Smart people saying smart things

Juan Cole: “When Politicians promise ‘Lower Taxes’ they are promising Collapsed Bridges”

The next time you hear politicians campaigning on “lower taxes,” you should realize two things.

First, they don’t intend to lower your taxes, which are probably mostly Social Security. In fact, they might like effectively to raise those taxes by extending the retirement age. They mean they intend to lower taxes for rich people and corporations.

Second, what they really mean is that they intend to deny you basic social services of the sort government provides through your taxes, such as upkeep of roads and bridges. They want to allow the trucking and other corporations who use those resources to escape paying for them (most road degradation is caused by trucks), and pass the cost on to you, either in the form of tolls or of deteriorating infrastructure. I.e., when they campaign on lower taxes they are actually promising you that your bridges will collapse.

Abigail Rine: “Why Some Evangelicals Are Trying to Stop Obsessing Over Premarital Sex”

If this collection of voices is any indication, the traditional battle lines of the abstinence culture war are beginning to blur. A revisionist evangelical view of sexuality appears to be emerging, one that doesn’t revolve around that ultimate youth-group quandary — how far is too far? Although each of these post-purity perspectives diverges from the current evangelical narrative to varying degrees, the common thread among them seems to be a desire for a more holistic sexual ethic, one that remains thoroughly Christian while shifting away from the metaphor of purity to concepts of sexual health and wholeness. What is still unclear is whether these revisions will gain traction within evangelicalism or remain confined to progressive inlets of the evangelical subculture.

Darren Sherkat: “Suspect ‘Science’”

When we talk about [Mark] Regnerus, I completely dismiss the study. It’s over. He has been disgraced. All of the prominent people in the field know what he did and why he did it. And most of them know that he knew better. Some of them think that he’s also stupid and an ideologue. I know better. I know that he’s a smart guy and that he did this on purpose, and that it was bad.

William Lloyd Garrison on willful ignorance, 1853

Those who do wrong ignorantly, do not willingly continue in it, when they find they are in the wrong. Ignorance is not an evidence of guilt certainly. It is only an evidence of a want of light. They who are only ignorant, will never rage, and rave, and threaten, and foam, when the light comes; but being interested and walking in the light, will always present a manly front, and be willing to be taught and be willing to be told they are in the wrong.

Take the case of slavery: How has the anti-slavery cause been received? Not argumentatively, not by reason, not by entering the free arena of fair discussion and comparing notes; the arguments have been rotten eggs, and brickbats and calumny, and in the southern portion of the country, a spirit of murder, and threats to cut out the tongues of those who spoke against them. What has this indicated on the part of the nation? What but conscious guilt? Not ignorance, not that they had not the light. They had the light and rejected it.

How has this Woman’s Rights movement been treated in this country, on the right hand and on the left? This nation ridicules and derides this movement, and spits upon it, as fit only to be cast out and trampled underfoot. This is not ignorance. They all know the truth. It is the natural outbreak of tyranny. It is because the tyrants and usurpers are alarmed. They have been and are called to judgment, and they dread the examination and exposure of their position and character.

Letha Dawson Scanzoni: “There Is More Than One Christian View on Homosexuality”

It is said that the abolitionists found that their religious arguments against slavery tended to be less convincing to most people than the religious arguments of those who justified slavery, simply because of the way most people read their Bibles, taking only a proof-text approach. I think we face a similar situation today in taking a religious position on the question of homosexuality. Many people read the Bible in a mechanical way as though it’s a list of rules, like a traffic manual, with every single verse having the same importance and without consideration of the times, cultures, and conditions in which various passages were written. We need to help people understand more about biblical interpretation, translations, and so on. And we need to examine the principles of Scripture rather than pulling out individual verses without regard to context.

 

  • Chris Hadrick

    our federal income tax doesn’t pay for any of those things except soldiers of which there are about a million too many along with the whole military industrial complex.

    what benefit for example do I get from helping our government pay interest on the debt that they created?

    “As for teachers you’d end up having to hire private live-in tutors for your kids if you didn’t want to teach them yourself at least the basics of literacy and arithmetic.”

    or send them to the thing called private school

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    http://i.imgur.com/UCMSnMC.gif

    That would basically be my reaction to you right now.

  • mattmcirvin

    It didn’t bankrupt the US, actually. There are a million things the money could have been better spent on (all those things Eisenhower talked about in his farewell address: feeding the hungry, educating children, art and science and infrastructure) but the US managed it all right, all in all. We ended up running a huge debt but it was a manageable amount relative to GDP.

    The fiscal trouble comes when you want huge amounts of military spending *and* low taxes *and* start talking about a balanced budget.

  • Charby

    Exactly! I think it’s because they come up with their conclusion first (“Christian school prayer should be mandatory here”) then go back and try to construct an ethical framework that would ‘naturally’ lead to that conclusion and only that conclusion, everywhere. It’s kind of like being a strict constructionist or a Biblical literalist — you’ll notice that the Bible or the Constitution never prevents them from doing anything they really care about. However, they are awfully sympathetic when those texts prevent you from doing something you care about.

    (See also: Ron Paul — “Racial discrimination is unfortunate, but the Constitution doesn’t empower the federal government to act in this matter so there’s nothing they can do about it. Too bad.” vs. Ron Paul — “Abortion is bad, so the federal government must take decisive action to restrict it.” even though the Constitution doesn’t empower the government there either.)

  • Daniel Björkman

    The difference feels very academic to me, also.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X