS.

        ISIS is evil and should be removed. We do have Constitutional mechanisms to do that and they should be followed. They do kill the soldiers who resist them and they do “conversion by the sword” on the population. But, because they do allow people to convert, they kill a lower percentage of the population in the cities they capture than Moses, Joshua, or Saul killed in the cities they captured in Canaan.

      • Cliff Isaac

        “What? Try Deuteronomy 20:16-18, it is exactly killing the unbelievers in the promotion of biblical faith.” In order to promote biblical faith there has to be a bible like the koran that ISIS has and yet the Bible of judeo-christianity was not written yet . So it was more of a testament to the power of God’s judgement. Seeing as how there was no humanly possible way the israeli’s could have overpowered the mighty canaanites without God’s help. Here’s another difference for you the Israeli’s didn’t recruit new members they were all related they also didn’t rape their women and pass them around like whores either.
        You write “Saul killed everyone of the Amalekites, except for the one Samuel hacked to death with a sword.” Ha that’s funny because in 1 samuel 30 David also kills the Amalekites after the death of Saul. I guess they weren’t completely destroyed after all. So that certainly can not be considered genocide seeing as there was no outside force to stop them and also the fact that the Amalekites attacked Israel first when moses led israel out of egypt.

        You also write “Great. Because your rationale covers the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and a host of other “liberal” actions taken by Congress to define Constitutional power to include social agenda. Thank you for your support.” I don’t recall saying congress has the authority to define constitutional power for the Constitution itself has that authority. So since it clearly gives Congress the authority to declare war. Congress would also have the authority to define war under the constitution.
        The EXCERCISE of the War Powers Resolution is not constitutional because it gives the President 90 days to use military force before getting authorization from congress. Nixion was right to Veto the law but not for the right reasons. Every president after him has held the opinion that the WPR was unconstitutional for the exact same reason Nixon did….they wanted more power.

        Clearly, the War Powers Resolution as it stands is insufficient to ensure that Congress will be involved in the process. If democratic principles of war-making are to be revived, some key policies must be in place.

        First, Congress must decide what war actually is. The War Powers Resolution fails to define “hostilities,” and this is a giant loophole through which presidents have become accustomed to slipping unilateral hostile actions. For example, President Obama did not consider the enforcement of a no-fly zone, without troops on the ground in Libya in 2011 to constitute “hostilities” or “war,” as imagined by the law. Long gone are the days of uniformed armies fighting clearly declared wars between states. Instead, modern warfare seems destined to involve such unconventional aspects as civilian rebel groups, unmanned drones, and air strikes. By clearly defining “hostilities” and “war,” Congress asserts its own authority and upholds the democratic process as an effective means of oversight over the wide-ranging technologies and tactics of modern warfare.

        Second, Congress should stop providing “blank check” authorizations for military force to the president. Perhaps the best and most recent example is the vague language of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in 2001, which was best described by Representative Barbara Lee of California as giving the president “the authority to wage war at any time, in any place, for nearly any purpose.” Indeed, the test of time has demonstrated the danger of such broad authority, as the AUMF has been cited as legal authority for a multitude of controversial practices, including the indefinite detentions in Guantanamo Bay and the assassination of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. The congressional power to limit presidential authority is meaningless if not exercised, and the failure to exercise such power may have unintended far-reaching consequences.

        Lastly, Congress should utilize its most potent tool – the “power of the purse.” The Constitution is clear that the legislative branch controls the borrowing and appropriation of money. Thus, Congress should refuse to allow money to be borrowed for purposes of war, and especially not for military actions in contravention of the War Powers Resolution. In addition to limiting the president’s widespread powers, the requirement of specific revenue for military action would cause both political branches to pause before entering into impulsive or potentially endless war. Further, it would encourage fiscal responsibility and draw much-needed public attention to the truly exorbitant cost of war.
        By the way the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act were both Bipartisan efforts. CWA was vetoed and overidden by both Republicans, Democrats, Independents and the one Conservative in Congress. The EPA as a federal agency should not exist because in section 8 article 1 there is no mention of Congress having the authority to legislate in the area of the Enviroment. It should be left up to the states based on the 10th Amendment not a federal agency. Solidarity of government works best. All 50 states have there own versions of the EPA already.

      • poppaDavid

        You write, “In order to promote biblical faith there has to be a bible … and yet the Bible of judeo-christianity was not written yet.” Are you saying that Moses didn’t write the Torah that tells of Abraham’s faith? Are you saying that Paul was wrong to speak of Abraham’s faith? Are you saying that Joshua didn’t follow the words of the Torah as he killed unbelievers to promote the faith of the Torah? BTW, farmers “promote” the growth of their crops by killing the competiting plants, like Israel promotes their faith by killing competiting people.

        You write, “Seeing as how there was no humanly possible way the israeli’s could have overpowered the mighty canaanites without God’s help.” Where do you get the “mighty”? I guess you haven’t read the bible. The Canaanites of Abraham’s time were peaceful. They welcomed the Hebrews. The Canaanites of Joshua’s time didn’t win battles. The Hebrews, with their blood lust, did genocide against an incompetent adversary.

        You write “David also kills the Amalekites after the death of Saul. I guess they weren’t completely destroyed after all.”

        Go ahead, point out where the Bible contradicts itself.

        You write, “So since it clearly gives Congress the authority to declare war. Congress would also have the authority to define war under the constitution.” Yes it does. And if you happen to read the Constitution it also gives Congress the authority to Promote the General Welfare, which according to you logic, means Congress has the authority to define “general welfare”. And they have chosen to define it to include clean water, clean air, workplace safety, and the like. Thank you.

        You wrote long, and I will try to respond sucinctly.

        1. Congress should define “war”. The enemy defines war, for example attack on 9/11 was an act of war that did not involve military weapons or bombs.

        2. You oppose a “blank check”, yet you wanted our President to attack ISIS in a foreign country when no American lives or land was at risk without Congressional authorization.

        3. You oppose borrowing to finance a war yet you wanted the US to attack ISIS without raising taxes to pay for it.

        Get some consistency in your positions.

        You object to killing enemy combatants in a war? When an American like Anwar al-Awlaki makes war on the U.S. it is appropriate to treat him like any other enemy combatant. Make him dead.

        Regards the EPA, you may have noticed that the wind and water carry pollution across state lines. Dumping crap into the air and water for commercial gain IS interstate commerce, which is specifically authorized to Congress for regulation.

      • poppaDavid

        Last Monday you said, “Joshua and his men looked for converts who willingly converted. ”

        Today you write ” the Israeli’s didn’t recruit new members they were all related”

        No consistency there.

      • Cliff Isaac

        There is plenty of consistency. First of all I called them Israeli’s not jews so you wouldn’t get confused about the difference when speaking of nationality and religion. I guess that aim failed considering your response. Secondly,ISIS recruits new memebers for purposes of war and death. Israel did not recruit members to increase their power against their enemies because they were all related. The religious coversions that took place were organized and primarily for the purpose of marriage not war.

        Jericho was the first obstacle of many that Joshua and the army of Israel faced in conquering Canaan, which God had promised to their forefather, Abraham. As he was pondering how to take this walled city, the Lord appeared to Joshua in human form as the captain of the Lord’s army and revealed to him the plan for victory (Josh. 5:13-6:5). The Israelites were to march silently around the city once a day for six days with the tabernacle, while seven priests blew on rams’ horns. On the seventh day, they were to circle the city seven times. When Joshua gave the signal, the priests were to blow the rams’ horns and the people were to shout. The walls of the city would crumble and the Israeli soldiers would march straight into the city and take it.
        You see this in the story of Gideon and his army trying to conquer the hordes of Midianites (Judges 6-7). He rallied an army of 32,000 men against 135,000 enemy troops, but God told Gideon that he had too many soldiers, not too few. If they won, they would boast in their victory (Judges 7:2). So, Gideon sent home 22,000 soldiers who were afraid. But God said, “You’ve still got too many.” So Gideon weeded them out until he was left with 300 soldiers. Finally, being weak enough, God could grant them victory and they would give Him the glory! ISIS has never used such tactics and they certainly don’t give God the glory of their victories. They rape, pilliage,murder and boast in their atrocites. So that raises the question since God has already allowed his Son to die on the cross for the sins of men. Why would he be in need of ISIS to judge the world ? Since the final judgement is to take place when Christ returns. Your inconsistency is that you call ISIS evil and yet you want to put God in the same category despite all the good he has done. Giving the Canaanites 400 years to turn to him while his own people were in slavery. Then delivering them out of slavery to exact his second judgment of the ancient world by the few and the weak. The weak shall inherit the earth isn’t that what Christ says? Finally instead of judgement he brings salvation through his Son whom was the least of all these on the earth. Not a handsome man,not a rich man, not a powerful man. His power came from god not of his own making. Yet you say the Old testament contradicts the New even though the premise is the same: The weak and faithful shall inherit the earth. The strong and prideful shall perish from it. That is not to say that the strong who are faithful shall perish, because genuine faith always produces good works. Good works is what God expects from his faithful.

      • poppaDavid

        You say, “Good works is what God expects from his faithful.” True. Jesus spent a lot of time describing the sort of good works that are expected. They include care for the sick, shelter, food, justice, protection for the weak, etc. Corporations and governments that maintain their power by making war, stealing land, poisoning the planet, greed, slavery, etc. are NOT doing what God expects. Don’t tell me your faith, show me how your faith is doing good works for the same people that Jesus did good works… the poor, the weak, the outsider.

        Again you repeat a false statement that God gave the Canaanites 400 years to turn to him. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that the Canaanites treated Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or their children with anything less than the Golden Rule. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that God ever called upon Canaanites to follow him in those 400 years.

        You repeat the story of the genocide in the name of Yahweh in Jericho by Israelites. Yet you decry ISIS as evil for killing people in the name of Allah. You even say, “ISIS … certainly don’t give God the glory of their victories” when in fact they do.

        When the Israelites entered Jericho the murdered everyone and pillaged the city. Then, they went against Ai, murdered everyone and plundered the city. And again against Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Gezer, Hebron, Debir and all the land around them. You brag about the Israelites, yet you complain about ISIS, “They rape, pilliage,murder and boast in their atrocites.”

        You glory in the story of Gideon slaughtering the Midianites. Your blood lust is showing. Do you realize that they were Hebrews descended from Abraham by his second wife Keturah not Canaanites?

        You chastize me with “you call ISIS evil and yet you want to put God in the same category despite all the good he has done.” Sorry, but the genocide of the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, and Hivites does not qualify as “good”. A God that requires genocide IS in the same category as an Allah who requires genocide.

        You write, “There is plenty of consistency.” No, not in the normal meaning of the word. Your paragraph referenced Israeli’s twice. Once about “the israeli’s …overpowered the mighty canaanites…” and in the next sentence “the Israeli’s didn’t recruit new members…” The Israeli leader as they invaded Canaan was Joshua. So you said, when Joshua invaded Canaan to overpower the Canaanites, the Israelites didn’t recruit new members. Which contradicts your earlier statement “Joshua and his men looked for converts who willingly converted.” People do make mistakes and they are inconsistent. The mistake comes when people refuse to recognize that the contradictions exist.

      • poppaDavid

        If you want to pretend that “a state of lasting peace” is required to qualify as a state, go ahead, that would disqualify Israel immediately. If you want to disqualify the Kingdom of Jerusalem because it “occupied” Palestine, go ahead, that would disqualify Israel as well due to their occupation of the territory taken in the West Bank, Golan Heights, and their frequent occupation of Gaza and Lebannon.

      • poppaDavid

        If you want to push on “declarative theory of statehood” get your facts correct. It requires a permanent population and a government. The crusaders arrived in Palestine and established their government over the land and they stayed there. Of the twenty or more monarchs, all but six were born in the Kingdom of Jerusalem and almost all ruled from Jerusalem or Acre. And, all of them were approved by a vote of the “Haute Cour”, a body of local Palestinian knights.

      • poppaDavid

        You may favor a two state solution. So does the current leadership in Israel. They want a state of Israel, with the capital in Jerusalem,run by the Israeli government for the benefit of the Jews. And they want a Palestinian state run by Palestinians under Israeli supervision for the benefit of the Jews, with Israeli military installations and Israeli kubutz on the Palestinian land.

      • poppaDavid

        You say that in the 1800’s there were 2000 people in Palestine. Garbage! According to the Jewish Virtual Library the population in 1800 was a quarter million Palestinians, 24,000 Jews and 21,800 Christians. By 1915 the population was over 689 thousand. The historic population has varied from over 1 million in Roman times to a low of 200 thousand under the Turkish Empire. No wonder you believe fall for the lie that they came from outside Palestine.

      • Cliff Isaac

        the ” land of the philistines”. The phillistines territory had no borders except for the city states and was not a unified nation state. I have never denied the existence of the crusader kingdom of jerusalem. I only pointed out that it was primarily a military outpost where the king lived in a different country and could therefore not be considered a nation state under the declaration theory of statehood. In addition to the feudal dependencies of other crusader states. If I had said there has never been a non jewish occupation of the geographic area known as palestine. Then that would be a false statement. The fact remains that that has never been a non jewish nation state in the geographic area known as palestine. Never has there been a muslim nation state and never a palestinian nation state in the geographic area know palestine either. Hebrews, Israelites, and Judeans have always been Jewish following the TaNaKh. Why are you so against a two state solution? That you are willing to support the PLO and the PA that want to destroy the state of Israel before you Israel.

      • poppaDavid

        Concerning the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
        Under the Declarative Theory of Statehood, a state exists when it has:
        a. a defined territory
        b. a permanent population
        c. a government, and
        d. capacity to enter into relations with other states.

        from http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/declarative-theory-of-statehood/

        The Kingdom of Jerusalem met all those criteria to be a Christian state in Palestine. Because it doesn’t specify how much territory, according to that definition a city state like Singapore, Vatican City, or the Philistine city-states could be states too.

        And the Kingdom of Israel ceased to be a nation after the Romans removed their government and their ability to enter into relations with other states.

        Conserning the Nature of Hebrew scriptures. The Hebrews who left Egypt and invaded Canaan held the Torah in common. Most of the Nevi’im and Ketuvim were written after the fall of the Northern Kingdom, and they were scripture of the Southern Kingdom alone. The Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah had similar but different religions and they had different scripture.

        Conserning the meaning of the words Semite, Hebrew, Israelite and Jew. Those who are ignorant of history treat the words as equivalent. They are not, they come from the patriarch of the associated family lines. In the Bible Shem was a son of Noah and his descendents are Semites, which includes Asshur (Assyrians), Aram (Arameans),Elam (Elamites), and Arphaxad (Chaldeans). Eber was a Chaldean and his descendents are Hebrews, which includes thirteen tribes of pure Joktan Arabs and the line that leads to Abram and Lot. Lot was a Hebrew and his descendents are the Moabites and Ammonites. Abraham was a Hebrew and his descendents are the Hebrew children of Ishmael and Isaac. Isaac was a Hebrew, his son Esau was patriarch of the Edomites and his son Jacob “Israel” was the patriarch of the Israelite tribes. Joseph was an Israelite and the patriarch of the Northern Kingdom, they are Israelites. Judah was an Israelite and the patriarch of the Southern Kingdom, they are Jews and Israelites. They only inherited the portion of Palestine allotted to Judah. Only those who descended from the Kingdom of Judah were called Jews because that is origin of the name – JUDE.

        Conserning the invasion of Palestine. You talk as if Palestine was empty in 1948 and that the Jews just walked in to claim vacant land that they left behind 2000 years earlier. Rubbish. When the Jewish population of Jerusalem was dispersed into the Diaspora they became the Jewish colonies throughout the world. The rest of the population of Palestine remained on the land. Depending upon their history, they were Jews, non-jewish Israelites, non-Jewish Semites, Samaritans, Moabites, Ammonites, Canaanites, Greeks, Philistines, Phoenicians, Idmudians, etc. Some retained their historic religion and culture, some had converted to Judism under Herod, others converted to Christianity under the Byzantine Empire, or they converted to Islam under the various Muslim governments. Those people who continued to live in Palestine are called Palestinians, and you cannot tell their ancestry by looking at their current religion. They don’t need some historical Palestinian government to justify a moral claim to the land that they have lived on, against European Jews who are taking land from them by violence.

      • Cliff Isaac

        I think one of the sources may have been cut off due to lack of character space. In any case here is the site: http://www.science.co.il/History-Palestine.php

      • poppaDavid

        You question that Israel is communist?

      • Cliff Isaac

        These so called mantra’s you keep coming up with are made up by you. Stop trying to assert them as facts.

      • Cliff Isaac

        So just to verify do you think there should be more regulations on abortion clinics? Is that your solution?

      • poppaDavid

        We have regulations on abortion clinics. The laws should be enforced, which appears to be the case here with Gosnell. Should they have been enforced sooner? That would depend upon when the evidence and witnesses of wrongdoing became available to the legal system. It also depends upon the existence of government to provide a police services and a judicial system.

      • Bignevermo

        There are MANY contradictions in the Bible..

      • poppaDavid

        You observe, “America’s poverty line has increased from $23/a day to $63/ a day adjusted for inflation”. As stated, you are telling me that thanks to capitalism it has become MORE expensive to live in the U.S. Unless the median income has tripled in that time, everyone is worse off. That isn’t a argument for capitalism making things better.

      • poppaDavid

        Capitalism has been recognized for a long time, crediting Christian monasteries with inventing it is odd, considering that they were communist or socialist organizations. I think your author is trying to take credit where it isn’t due.

        Christians should recognize that Capitalism as it has been practiced in prior centuries is amoral. It is quite ready to transport slaves, introduce opium, run plantations on slave labor, traffic in sex slaves, provide abortions, poison water supplies, adulterate foods, etc. And it continues to do so, worldwide. If you want to promote an economic system that doesn’t do that, perhaps you should give it a different name. Thomas Moore used “utopia”.

      • Cliff Isaac

        Exactly utopia doesn’t exist. There is no economic system in which doesn’t have those elements of blight. Capitalist countries have significantly less than the communist and socialist countries. While none of those elements are inherent to capitalism. Capitalism, it is usually assumed, flowered around the same time as the Enlightenment–the eighteenth century–and, like the Enlightenment, entailed a diminution of organized religion. In fact, the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was the main locus for the first flowerings of capitalism. Max Weber located the origin of capitalism in modern Protestant cities, but today’s historians find capitalism much earlier than that in rural areas, where monasteries, especially those of the Cistercians, began to rationalize economic life.

      • poppaDavid

        Slavery was not a “blight” on capitalism. It was capitalism doing what capitalism does. And our capitalist country retained it longer than most. And we followed it with state sponsored segregation. That wasn’t a socialist idea, it was capitalism using its economic power to push the agenda of the established rich.
        While capitalism can be traced to farmers who loaned some of their seed corn to neighbors in exchange for a share of the crop, it really doesn’t start in rural areas. Rather it starts with the early banking system where capital could be stored, loaned and borrowed with interest. It is the interest that makes it capitalism, and the interest was “usury”, which was prohibited by the Church in the Middle Ages. Interest allows a person to invest existing wealth to acquire more wealth, rather than working for a living, i.e. Capitalism.

      • Cliff Isaac

        Like many liberals I fear have a misperception of what the meaning of spreading and sharing the wealth means. Speading ones wealth around by the individual is paramount in Biblical belief. It is not about giving up ones wealth rather it is sharing a part of that wealth with those less fortunate than you. ie Charity. Biblically this is the duty of each individual not the state. Communism, Socialism, and Marxism are failed political systems where there is no private ownership property or business and all wealth is belonged by and distributed by the state for the supposed common good of all. The problem with these systems is that the people controlling the state are corrupt and for the most part they live lavishly off the labor of others. So in the end no, Jesus and the Apostales were neither Communists, Marxists or Socialists.

      • poppaDavid

        There is nothing in the Bible to prevent Christians from forming organizations to do charitable work. And there is nothing in the Bible to prevent Christians from assigning the work of Charity to an organization such as their government.

      • Cliff Isaac

        “The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion.” – karl marx

        Frederick Engels, Karl Marx’s sidekick and benefactor, eulogized that Marx’s greatest insight was, “men must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing before they can pursue politics, science, art, religion and the like.”

        Jesus asserted the opposite disavowing that faith is predicated on bodily well-being, “Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ . . . But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness” (Matthew 6:31-33).

        Biblically, body and soul are distinct. The vibrant Christianity seen throughout history even as believers endured deprivation or persecution irrefutably contradicts the Marxian materialist stance. Tertullian pronounced, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” The prodigal son didn’t return with his belly full.

        Marxists require secular, materialist explanations for everything, but there is no scriptural basis for these severe restrictions on permissible avenues of thought. From this irreconcilable beginning, biblical doctrine and Marxist theory diverge still further.

        Marx sought to replace the Christian worldview with a vile substitute. His rejection ran deeper than the oft quoted jibe, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

        He admitted, “My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.” He thought Christianity reflected a palliative used by the rich to constrain workers so they wouldn’t revolt. To Marx, church and family presented obstacles to Utopia. The hierarchical society affirmed by Scripture prevented the rise of the proletariat.

        Marx’s writings reveal undeniable, but antithetical parallels with Scripture, a deliberate replacement meant to expunge Christianity from society. To wit, Marx even employed religious themed legerdemain. Atheism, whether Marxist or Objectivist, relies on faith too, it just requires drastically different metaphysical assumptions.

        The Marxist dialectic redefines good and evil. Sin changed from rebellion against God into striving for individual ends as opposed to the collective. The institution of property rights represented original sin.

        Communism supplanted the Garden of Eden with a Rousseauian primitive man at harmony with nature, the genesis of environmental worship’s close ties to Marxism today. Marx even incorporated a millenarian view of history as an evolving class struggle finally solved by the coming victory of the proletariat. Utopia represents Heaven, ultimately created on Earth – by man. The collectivist state becomes god.

        This man centered worldview was absorbed by the academy, media, entertainment industries and much of government. They now distill cultural Marxism, aka political correctness, to credulous Americans who thought we won the Cold War.

        It’s not just that our perspectives are diametrically opposite, but Bible believing Christians and Marxists also seek fundamentally different goals. God’s judgment shows no favoritism. Everyone is equal in His sight, but God is no egalitarian. The word liberty appears sixteen times in the New Testament. Equality among men but twice: Matthew 20:12, pertaining to salvation in a parable which defends property rights; and 2 Corinthians 8:14.

        The latter alludes to God sustaining Israel in the wilderness with manna. Paul instructs those of us more fortunate to voluntarily help others requiring assistance. Exodus highlights God’s view on public property: use only what you need. Don’t unnecessarily impose upon your neighbors. Worldly governments showering favored constituents with handouts lack the divine enforcement mechanism of making hoarded manna quickly rot.

        Biblically, society is inhabited by unique, sovereign individuals made in God’s image and personally accountable to Him. Equality under the law stems from equality before God which always and everywhere negates equality of results. God is no respecter of persons. Nor should justice favor particular segments even if their cause is politically correct. Justice is measured by precision to God’s standards, not by the shifting goals of secular academics.

        Moses said, “You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice. You shall not show partiality to a poor man in his dispute” (Exodus 23:2-3). Not very proletarian.

        Nowhere does Scripture task government with equalizing wealth. Not only is redistributing private property for political purposes immoral, it also undermines the God ordered notion of accountability. Without freedom to do either right or wrong, the moral basis dissolves. Dr. Ronald Nash observes, “Passages that oblige believers to use their resources for God’s purposes presuppose the legitimacy of private ownership.”

        The Bible requires work, frugal living and honest dealings. It mandates impartial justice, sound money and property rights; plus endorses liberty and limited government – all essential elements of capitalism. Christ even used free market principles repeatedly in his teaching. Jesus clearly appreciated price signals and the role of incentives.

        The parables of the talents and minas offer sage investment advice. It is prudent to entrust resources to those multiplying them and extract resources from those squandering them. This counters the Marxist principle of progressive taxation taking from the most productive to subsidize those wasting scarce resources. But Jesus used these essential lessons to illustrate spiritual truths, not finance.

        Market based economics appear consistent with Christ’s teachings, however it is inappropriate to usurp divine authority by transforming Jesus into Adam Smith. The Bible unequivocally endorses certain elements of capitalism. And never does it disavow capitalism, only its impure application by corrupt participants; unless one equates free markets with Social Darwinism as do Marxists. But theirs is clearly neither a biblical perspective nor an accurate depiction.

        Economics is not a Zero Sum Game. One’s gain does not necessitate another’s loss. Innovation, efficient profitable production and savings expand the pie. Consumption, malinvestment and waste shrink it.

        Likewise, taking several verses describing a voluntary, communal living arrangement out of context to prescribe secular socialism defies logic. Those passages in Acts were descriptive more than prescriptive. Taking them otherwise throws out virtually everything else in Scripture. Frederick Engels saw this clearly, “If some few passages of the Bible may be favorable to communism, the general spirit of its doctrines is, nevertheless, totally opposed to it.”

        The early church welcomed Jews and proselytes from the Diaspora back at Pentecost. These travelers pooled their possessions in loving fellowship fearing Jerusalem’s imminent destruction. There is no evidence this communal arrangement spread beyond Jerusalem or persisted long. None of the epistles indicates communal living.

        Privately entrusting resources to St. Peter, in subservience to God, differs greatly from “robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul” through a distant bureaucratic apparatus inspired by the humanist god of power. The Bible never endorses involuntary socialism administered by secular governments.

        American settlement sometimes involved religious communities experimenting with communal living. One famous example, the Mayflower Compact, was instituted at the insistence of their English sponsors. The Puritans rapidly abandoned communalism – “that conceit of Plato’s” – in favor of vigorous free enterprise, which proved both consistent with their strong religious sentiments, and a rapid path to prosperity.

      • poppaDavid

        Obviously, you cannot understand that there are Christian communists and Christian socialists.

      • Cliff Isaac

        I completely understand that they exist i have never denied that. I just completely disagree with the notion that the bible endorses statism,communism,and socialism.
        Communalism is not communism or socialism as you presume.One is voluntary the other is involuntary.

        Matt 20:12 was not describing socialism but the Voluntary and non partial aspect of the kingdom of heaven. With all those other verses you were illustrating your view of capitalism out of context as usual just like the first chapter and verse. Abundance is meant to rot when hoarded and not put to good use. ie investment to promote growth and prosperity among god’s people.

        The Mayflower was originally bound for the Colony of Virginia, financed by the Company of Merchant Adventurers of London. Storms forced them to anchor at the hook of Cape Cod in what is now Massachusetts. This inspired some of the Strangers to proclaim that since the settlement would not be made in the agreed upon Virginia territory, they “would use their own liberty; for none had power to command them.”To prevent this, the Pilgrims chose to establish a government. The Mayflower Compact was authored on the ship and based simultaneously upon a majoritarian model (taking into account that women and children could not vote) and the settlers’ allegiance to the king. It was in essence a social contract in which the settlers consented to follow the compact’s rules and regulations for the sake of order and survival. The Pilgrims had lived for some years in Leiden (Netherlands). “Just as a spiritual covenant had marked the beginning of their congregation in Leiden, a civil covenant would provide the basis for a secular government in America.

      • Donny Lantier

        If one can recognize that the statement… Jesus asserted the opposite disavowing that faith is predicated on bodily well-being, “Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ . . . But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness” (Matthew 6:31-33)….if the kingdom of heaven is within and you really acknowledge that your mind is the kingdom within, of course you would not worry about what you will eat or what you will wear because you have the temple which can be driven to obtain both. This is only a secret to those who do not seek and find the kingdom within.

      • Cliff Isaac

        The word liberty appears sixteen times in the New Testament. Equality among men but twice: Matthew 20:12, pertaining to salvation in a parable which defends property rights; and 2 Corinthians 8:14.

        The latter alludes to God sustaining Israel in the wilderness with manna. Paul instructs those of us more fortunate to voluntarily help others requiring assistance. Exodus highlights God’s view on public property: use only what you need. Don’t unnecessarily impose upon your neighbors. Worldly governments showering favored constituents with handouts lack the divine enforcement mechanism of making hoarded manna quickly rot.

        Biblically, society is inhabited by unique, sovereign individuals made in God’s image and personally accountable to Him. Equality under the law stems from equality before God which always and everywhere negates equality of results. God is no respecter of persons. Nor should justice favor particular segments even if their cause is politically correct. Justice is measured by precision to God’s standards, not by the shifting goals of secular academics.

        Moses said, “You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice. You shall not show partiality to a poor man in his dispute” (Exodus 23:2-3). Not very proletarian.

        Nowhere does Scripture task government with equalizing wealth. Not only is redistributing private property for political purposes immoral, it also undermines the God ordered notion of accountability. Without freedom to do either right or wrong, the moral basis dissolves. Dr. Ronald Nash observes, “Passages that oblige believers to use their resources for God’s purposes presuppose the legitimacy of private ownership.”

        The Bible requires work, frugal living and honest dealings. It mandates impartial justice, sound money and property rights; plus endorses liberty and limited government – all essential elements of capitalism. Christ even used free market principles repeatedly in his teaching. Jesus clearly appreciated price signals and the role of incentives.

        The parables of the talents and minas offer sage investment advice. It is prudent to entrust resources to those multiplying them and extract resources from those squandering them. This counters the Marxist principle of progressive taxation taking from the most productive to subsidize those wasting scarce resources. But Jesus used these essential lessons to illustrate spiritual truths, not finance.

        Market based economics appear consistent with Christ’s teachings, however it is inappropriate to usurp divine authority by transforming Jesus into Adam Smith. The Bible unequivocally endorses certain elements of capitalism. And never does it disavow capitalism, only its impure application by corrupt participants; unless one equates free markets with Social Darwinism as do Marxists. But theirs is clearly neither a biblical perspective nor an accurate depiction.

        Economics is not a Zero Sum Game. One’s gain does not necessitate another’s loss. Innovation, efficient profitable production and savings expand the pie. Consumption, malinvestment and waste shrink it.

        Likewise, taking several verses describing a voluntary, communal living arrangement out of context to prescribe secular socialism defies logic. Those passages in Acts were descriptive more than prescriptive. Taking them otherwise throws out virtually everything else in Scripture. Frederick Engels saw this clearly, “If some few passages of the Bible may be favorable to communism, the general spirit of its doctrines is, nevertheless, totally opposed to it.”

        The early church welcomed Jews and proselytes from the Diaspora back at Pentecost. These travelers pooled their possessions in loving fellowship fearing Jerusalem’s imminent destruction. There is no evidence this communal arrangement spread beyond Jerusalem or persisted long. None of the epistles indicates communal living.

        Privately entrusting resources to St. Peter, in subservience to God, differs greatly from “robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul” through a distant bureaucratic apparatus inspired by the humanist god of power. The Bible never endorses involuntary socialism administered by secular governments.

        American settlement sometimes involved religious communities experimenting with communal living. One famous example, the Mayflower Compact, was instituted at the insistence of their English sponsors. The Puritans rapidly abandoned communalism – “that conceit of Plato’s” – in favor of vigorous free enterprise, which proved both consistent with their strong religious sentiments, and a rapid path to prosperity.

      • poppaDavid

        So many memes, so little time.

        You reference Matt 20:12 as defending property rights. You do realize that by paying everyone the same wage without respect to the work that they performed, the master(God) was practicing socialism? That is kind of the point Christianity isn’t it, God gives everyone what they need, and asks everyone to do what they can. Unless you are going to start saying that salvation is a free market where you purchase it with good works?

        You say that “Christ even used free market principles” Maybe. Maybe not.

        Luke 16:5-7 “How much do you owe the master? And he said, a hundred measures of oil. And he said to him, Take down your bill and write fifty.”

        In context Jesus spoke of capitalism, consumerism and the free market:

        Luke 12:14 “Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions”

        Matt 6:22-23 “Take no thought for your life, what you shall eat; neither what you shall put on”

        Matt 6:33 “Sell what you have, and give alms … where your tresure is, there is your heart”

        In Luke 12:16-21 he describes what happens to those who lay up treasure on earth.

        You say about the Bible, “never does it disavow capitalism”. Maybe, maybe not.

        Luke 6:35-37 “his disciples … said … Send them away, that they may go … and buy themselves bread. … He answered and said unto them, Give them to eat.”

        You write, “The Bible requires work, frugal living and honest dealings.”

        Well, that leaves out capitalism, which requires investment rather than work.

        You say that scripture doesn’t task government to care for the poor. True. Americans control their government, and they may task it with what they deem appropriate, including taking care of the poor on their behalf.

        You talk about “Biblically, society is inhabited by unique, sovereign individuals …” Actually, the Bible is mostly concerned with the people/nation/religion of Israel. The examples of God’s munificence and punishment are typically communal. Eve at an apple and all women travail in childbirth. Adam at an apple and all men must work for a living. Abraham’s faith was rewarded by creating a great nation. God sent Moses into Egypt to rescue the people of Israel. Moses hit the rock twice and the people of Israel got to wander in the desert for forty years. The sins of Israel caused the nation to be destroyed. The “Chosen Race” is a communal trait, not an individual one.

        Jesus taught the concept of an individual, personal relationship with God. He didn’t propose a personal relationship with money.

        As a comment, the Mayflower Compact, was authored after the “Mayflower” arrived at Cape Cod, it didn’t come from the English sponsors, the Virginia Company. It was intended to require all settlers to accept the “just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices” enacted by the newly created “Civil Body Politic”, rather than the directions of the Virginia Company’s representatives.

      • poppaDavid

        Liberty in the Bible:

        You reference the use of “liberty” in the New Testiment as if it somehow is linked to free market economics or American politics. No. Liberty is used in several contexts, never in the context of a voluntary free market exchange, and never in the context of freedom of citizens from their government.

        The year of liberty references the automatic return of property to the former owner and slaves to their family. A clear limitation on contracts. Lev 25:10, Jer 34:8-17

        Freedom for slaves in Israel and Israelites held captive in foreign lands. Isaiah 61:1, Luke 4:18, Heb 13:23

        Release from guilt over a sin. Ps 119:45

        Release from jail or prison Acts 24:23,26:32,27:3

        Liberty for a widow to marry. 1Cor 7:39

        Release from bondage to sins of the flesh Rom 8:21

        Release from Mosaic Code on food & circucision 1Cor 8:9, 1Cor 10:29, 2Cor 3:17, Gal 2: Gal5:1-17, 1Pet 2:16

        Liberty to practice good works James 1:25, James 2:12

        A reference to the false freedom of those who turn to the world 1Pet 2:19

        You referenced Equality among men

        2Cor 8:15 quotes “He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack.” A clear reference to the socialist mantra of “No profits and no want”.

        Matt 20:12 gave to every one “whatsoever is right”, and as a socialist, God gave everyone the same reward. If the workers wanted to have some control over their working conditions, they should have formed a union.

      • Cliff Isaac

        What are you talking about? I never mentioned american politics or freedom from government. I simply stated that it was inappropriate to usurp divine authority to transform Jesus/God into adam smith a proponet for capitalism or into frederick engul a proponet for communism and socialism. Capitalistic principles are evident in the teachings of christ as well as the priciples of only voluntary socialism. Neither of those examples are prescriptive but they are descriptive to illustrate spiritual truths not economic and political systems. Their intent is parabolic.
        In a way, communism is an extreme form of socialism. Many countries have dominant socialist political parties but very few are truly communist. In fact, most countries – including staunch capitalist bastions like the U.S. and U.K. – have government programs that borrow from socialist principles. “Socialism” is SOMETIMES used interchangeably with “communism” but the two philosophies have some stark differences. Most notably, while communism is a political system, socialism is primarily an economic system that can exist in various forms under a wide range of political systems.

        As I view the long, broad scope of political economy, the main danger to innocent people comes from those individuals who seek to achieve their ends by force, or by the threat of force, violence, and aggression. Certainly, coercive communism, as practiced in Russia, mainland China, Cuba, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere behind the Iron Curtain are all examples of this. In these societies, people are forced to give their be-all and end-all to the state apparatus. Virtually all property has been seized by the government, and the people are little better than slaves to their masters.

        But force, coercion, and institutionalized violence are by no means limited to communist countries. Western democracies (such as Canada) and right-wing dictatorships also utilize such measures, albeit to a lesser degree. Legislation underlying tariffs, Crown corporations, unions, rent control, marketing boards, business subsidies and bailouts, minimum wages, socialized medicine, and agricultural land reserves are just as much violation of person and property—even if to a lesser degree—as the government exploitation which occurs behind the Iron Curtain.

      • poppaDavid

        As you discuss the various communist governments of the world, be sure to include Israel. Almost all land is owned by the government, except for the land held by Palestinians. The health system is socialized. Education is socialized. Religion and government are arm in arm. The government is fully involved in all large scale economic ventures. All citizens are required to serve the government for a period of their lives.
        There are lots of excuses offered, but it is still communism. And a ton of conservatives support that form of communism.

      • Cliff Isaac

        Voluntary socialism, together with laissez-faire capitalism, has nothing to be ashamed of on moral and economic grounds. They can each hold up their heads, high. Far from enemies, they are merely opposite sides of the same voluntaristic coin. Together, they must battle state coercion, whether called State Capitalism or State Socialism. The point is, “left” vs. “right” is a red herring. The reddest and perhaps most misleading red herring in all political-economic theory.

        The true debate is not between left and right. It is, rather,between voluntarism (whether of left or right) and coercivism (whether of left or right). The sooner this lesson is learned, the sooner can we make sense of our otherwise paradoxical political debates.

      • poppaDavid

        “The true debate is …,between voluntarism… and coercivism …
        Yes. And when a person has to choose between starvation and working under deadly conditions, because the wealthy have outlawed trade unions, that is coercivism not voluntarism.
        When a powerful person uses their wealth to control the law, and uses the law to suppress the ability of people to form voluntary alternatives to the choices offered by the wealthy that is coercivism.
        Marx taught “dialectic” progress. Capitalists promote that part of his theory as they say that those who oppose the problems of capitalism are communists. They are both wrong. It is not a choice between two options. There are more than two options.

      • Cliff Isaac

        Being called Christian is not a title to be earned by works. A Christian is simply a follower of christ and having the faith that he alone can absolve men from sin(separation from God).The United States and Myanmar are tied for the distinction of the most giving country, according to the 2014 World Giving Index, which looks at generous behavior. The scores, measured from 2009-2013 and released in November, looked at 135 countries. The U.S also has one the largest christian populations next to Asia in the world. You aren’t being very honest in your accusations against America.

      • poppaDavid

        The care of children may be measured by the infant mortality rates, others are better. The care of the sick and aged may be measured by the average life span or mortality rates for various diseases, others are better.

      • knight4444

        LOL reading your post it’s painfully obvious you know nothing of scripture or sound economics!! lets just cut to the chase, you’re a caucasian male who’s WHITE privilege and tribalizism has warped your mind! unless your a VERY wealthy heartless clueless american, voting for the GOP is going completely against your own best interest.

      • Cliff Isaac

        My tribalizism? That isnt even a word. Lol Judging from your profile you have had more privelege than I. Then again I am not as arrogant as you in presuming to know where you came from and how privileged you have been. You say I do not know the scripture and yet you two @poppadavid want to interpret the bible as massive contradiction and a socialist manifesto claiming that the message of Christ is completely separate from that of Paul. Charging god with genocide and partiality. It seems to me neither one of you are christians since you both agree with one another in disparaging the God of the bible. I pay my taxes but anything over 30% is outrageous considering more that 30% of the U.S. doesn’t pay income taxes. @poppadavid if you are going to tell people not to listen to fox maybe you shouldn’t be referencing them in your statistical data about abortion. I assure you I am anything but destroyed. Troll!

      • knight4444

        LOL yeah @cliff, I’m so privileged, I’m Afro american and you know how privileged my people have been in this country!! BTW your juvenile behavior is typical of someone of your ilk, criticizing my grammatically error with TRIBALIZISM it’s “TRIBALISM” while in your post your “PRIVELEGE” remark gets tossed up here, @cliff, you’re a follower of calvinism, your post REEK of it! you’re exactly the type of religious extremist Eisenhower warned the GOP to stay far away from!! and 60 yrs later! look at your party!! you’ve got garbage like pat robertson, sarah palin, michelle bachmann, ted cruz, ben carson, embarrassing your tea bag FAKE religion klan into ushering in the oligarch’s takeover of the usa! the koch boys the sheldon addleson, who really OWN your party are destroying your beloved GOP!

      • Cliff Isaac

        Religious extremist? Calvinist? First of all I am a Libertarian that values personal freedom over statism and economic freedom over an out of touch bureaucracy. I don’t give a damn about the Democrats or the GOP they are both two sides of the same coin to me anyways. As far you accusing me of being a calvinist I do not believe in the Total inablity of man to come to Christ. No one comes to the father except through the Son. I don’t believe in Unconditional election. Christ didn’t just die for the elect he died for all who are willing to accept him. I don’t believe in Limited Atonement. People are not predestined to heaven nor hell. I don’t believe in Irresistible Grace. God does not force people to have faith nor does he compell them to do his will. I do not believe in the Perserverance of the Saints. I believe born again Christians are preserved in Christ. Especially since most of the saints were jailed and or martyred. Those five tenets are essential to calvinism. Therefore I am not a calvinist as you arrogantly and foolishly presumed of me. You know nothing of me and I don’t presume to know anything of you other than what you show me.

      • knight4444

        LMFAO @cliff, you telling me you’re a libertarian doesn’t surprise me one bit, I had a feeling you were. @cliff, theres nothing I or anyone here can say to help you, see, you think your intelligent but in reality, you’re confused and lost! listen Mr. libertarian / religious scholar, libertarianism, ”AMERICA’s bastardized” version a JOKE! libertarianism, has NEVER worked anywhere in the world! LOL unless you consider “SAMALIA” a success LOL @cliff, we had a lesser form of libertarianism in the usa, it was called the WILD WILD WEST and how did that work out??? so @cliff, our resident libertarian / religious scholar, so your cool with prostitution?? unlimited drug use?? no taxes?? no public roads? no public fire department? no public education? no police department ? no standing military? etc. etc etc LMFAO you just want the “EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF”?? LOL you libertarians types are hilarious! you’re just republicans who wanna get laid and get HIGH! LOL @cliff, I hate to break this to you but your lack of basic common sense and a gigantic dose of WHITE privilege, has made you a laughing stock, consider yourself BLESSED, I’ve been very polite with you, I really could could expose you in much harsher ways, but like a once wise man said ” I PITTY THE FOOL” happy holidays @cliff.

      • Cliff Isaac

        Mr. T a wise man? The man who said “I pity the fool that don’t read it.(Mr.T comic book) It’s going to be Gold.”? That is funny. Lol It seems you are the one who is confused. What you are describing is an anarchist not a libertarian. I seriously doubt you have the insight to expose me of anything. When people say “Oh, if you’re such a libertarian, why don’t you just move to SOMALIA!”, it usually means one of two things. Either they are completely ignorant of the history of East Africa, or they’ve realized that the Libertarian critique of a powerful central government has some weight to it. But since you can’t acknowledge this fact, lest it upset your “polite”company of #UniteBlue sophisticates or have David Brooks write some dreadful column about libertarians. You have to reach for your cherished last resort: the third world. I hope you had happy thanksgiving and get rid of that chip on your shoulder.

      • knight4444

        LOL @cliff, I get way you have 50 to 60 post here, you just love arguing! you get off trying to insult people, you’re not just a bitter, you’re the poster boy of your DYING faith’s, your religious views like your political views are fueled by 240 plus yrs of WHITE privilege, you’re arrogant and combative because, you have a over inflated opinion of yourself. But heres the GOOD NEWS, your ilk is literally dying out! conservatism is dying! look around the world! that trickle down ponzi scheme reagan and thatcher unleashed over 30 yrs ago, is going bye bye. BTW next time you decide to take the low road and think critiquing someone’s grammar is a winning tactic, think again. or at least spell “PRIVILEGE” correctly lol BTW I don’t have a clip on my shoulder , you’re suffering from “PROJECTION” again, I was being humorous with the Mr. T comment, lighten up @cliff, and like MOST american so called librarians, YOU don’t even understand your own flawed faith system, I very rarely agree with david brooks, but he at least understands how utterly ridiculous so called librarians really are. like a stopped clock, david brooks is right two times a day lol

      • Cliff Isaac

        Lmao @knight4444! Again with the spelling of “privilege” ? That is three posts now that you have brought that up in a attempt to insult me. It must have really bothered you. Let it go already. You are just being a hypocrite like most liberals when you make logical fallacies like “BTW next time you decide to take the low road and think critiquing someone’s grammar is a winning tactic, think again. or at least spell “PRIVILEGE” correctly” and my favorite of yours “you get off trying to insult people, you’re not just a bitter, you’re the poster boy of your DYING faith’s, your religious views like your political views are fueled by 240 plus yrs of WHITE privilege, you’re arrogant and combative because, you have a over inflated opinion of yourself.” I mean really?! You don’t see the double standard and hypocrisy in what you say? Why is it that liberals make the claim that conservatives and libertarians don’t care about the poor and yet liberals rely on government to do their charity while libertarians and conservatives give more to charity of their own accord? BTW what do you have against librarians?

      • knight4444

        BTW reading your last post, once again bears wittiness to your mental state of mind LOL first you FOOLISHLY “JUDGE” me on my car, my car?? REALLY? LOL it’s a 1991 Acura NSX, it’s not a new Ferrari. Secondly, your very next sentence, you proceeded to “JUDGE” my so called “PRIVILEGE” LOL you completely misunderstood my assertion of privilege, I’m referring to WHITE “PRIVILEGE”, that’s what YOU were born with, not me. Now of course, do I expect you to understand what I’m talking about ?? LOL oh and Jesus? he was the ultimate LIBERAL, just checkout the people he hung out with, it wasn’t the pat robertson, jerry falwell types! he knew who the REAL people were. @cliff, try actually reading the bible, rather than thumping it!

      • Cliff Isaac

        You are the one who asserted that i was weathly just because I am white. It is better to judge a person’s privilege based on what they have than what race they are. I never said you had a ferarri. The simple fact that you have a car puts you in a more advantageous position than me. Good for you.
        When we make assumptions about a person based on their skin color we are engaged in a logical fallacy. What we think we know is based on aggregated demographic information, some accurate, some not so much. We might think an Asian student is good at math because studies show that in the aggregate Asians score high in math. But while aggregations are made up of individual people, individual people are not made up of aggregations. It’s not a two way street. In areas such as medicine and public policy these aggregations can be useful in allocating resources, but on the individual level they are meaningless.

        The same is true for white privilege, as a whole our society still offers better opportunity and treatment to whites, but for any one individual that systemic racism may or may not result in practical advantage or disadvantage. Toure acknowledged this recently on MSNBC saying that the fact that not every white person can utilize white privilege doesn’t mean it’s not there, “just like that I don’t have a car doesn’t mean cars don’t exist”. Without meaning to, Toure actually delivered a fatal blow to the entire theory. If this privilege does not apply to every white person then we can only judge it one individual at a time. But in so doing the crystalline systemic iniquity that white privilege describes dissolves into the murky waters of individual lives. Jesus associated around people of all walks of life the rich and poor even those he looked at as lessers like the samaritans. He only preached to the jews though. Paul was given authority by Christ to preach to the Gentiles. Given your propensity for blanket statements I most likely have read more of the bible than you. Perjoratives never make for good arguments. So try to refrain from using disparaging remarks.

      • Bignevermo

        trib·al·ism
        ˈtrībəˌlizəm/
        noun
        the state or fact of being organized in a tribe or tribes.
        derogatory
        the behavior and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one’s own tribe or social group.
        He just spelled it incorrectly but it is a word…sir.

      • Cliff Isaac

        I know that tribalism is a word and what it means sir thank you.

      • knight4444

        @cliff, got that one semester of community college under his belt, now he actually believes he intelligent now, “T R I B A L I S M” I did correct myself earlier, right?

      • knight4444

        @cliff, @cliff, @CLIFF, I know it’s the internet and you can’t see my facial re-actions, trust me, Im not upset about the grammar thing, actually I thought it was funny. @CLIFF, for what it’s worth, I do respect your intelligence, I just wish you’d focus it for God’s glory. To answer your question on why I’m hard on libertarians? I believe we’re all God’s children, I believe in the golden rule, I do believe we’re all our brothers keeper, libertarianism, goes completely contrary to God’s word, Jesus didn’t die on the cross for us to be a “EVERY MAN for himself people”, libertarianism, is wrong! But my issue with you is, you quote the bible a two seconds later, destroy your own point with a philosophy of selfishness, @CLIFF, you can’t serve two masters, you need to choose, because frankly, your hypocrisy is jaw dropping. BTW I could spend hours telling you how utterly pathetic the democratic party is LOL but at least they don’t call me a savage NIGG#R in dog whistle catch phrases! and before you dismiss my comment, I strongly suggest you read how famous republican strategist, ”lee atwater” taught republican politicians, how to communicate to their base. ANYWAY, @CLIFF, just understand this, it doesn’t mean anything what I or anybody else says about you ideology, God’s opinion is the only one that matters, pick a side sir.

      • Cliff Isaac

        As Bible-believing Christians, we will agree with classical Libertarians incidentally, or coincidentally, but we do not do so epistemologically. We run on parallel tracks, but we have neither the same starting point, nor the same final destination in terms of our goals. We both want liberty, but for vastly different reasons.

        “Both Libertarians and Christians seek liberty but liberty is inextricably joined with law. Libertarian Ideology is not enamored with law.” — Al Cronkite

        As Christians, we need do not abandon God’s law, but instead we seek to have it written on our hearts.

        “Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.” (1 Peter 2:16, ESV) I am not an Ideologue. I am a christian apologetic person that values famliy over state. I do not charge god with genocide or contradictions for he has kept his word and shown mercy towards the sins of man
        I believe that if a man/woman can not live on 90% of his income he can not live on 100% of it. So I donate and volunteer at least 10% of my money and time while living below my means for the sake of my family. I too believe we are all God’s children and that we are our brother’s/sister’s keeper. I just don’t believe that a government that is insistent on a ever increasing wall between church and state. Where marriage is a state affair would be a good mechanism of voluntary altruism. So I vote against new taxes and legalization of marijuana that creates new monopolies of industry that are state endorsed. I live in a forced union state and I am in favor of the right to work act. So that people can not be barred from working in a high paying job because they don’t agree with the union’s agenda. I am also pro life but I realize that abortion laws do more harm than good given the comparisons of other countries infant mortality rates without abortion laws. I believe in the idea that people can self govern themselves under the moral code that encompasses the ten comandments as you put it the “golden rule”. Especially with the growing number of people turning to Christ in the world. It has quadrupled in the last 100 years that is not a sign of a dying religion. So tell me then how have shown my hypocrisy? So that I may see clearly.

      • Cliff Isaac

        Oh and I am also in favor of the death penalty for heinous crimes of undeniable proof.

      • Cliff Isaac

        Also just for the record i do not argue to destroy people but to win them over to Christ and to defend myself and my beliefs.

      • knight4444

        Well @cliff, I’ve done some study of american libertarianism many years agoand as I’ve stated earlier, that system wasn’t intended for minorities and women. Now Europe has it’s own version of libertarianism, I must confess, I haven’t studied it. Here’s the bottom line, if you can call yourself libertarian and a christian, then you go for it, it’s a complete contradiction of philosophies but it’s on you,but here’s some friendly advice, lighten up, stop being so defensive, it really hurts your credibility, stop attacking people with scripture, it’s not a battering ram. BTW thank God, Jesus wasn’t a libertarian, because he would have said, “DIE ON THE CROSS FOR HUMANITY??” sorry DAD, I’m about FREEDOM! it’s about ME!! let those foolish humans pull themselves up by their BOOT STRAPS! peace out man! I gotta ayn rand meeting to go to!! it’s all about OBJECTIVION!!! pops!!

      • Cliff Isaac

        No Sir, it certainly is insincerity and hypocrisy that discredits a person not defending one’s beliefs. As far as your claim that I attack you with scripture. That requires condemnation. I never did that using scripture against you or anyone else. That would make me no better than the people at the Westboro baptist church Screaming “god hates gays”. Like I said before Jesus was and is not a liberal nor conservative, nor a socialist or of any other political ideology. He was and is Apolitical and to label him anything other than that in regards to politics is to label him a hypocrite. His message was about spiritual truth not a prescription for polictical ideology. The Pharises were political ideologues and we all know what he thought of them. Identifying myself as a libertarian may have been a over generalization of my beliefs when it is purely and coincidentally parallel. You say to pick a side and that you can’t serve two masters. I agree. That is why politics and religion don’t mix they are diametrically different and incidently similar in the fact that they are both corruptable. BTW Ayn Rand was a cultist and considered Rothbard libertarians to be her enemies until her death. So what are your thoughts on him? Anyways God bless and if I don’t hear from you Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

      • knight4444

        @cliff, it’s been a pleasure talking with you, I wish more conservatives had your intelligence, stay strong and be your brothers keeper, remember this, Jesus is watching you lol Happy Holidays my friend.

      • knight4444

        My friend, you have completely utterly destroyed @cliff, but he’s too wrapped up in his WHITE privilege male dominated world to appreciate the wisdom you gave him! @cliff, is a pharrisee, you’ll never get through with someone that utterly brainwashed.

      • poppaDavid

        Thank you. He is a public speaker for many quiet believers. Addressing his positions, may provide a response to them as well.

      • poppaDavid

        Perhaps we are talking “past” each other rather than “with” each other. I would presume that we have different meaning for the significant words: capitalism, communism, socialism, free market. And we appear to have very different understanding of the words contained in the Bible.

        For example: you appear to define communism as the atheist, compulsive economic system promoted by Max, and nothing else. I define communism as the voluntary or involuntary communal ownership of property.

        You appear to define socialism as the same as interchangeable with communism. I define socialism as a system where economic exchange is required to include non-economic factors of social importance.

        You appear to define the free-market as a system of exchanges between persons that do not involve fraud or coercion. I add that when the exchanges are necessary to maintain life or health of one party, they are compelled to make the exchange. And I add that when some of the costs of the exchange are diverted to an unwilling third party that exchange is not truly free.

        You appear to define capitalism as equivalent to the free market. I define capitalism as the economic system were the owners of retained earnings invest that capital and take their income from the profit rather than from labor.

        You appear to define capitalism as good and the evils that exist as anomalies. You appear to define communism as evil and aways involuntary. While I define capitalism, socialism and communism as amoral, subject to the good or evil of the implementation.

        The differences make agreement unlikely.

      • poppaDavid

        Recognizing that the middle class has made the U.S. special is appropriate. Thanks to the efforts of conservatives over the last couple of decades their numbers have been shrinking as they slide down the economic ladder.

        Unlike the picture in your mind, there is such a thing as voluntary communism/socialism. The early Christians practiced it. They brought their wealth to the Apostles to share communally as they saw fit. They retained their homes as they saw fit. The monasteries practiced it. The economic vision of Karl Marx is not the only form of socialism/communism in the world.

      • Cliff Isaac

        I left out the fact that cartels are illegal in the U.S. But the world’s largest cartel – OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries representing 13 major oil producing nations — is not only recognized as a legal entity, it’s protected by U.S. foreign trade laws

  • lindylou

    A lot of “good” points are made here, but let’s back up a bit; they are all predicated on having a discussion with someone who is rational. If the person you are talking (or commenting) with starts out about “Hussein” Obama (Obummer, Obambam) and baby killing, and illegals stealing their jobs (as if), or the same cantaloup-thighed ones voting and getting medicare or social security, or let’s say, wind farms stealing the wind from other places, you just viscerally feel a deep satisfaction in giving some of their brutishness back.

    • Cliff Isaac

      Really? You have witnessed a conservative make a case about wind farms (no such thing) stealing wind from other places? I am a pro life conservative and i have never met any conservative or republican use such a mythological argument against wind energy.

      • lindylou

        Texas Congressman Joe Barton, 2009. To be fair he was citing a report he read. Granted that wind would “slow down the wind” as a finite resourse, was just part of his larger statement, but hey, nobody else parses statements to prove their own points?

      • Cliff Isaac

        Not if they want to be taken seriously.First, even though the meme used quotation marks to frame the comment as a single, unified quote, it’s actually a stitched-together mix of several snippets from Barton’s remarks.

        Second, the meme ignores that when Barton said that “wind is a finite resource,” he was explicitly quoting Apt’s paper, rather than saying that was his personal belief.

        Third, the meme overlooks that when Barton supposedly said that harnessing the wind “would slow the winds down, which would cause the temperature to go up,” he was actually asking the witness a question rather than stating his view.

        And fourth, the meme ignores that Barton said in the same exchange, “Now, I am not saying that is going to happen, Mr. Chairman.” In other words, what he was doing was posing a scenario to be discussed further.

        So, while Barton’s comments clearly show an openness to the ideas he addressed, the meme is off-base in suggesting that Barton was stating his own opinion.

      • lindylou

        I would be surprised that Barton is “open to ideas” … in public office he needs to consider what he is saying in that venue. I don’t feel 100 percent ashamed of repinning this comment on Barton, when we look at the larger picture of every rightwinger making an issue each and every vowel spoken by the democrats.

      • Cliff Isaac

        That’s why it’s called propoganda and not fact. Both sides are guilty of it and uneducated people fall for it every time. Thanks to indoctrination of several prominent universities even educated individuals subscribe to it. Namely Havard students to which your Barton quote originated from.

      • lindylou

        Then why did Barton even bring it up?

  • Rhonda Ovist

    I agree, especially with number one. Obviously, the left needs to reaffirm its superiority over others it defines inferior as much as thiseon the right. Until we can stop getting stuck in passing judgement, and be willing to honestly step out of our shoes and Into those of whom we disagree, so that we might be able to understand why they see the world the way they do, we will never make make a convincing argument for them to consider our point of view. Furthermore, the left is no better than the right when it comes to a mentality of dividing the world into “us” and “them,” and assuming that “them” epitomize the whole of everything we believe is wrong with our country. All the above represents simplistic thinking, easy “answers” to what are actually complex issues, and thus lazy approaches that do more to deepen the lines in the sand than cross them and build a more unified focus on the abuses of those in power.

    • Donny Lantier

      well said and appreciated! 🙂

  • Donny Lantier

    My central argument with a republican, democrat or independent is this: We all agree that we have a Consumer driven Economy…no disagreement there. In a Republican, trickle down economy, we give tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations with the basis that they will invest. Now why would I, if I were a Home Appliance manufacturer take my tax breaks, hire more people, build more appliances for consumers that cannot afford them, either because they are not receiving a living wage or out of work. I would not make that investment. Now, on the other side of the coin, if I were to take my tax breaks and give a living wage to my employees they can afford the home appliance and hey, guess what, if all the big Corporations did likewise, we could build another factory because now consumers can buy that new refrigerator and that is how we stimulate the economy and begin to really pay down the Federal debt and wow…they even have some money left over to save a few bucks to help their children to increase their education in a two year college or technical school and we all rise up. Now, re: Social Welfare programs…any thoughtful person has to recognize that both parties are certainly willing to help those who are truly in need…I mean TRULY in need. The idea that Republicans don’t care about the poor is hogwash and the idea that democrats wanna just give money away is equally hogwash…the problem lies in the way it is and to whom it is distributed. The solution is to address the fraud much more vigorously. Put a rigid system in place to determine who qualifies…squeeze out the fraud…Have mandatory drug tests and monitoring systems and we can better achieve what both parties want. I love this country and what we fundamentally stand for…treat each other with decency and respect, help where needed. Let the guy who created his own business make a decent living but no need to get greedy in the process. I do not affiliate with any particular religious thought, but I do know that laced thru every religious thought is the desire for human decency and fair play. I also know that we all know what the word fair means and how to act it out, some do it and some do not and that is why we need a government that will look out and catch the guy or gal who is not being fair in how they treat people in business and social affairs….yes, the government has faults…laden with special interest money and yes, it is our personal responsibility to vote to hire the people who will best rid us of special interest money and bring about a government that maintains the peoples business of fair play in business and social affairs.

    • Scott Lee

      YES YES AND YES TO EVERYTHING YOU STATED HERE ! Except the drug testing ! That is a waste of time, and money ! It cost more than it saves. The amount of drug users on welfare is insignificant ! All drug testing is an invasion of privacy I.M.O. ! Decriminalize all drugs, and use the money spent on the war on drugs, and open low cost / free rehab centers. “If we build it, they will come” Sorry couldn’t resist the movie quote.

    • tracey marie

      You are wrong about need, you are wrong about fraud, you are wrong

      • Donny Lantier

        but that does not make you right since you employ no discourse…very immature response…sorry to say… 🙁

      • tracey marie

        I refuse to discuss anything with someone who believes shaming, blaming and hating poor people is “discourse”. You spammed your crap twice

      • Donny Lantier

        I have never nor will I ever shame or blame or hate poor people…how you arrived at that analysis of what I said is far beyond me. It may serve you to read it more thoroughly…I come from poor so why would I even have such feelings…you must be so angry that you read exactly what you choose to read. I am sorry that you even could arrive at such mean and hateful responses.

      • Jon Krauser

        you in fact did shame the poor, when you felt the need to state “big fraud” and needed drug testing, you showed your true intent of what you were trying to state. Spending money to fight miniscule amount (fact) is a bigger fraud by republicans who use it as a strawman excuse to do away with public assistance….if you don’t know that….you truly are misinformed.

      • Donny Lantier

        So the recent discovery of $50 MIllion dollars that the taxpayers lost to hackers of the Unemployment Service stealing peoples IDs in Florida is not BIG fraud??? and taking for those who need it??? And those stealing from the other well-meaning Social services such as medicaid and food stamps is not big fraud??? Money the taxpayers place to assist those in need…they are stealing from those in need and this is okay??? I don’t think it is okay at all. There are many in true need of that money…those are the only ones who should get it. No well meaning person whether repub or dem or independent would not be willing to help those in need. It is the stealing that we all hate and if you are okay with that then you are right in what you say. There are some die-hard repubs who want to rid of social welfare programs, yes, but I also know that the biggest reason many attack the programs is because of the fraud and it is no small amount as you suggest…it is biliions of lost money to those who really need it. Any decent human being would be willing to assist those in need but it pains me to see fraud in much needed programs. You interpret as you wish, I not only pay taxes which help those in need but give 5% of pre-tax dollars ever pay period to United Way as well, so your suggestion that I don’t care about the fraud is essentially absurd, sorry to have to say. And yes, there is big fraud…look at the statistics.

    • poppaDavid

      A modest proposal. For tax purposes, companies may deduct expenses paid to American taxpayers (people and businesses) and they may not deduct expenses to foreign sources. For example, if Nike buys shoes from an American plant we can reasonably expect that the company and the workers pay American taxes. If Nike buys shoes from a Chinese company, we can reasonably expect that the plant doesn’t pay American taxes, so Nike should pay the U.S. tax for them.

  • Mark Davis

    Excellent! Fox News is the flagship enterprise of the Conservative Disinformation Network (see http://kaleokualoha2878577.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/09/5793761-the-conservative-disinformation-network-13-march-2011?lite ).

  • Teri Thompson Crane

    Well said. Now would someone explain to me why a woman would vote Republican? Surely she must think she’s worth a wage equal to a man’s?

    • tracey marie

      or has autonomy over her own body.

    • shortbusbob

      most women earn the same salary as men for the same job just do not put in equal time on the job because they are generally the ones that take time off from work to take care of children and sick loved ones

      • Teri Thompson Crane

        and you know this because….? Sorry, but the women I’ve worked with and for over the past 40 years are harder workers–and paid less–than men. As for this taking care of the kids business, I’m talking about professional career women who don’t take time off for anybody. I think your argument is very weak. Are you a Republican by any chance?

      • boomergran

        Have you been watching Faux “News”? Because everyone else says there’s definitely a pay gap – and it has nothing to do with staying home with the kids. More women are graduating from college than men, and with higher degrees, but are still paid less. So unless you have real evidence – not from some right-wing source – it’s probably in your best interests that you don’t advertise to the world that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      • Jon Krauser

        that was stupid, it doesn’t matter if they take time off, they are not paid for it…it would true, IF, they were paid for time off.

  • Jaguar67

    Great analysis………………….Why is there another fucking “rate Obama” Newsmax poll on this site?

    • Frank Lazar

      It’s Newsmax, should that really be a surprise?

  • Pingback: Wrong Again! Libs Perplexed Why “Poor” People Vote Republican, Again Claim It’s Racism – Downtrend()

  • Bad Habit

    ……. so….. stupid.

  • Mark K. Laux

    Republican’s are better with their message as well. They stay on point where democrats tend to drift over time. To change the abortion balance, we need to change the discussion all together. Nobody wants an abortion, and nobody wants to hurt a woman who is just trying to do her best in a situation that isn’t ideal. So if we can start talking about making abortion completely unnecessary we can change the dialog from baby killers to something a little more universally acceptable. For religion, again, we need to shift the dialog. The bible is filled with liberal points of view. What republicans’ have done is cull out the biblical passages that push conservatives issues, and what democrats need to do is push biblical passages that have a more progressive stance. The bible is nothing if not contradictory. And finally, listen to people. One of the problems with both parties is nobody listens to anyone. But the first party to listen to the voice of the disenfranchised will win their hearts.

    • poppaDavid

      I am not sure that the conservative voters feel disenfranchised. They are part of a culture and community of like minded people, and they like having a secure “place” in the “order of things”. They are not at the bottom, and conservative leaders promise to keep them there. When a liberal rocks the boat, that puts their feeling of security at risk.

  • 如果你能读懂这些文字,你就是个老外

    The majority of poor people are poor due to education gap, basically the same reason why they vote Repuke.

    The other reason to vote Repuke is if you are rich and you dont want to pay more than 10% in taxes on 20 Million in income, of course you vote Repuke in that case, its an commercial decision.

  • What are the solutions? If you are courteous to a wing nut, they’ll stomp you in the dirt. Or, in order to maintain peace you will have to pretend that their opinion is valid, and that it is ok to base your argument on already disproven information. I have reasonably kept returning to the facts and they still feel that is elitist. I think they consider anyone who thinks an elitist. When someone willfully embraces a belief without facts supporting it, you are not going to change it by the reasonable inclusion of facts.

  • Brendan

    There is also the issue of denial.
    Many working class people will support the rights of the rich and tax breaks for the rich because they live under the false hope that they will some day be rich too.
    They will protect the interests of the rich rather than face the reality that they, like most working class people, will always be working class.

  • Pingback: - Welcome to Progressive Values | Welcome to Progressive Values()

  • Eugene Staten

    I agree with everything except 5. That is NOT the definition of predestination.

    As far as 2 is concerned, the racist democrats who became republican during the 60s may be in their 70s but their younger siblings and their children are between 45 and 65. They are our governors and legislators.

    I think the major reason many adhere to a political dogma is because 80 percent of us humans are sheep. They are too busy grazing and surviving to stop and think about issues, so they accept the opinions of those they believe are experts, like any news source.

    I have a real problem with legal abortion and I have an equally deep problem with greed being a sacred cow. I hate that I pay 28 percent tax for my thousands while billionaires pay only 11 percent.

    This is why I am an Independent.

  • judy jackson

    I live in a rural area in the South (western NC) where many of the residents did not complete high school. They are hard working and good people but do not read about politics and candidates and then analyze who they will vote for on election day. They hear sound bytes and take them at face value with no effort to research the facts for themselves. Also the Baptists have a stronghold in this area,all the way from the big First Baptist Churches to the little country churches on every corner. It is ingrained in the culture from many generations back that you do not question the preachers and people buy everything they say hook,line,,and sinker. It is assumed that if you are a Christian then you vote anti-gay,anti-immigrant,anti abortion rights and gun rights are a given. The Republicans have convinced these people that if you compromise at all then it is a slippery slope to a Godless mayhem.Unfortunately many are very uneducated, literacy rates are probably junior high level at best, and what they hear a preacher say they believe to be infallible. You won’t change them by arguing so I just avoid political topics. I am generalizing but it is true for 90% of the people who grew up here. What is interesting is that I identify as a Christian (more liberal denomination but grew up as a Southern Baptist) and switched to the Democratic Party about 15 years ago because I believe that social justice, helping the poor,not being greedy, and basic human rights should be things that Christians care about. The Republican Party is full of hateful rhetoric. But as long as they can convince people that being against gay rights and abortion are a litmus test for Christianity then they will have their vote. The 3 liberal churches in the county are full of the educated thinking people. The liberals that hate on Christians just further polarize people and it results in an “us versus them” (Christians vs liberals,ie Democrats). I would like to hear more people like me who vote Democratic BECAUSE of their Christianity. Sorry to get on my soapbox but this is a huge issue where I live. I have tried to explain that to support equal rights for gay people does not mean that you think gay marriage is moral (although I personally do). It is just acknowledging that everyone should be able to make their own choices (on abortion also) based on their personal moral framework and religious/spiritual views. I have tried to draw analogies between the Taliban and laws that incorporate Mosaic law into American law but they can’t see that.I think we need a public relations campaign showing Christians who vote Democratic because it is the more moral platform. Until the mainstream churches can open their eyes and recognize social justice issues as a Christian cause then they will always vote Republican even if they would be better off under a Democratic administration. And yes, liberals sometimes can treat the less educated voter (particularly in the rural South) as a caricature of a religious hick and no one wants to be disrespected. The old saying of “you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar ” applies. The Republican Party instills fear in uneducated ,rural people and unites them against the perceived enemy. The entire agenda revolves around negative campaigns-who and what you are against. The Democrats need to stay positive,upbeat, and not lower themselves to negative ugly campaigning. It needs to give the lower socioeconomic class something to vote for- a positive agenda that is not fear based.It worked for FDR and JFK . Until the liberals quit stereotyping the rural voter who lives in a trailer,goes to church,and works hard for every dollar they will never,ever swing those votes to the liberal side. Unfortunately the people who advise politicians on their campaigns do not understand the demographic. An outsider will look at polls and try to create strategy. What is needed is college educated people who grew up in these poorer rural areas and understand what motivates these voters and how to appeal to them. When Democrats tell them that their religion is wrong and they are stupid for being believers you have lost them. It doesn’t matter how ways that they will be financially better off with a Democratic candidate. Sorry to be so wordy but I really do know that the Democrats need a brand new strategy based on respect.And I am a native Southerner who grew up in GA in a county so rural that it is still 40 miles to the nearest Walmart!

  • worrierking

    America has institutionalized fear of “the Other” since the days of the industrial revolution. Each new wave of immigrants was held up to the previous wave as lower than them, willing to work for less than they were paid and more foreign.

    Irish were fearful of Italians, who were fearful of Germans, etc. And then when the great migration of blacks from the south to the north was taking place, all those of European ancestry had their rage directed towards blacks.

    Corporate America with the collusion of the state, local and federal governments instilled division among those who worked the factories and the farms. As long as they fought each other, they would never organize to fight the owners of the nation’s wealth, the Robber Barons, or as we call them today, the “job creators”.

  • Pingback: How Religion Bought Democrats in the South, Again | theliberalsouthernbelle()

  • Pingback: How a “hippy” church in Kansas changed my outlook on the world. | The Liberal Southern Belle()

  • Nathan Cameron

    The Republicans get Fox News to tell people the same things repeatedly until they believe it to be true then come in and promise to save them. And truthfully, CNN does the same. I watch both channels and pay close attention to the things that both unknowingly agree on which must be the truth. But if people want the complete truth about what’s going on in the United States, they should watch BBC news as well as read news reports online from Australian media sources.

  • Pingback: The Triumph of Despair | All the politics()

  • Pingback: Reasons Why People Save Money – Save money, Make money()

  • Pingback: 5 Reasons Why We Save Money – Save money, Make money()

  • Pingback: Google()