It seems that the people in the Clinton administration forgot that for some people controlling other people is a lot more important and attractive than controlling the economy--i.e. things. Since controlling other people presumes a hierarchy, egalitarian policies and achievements are anathema to them. What the Clinton people perceived as good, these other factions considered to be bad.
Those are the people who are now in charge of our government. It's quite possible that the reason they got in is because we are not able to recognize that evil is not about the self; evil is about controlling others.
Well, the notion that the power to tax is the power to destroy may have had validity when governments did nothing but control the population and wage wars against their neighbors. However, when governments are designed to serve the will of the people, then the failure to contribute to the provision of those services constitutes a special privilege which, especially in the case of religion, is not to be granted either.
For some reason there is a basic discontinuity between our ostensible support for the concept of private property and the apparent desire to regulate it through taxation. Church properties are exempt because of an assumption that they provide a public service that provides a general public benefit.
Of course, Republicans, if they were honest, would have to admit that their support for religious institutions is largely based on the belief that religious authority is better at controlling the general population and does so more cheaply.
There is a difference between the person and the office. There is also a difference between people doing their job and not.
The people who have been charged with legislating have largely abrogated that responsibility, relying instead on the executive to tell them what they should be doing.
People like to have eaders in part because leaders are a convenient locus of blame and praise and it seems to be human nature to assign responsibility, especially for failure, somewhere else. It's because that happened during Reagan and Bush One that Rummy and his whole crew are still with us.
I doubt very much that any of those people are going to be retained by Kerry.
Increasingly, Clinton looks to me like an inter-regnum. My spouse compares it to whatever the period is called when the ministers rule until the Dauphine comes of age.
Yes, but the separation of Church and State in the constitution is based on the realization that the power of religion to control people by regulating what they think should not, on the one hand, be augmented by the power of the gun, or, on the other, be in any way restricted.
The individual has no rights when the state perceives its power to be threatened. Just recently we have seen that, except when a person risks incriminating himself by speaking, he has no right to remain silent.
That whole lust for things is what's driven me right out of the organized church, even though I'm still as ardently Christian as ever.
Posted by volneysimmons - visit DFA Talent at July 3, 2004 10:17 AM
Well, there may well be an element of lust on the part of those who instigate the building of churches. More likely, there is the gratification of making others do your bidding.
On the other hand, man is a tool-using creature and a builder. He likes making things with his hands. Also, man is a social animal and enjoys working with others on a common project. The amassing of the resources (both men and material) to construct a large project has to fall to someone. Whether that person is a religious leader (giving orders in the name of a deity) or a political leaders (giving orders in the name of a defined population or with a gun in his hand) or a traders who's perspicacity has enabled him to envision a project made of up many different parts, the organizing force is necessary if any major project is to be achieved.
I'm not quite sure why making and having things is less ethical or moral than persuading people to do things your way. You'd think that by now we would realize that the distinction between matter and spirit is a rather useless construct.
Well, I am not sure that determining one's contribution to the community as a whole on the basis of how much property one has accumulated and claimed responsibility for is the best way to go. It is the basis on which religious institutions are exempt.
There is an implicit assumption that because they have "chosen" on their own to concern themselves with people's spiritual welfare that they are thereby exempt from contributing to the physical needs of the whole community.
Why should a commitment to a particular way of thinking exempt one or a group from the social responsibilities that others support? Why should a commitment to a deity make it possible to enjoy a social center for singing and dancing and communal eating (not unlike in a country club) while fire and police and transportation services are provided for nothing?
Churches promote exclusivity. They exclude people who don't think like the membership. They exclude people who don't look like most of the members. Why should exclusive organizations benefit from a public subsidy?
By the way, it's quite possible to be exclusive without overtly keeping anyone out. You either make membership so onerous that the "wrong" people won't want to join or you simply ignore everyone who doesn't fit in.
That, of course, is why affirmative action is necessary. Neither abjuring exclusivity or practicing "benign neglect" is sufficient to realize a well-integrated community.