Cynical? Who, me?

Good God!

which is all I can think of to say in response to news like this...

I found some resources about Professor Hamill's work. The site for PBS's Religion and Ethics Newsweekly (a great show) has an excellent interview with Hammill. It looks like she may not be stopping with taxes:

Yes, the Bible is relevant for many things. In the conclusion of my book, after the article [on tax reform, I ask], do these principles speak to anything other than taxes? I think that maybe they do, although clearly I haven't developed that. I don't mention health care, but I do mention immigration. I do mention criminal justice. The fundamental doctrine that "the least of these" cannot be oppressed and they have to have some kind of minimum shot I do think applies universally to more areas of concern than just taxation. But I haven't developed that yet.

Even better, in its own way, is her Alabama Law Review article An Argument for Tax Reform Based on Judeo-Christian Ethics. This is the real deal, an article on tax law by a tax professional with deep research support -- I love it. And there is her book, which for some reason I can't find on Amazon.

In one sense, this should not be surprising. People seem to forget that the alliance of evangelicals and political conservatives is of recent vintage, and that when they were involved at all in the past, evangelical clergy were just as likely (if not a little more likely) to be politically liberal as conservative.

Yes.

It's also an inspiring example of someone doing the right thing, finding the right angle to say something, and that having an effect.

It's only one report, and it's not time to vote yet, but I was a little disappointed to hear that this rare summoning of courage was met by the usual reaction from those who buy into the "help the rich" rhetoric that comes from DC these days.

So I've kept my mouth shut about taxes, become something of a libertarian in any event.

At the same time, I've spent progressively greater amounts of time in studying the Bible, praying, and making the needed examination of the way I live and regard the people around me.

And this entry finally gave me the answer to beliefs on fiscal policy I've wanted to adopt all along -

"The've got their American Dream, and they can damned well foot the bill for it."

I think that the current mainstream (i.e., cheap-labor) conservative domestic policy is clearly immoral. I think that a proper moral approach to domestic policy inevitably leads one to a progressive formulation of domestic policy.

The whole American Prospect article is fascinating reading. Don't miss the discussion of the opposition to the tax referendum, which is led by a "Christian" group which gets most of its funding from the people and corporations who will be taxed more heavily by the new plan, and which does not bother to try and refute the Christian arguments of Hamill, Riley, et al.

I doubt it. I think it would be a Good Work to get this story, and Hamill's teachings, a lot more publicity.

Jesus was a communist, after all.

There are plenty of nominally Christian conservatives who manage to avoid thinking about that. The term for them is "Chino", short for "Christian in name only."

That plus all the old psalms from childhood made an interesting evening of reading.

I think that was the only time Jesus specifically talked about taxes, but it has been a while since I read it.

The Christian Coalition makes me angry because they are taking the Word and distorting it. First of all, they have fastened on "Render unto Caesar. ..." All that means, basically, is that taxes are not unlawful or immoral per se. You cannot say, "I'm a person of God; therefore, I don't have to pay my taxes." Jesus was not commenting at all on whether the taxes were fair or unfair. That passage does not in any way obliterate the requirement to work for justice, if in fact you have anything to say about justice. So the Caesar thing is almost a red herring, or at least it doesn't get to the heart of the matter, which is, given that we have to have taxation to run our state, you cannot run a state or community based on voluntary contributions; we're too greedy for that. The question is, okay, then it better be fair, since it's legally compelled. Is it fair? Do we have justice? That's the question. The Caesar thing doesn't help you there.

Another thing the Christian Coalition has said, which has really been irritating, is that this is all about charity, and it's up to the churches to give charity, to worry about the poor. The Bible does command charity and beneficence. Whether or not we're doing a good job of that in Alabama, well, there's a bit of a dispute that I'm not into, because my purpose is justice, not charity. But I will say this: even if you get an A+ in charity, if your churches are doing a wonderful job with the soup kitchens and everything else, an A+ in charity does not in any way mitigate an F in justice. You can't average the two out to be a C. When I talk about this in church, I say, "I'm going to assume for argument that, in the state of Alabama, we get an A+ for beneficence and charity, that we are really good at it, with our 8,000-plus churches." Some people say that's not a valid assumption, that we've got too many building campaigns. But I say, "Just assume that for a minute. Does that somehow excuse an F in justice, excuse that we tax the poor on wages into poverty, excuse that the public schools, especially in the rural areas, are substandard? Can we use an A+ in charity to say we don't have to be concerned about this injustice? No. The Bible commands both. They are separate. They are equally important, and one cannot replace the other." What the Christian Coalition is doing is confusing the two. If charity could establish justice, if they didn't have to be separate, then don't you think with our 8,000-plus churches and all the Christians we would be the shining light of the nation, instead of at the bottom in this area? Think about it. Just looking at Alabama is proof that charity cannot replace justice.

I see a need for that term, but have problems with that particular one. Where I am, it's the Spanish generic for "person from East Asia".

"That the saints may enjoy their beautitude and the grace of God more abundantly, they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell." -- Thomas Aquinas

Move it into the real world, and adopt a belief that wealth is a sign of grace, and lack of wealth is a sign of the lack of grace, and it would follow that there's no need to help the poor. In fact, helping the wealthy would be akin to helping the top of a hierarchy of the saved. Helping the poor would be akin to helping the damned.

Obviously, you don't want the state set up to assist the damned, but if a member of the saved has a charitable thought for them, well, that's peachy.

Chinos probably wouldn't feel so good about themselves if they couldn't contemplate the contrast between themselves and those lazy, filthy, sinning poor people.

I prefer to see the word used as a jab at a commonplace hypocrisy than as a racial epithet. Let's hope TNH's usage replaces the one you are familiar with. (I prefer "whited sepulchres", myself, although I admit it rolls less trippingly off the tongue.)

That said, it, or something equally pithy, is a useful term to have around. And like the man and the fish, the colloquialismms no doubt can coexist.

Profit for the sake of profit is an evil which we are all presently experiencing; profit as an element of fulfilling some human purpose is utterly necessary.

'Accumulating money' isn't an acceptable human purpose when it leaves a human scale of utility.

No indication in that article that they're after anything like that, even if they think what they're after is something Jesus would approve of.

I think a dynamic Christian centre that was taking the Gospels seriously would be a very good thing to have enter the American political landscape.

Jesus was not making up something new and different, he was telling the Jews what the prophets had been telling them for hundreds of years and holding them accountable for not living their beliefs. (from the sermon on the mount: "do not suppose I come to abolish the law and the prophets, I come not to abolish but to complete".)

The Hebrew Bible is full of tales of the poor, the powerless, and women being raised up by God to confound the rich and the unjust.

Christians have a right and an obligation to call their fellow Christians to task when they ignore these principles. This is not an attempt to insert religion in the political process but a call at the personal level to ask people to live what they say they believe. It is quite different from someone like Falwell standing in his pulpit and criticizing non-Christians for being non-Christians, duh, of course they aren't.

The exegetical abuse of the Caesar passage by the literalist 'religious' right is typical of the slipshod way they approach the biblical text they claim to revere. They never take literally the parts of the Bible that apply to their behavior.

See Romans 13:1-7, especially verse 5-7.

Then again, maybe it's just me.

I keep thinking of Maria's fiance, who shoots Tony in West Side Story.

Cheers,
Tom

Deuteronomy is the Old Testament, or the old covenant. The point of the New Testament is that Jesus makes a new covenant with all people (Hebrews 8). That new covenant overrides and revises elements of the old, especially as it is supposed to not be written law, but in the hearts of people (Hebrews 8:10). Deuteronomy 14:21 specifically is overridden in Mark 7:1-23 and Acts 10:9-16. And just for kicks, Deuteronomy itself already revises laws laid down in Exodus. The OT repeatedly revises the covenant, and the NT more often than not is fairly wishy-washy regarding the requirements of the new one.

My 1/50 of a dollar. FWIW. IMV,VHO. Void where prohibited, restricted or taxed.

Randolph, I think I'm dense this morning, but I don't see how that actually revises the verse I quoted.

Xopher, I understand your point; the reason I wonder is that the period was in the original quotation (I believe, but not having the original to hand I'm not certain); I'm odd in wanting to put the period outside the quote marks when it's not actively originally included, allowing the ellipsis to be inferred. With two punctuation marks intervening (the closes quotes and parenthesis) I slightly fear the closing of the original statement getting lost. Not to say you're wrong on it being a style issue -- just hoping to expand my reasons for wondering.

Cheers,
Tom

For NT sources, consider 1 Timothy 1:9-10, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and Romans 1:26-27, all of which condemn homosexuality in a pretty unambiguous fashion. (And then your run-of-the-mill bigots can go back and pull the OT parts back into evidence as part of the law to be obeyed; not that these people are generally likely to consider such exegetical niceties.)

Alternate interpretation of Timothy and Corinthians..

Romans 1:26-27 is less ambiguous. Here Paul is writing in condemnation of Roman ex-Christians who have left their faith and engaged in pagan rituals, which he says included orgiastic heterosexual behaviour and male homosexual behaviour. To argue that this verse should also be applied to lesbian and gay Christians would be absurd, if not for the many hatefilled bigots who have chosen to betray their religion in this manner.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc5.htm

As for the bit of Deuteronmy you cited, it is written that Peter had a vision which relieved the apostles from many of the dietary laws--Acts 10:9-16. (That one took research, though I vaguely remembered it.)

Xopher, Paul just plain didn't like any sort of bodies and sexuality very much, and I believe there it is found--but I'm not going to research it, I have other things to do with this day!--one of the major sources of the sexual repressiveness of the later church.

I have an old pre-Vatican II prayer book. It lists the seven sins which cry out to heaven. Yes, homosexuality is there as is abortion, but so is defrauding a worker of his wages and cheating widows. The Catholic Church considers homosexuality (not being homosexual -- being gay in itself is not a sin) to be a sin, but it's not the worst sin. Not loving is truly the worst sin. The most promiscuous person in the world, gay or straight, has a higher place in heaven than one who obeys all the commandments if the first loves and the second doesn't.

Berni, the Catholic Church is wrong on this. Not just a little wrong: completely, absolutely, stupidly wrong. It's a kind of "what's wrong with this picture?" image, isn't it? "One of these things is not like the others." Declaring homosexuality a sin (and the "being homosexual isn't a sin - providing you're celibate your entire life, God will let you off" crap really doesn't work, unless you want to believe in a hateful, cruel God who creates people solely in order to torment them) is a cruel and horrible thing to do - you only have to talk to gay kids reared Catholic to know that. It's a form of child abuse, deliberately telling impressionable youngsters that there's something wrong with them (especially when there isn't) and encouraging other children to believe that there is something wrong with homosexuals. Of course it's not a form of child abuse that is exclusive to Christians: but so many Christians have indulged in it and still do that it seems worth pointing out, as often as possible, that they do so without any real unambiguous backing from either the Old or the New Testament: they are doing so because it is a thousand-year tradition in the Catholic Church to persecute people who have sex with their own gender.

http://www.datelinealabama.com/article/2003/09/04/4575_opinions_art.php3

In a recent email, she said, "It's the plantation mentality, alive and well in BAMA. If you keep the folks poor and dumb, they'll work hard for you and won't get all uppity like their northern brethern."

Being just and charitable are unambiguous commandments. The bits of the Bible quoted as being against homosexuality are far more ambiguous. To give you some idea, some of them have been interpreted in the past as condemnations of masturbation.

The early church canonized some saints whom a reasonable interpretation of the evidence would say were openly gay.

One interpretation I've heard of the "render unto Caesar" episode -- I don't know how authoritative this is -- is that the coins they all had in their pockets would have had Roman rulers stamped on them. If you're dealing in the world, you pay taxes in the world.

My father's old crony, Waldo Dewitt, once made a similar decision when he was an Arizona State Tax Commissioner. He was hearing a case where a tax protester said he didn't have to pay taxes because U.S. dollars weren't backed by gold and thus weren't real money. Waldo asked him how he'd gotten to the hearing.

"I drove," he said.

"You buy gas on the way?"

"Yes."

"What did you use to pay for it?"

The more general problem is that Paul had lots of hangups about sexuality in general, did in particular not approve of any extramarital sex, and considered even marriage to be an inferior alternative to celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:32-34,38). To assume, based on a fairly dubious linguistic interpretation, that he would somehow exempt any homosexual practices from his lists of sins sounds like wishful thinking to me.

I am personally not sure why one should adhere to what Paul is saying in that regard of all things. He advocates a lot of other things that we would never accept these days, from the misogynistic views expressed in 1 Corinthians 14:34-3 to the admonishment to slaves to obey their masters as they would obey Christ in Ephesians 6:5-8. If one uses his views to support homophobia, then by extension, they can also be used to support a lot of other nasty stuff.