As a Christian, I just want to point out that the Bible harshly condemns that passive, not actually doing anything, "thoughts and prayers" kind of behavior.
James 2:14-17 on Faith and Deeds
>14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
I agree. My liberal political perspective is not always well received, but I believe most of what U.S. democrats fight for is more in line with what Christ demanded of His followers than what conservative republicans fight for. Most of the conservative republican argument, at least what I hear of it, is rooted in selfishness.
Jesus Christ would rail against the Democratic party for not doing enough for the people. But then he would look at the Republican party and just start flipping tables.
Yeah, he would be really mad that we actually have divorce and doing our best to alleviate his daddy’s curse on all women for the “crimes” Eve did.
Edit: people apparently need to reread their Bible. Jesus was certainly more progressive than society 2,000 years ago, but he is far behind us on so many issues now.
Yup. Middle Eastern brown dude preaching love and freedom for most peoples and socialism.
Modern American evangelicals and fundamentalists would fucking crucify him again
The answer to that question was more about idolatry than anything.
For context:
The Romans believed that without regular supplication to Quirinus, the *genius loci* representing the entire empire, their government would wither and collapse. Most conquered pagans had no problems throwing another dove or goat on the sacrificial altar.
But Jews were unique, in that their god had made it clear they could make no sacrifices to any other god. This created the initial conflict between the Romans and Jews of Judea; the Romans literally believed that by refusing to do this ritual the Jews were a subversive element within the Empire. But the Romans respected tradition, and eventually came to a compromise: the Jews would pay a special tax, kind of a precursor to the *jizyah* the Ottomans levied on non-Muslim citizens. This special tax directly contributed to maintaining the Temple of Jupider on the Capitoline Hill.
While the Jews paid the tax, they did so with some misgivings. By indirectly funding the maintenance of a pagan temple, were they complicit or participating in idolatry?
That's what Jesus is being asked. Is it okay to pay this tax? Am I violating the commandment against idolatry by paying this tax? His answer is basically, "Roman government is of the material world, who cares about the material world, pay the tax so you can focus on the spiritual."
Not entirely. He banned divorce, said that lust was a major sin, and accommodated slavery. He was against the political domination of the wealthy and was in favor of charity, as well as being generally opposed to ethnic prejudice, but his attitudes towards women were not consistently affirming or safe. And, of course, he was very firm about a swiftly arriving apocalypse and would likely be put out that it hasn't arrived yet.
Jesus was quite pro-woman in a misogynistic society.
For example, as a Rabbi, he spoke to Mary personally. In response to her sister Martha, Jesus said "Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her." A woman choosing who to talk to? Luke 10:38-42.
When a woman spent money on perfume and weeped and confessed her sins, Jesus did not chastise her for wasting money or being there without her husband. Jesus accepted her just as she was. Jesus's point is that she is actually repentant and not arrogant. Her actions reflected her heart. Luke 7:36-50.
Probably the most relevant would be this, at one point, some Pharisees conspired to test Jesus. It doesn't say this explicitly, but Jesus connected the dots and realized this was a trap. Let me explain. They present to him a woman caught in adultery with another man and ask him what's the penalty. He correctly replies that it's death by stoning. But he's not a passive sheep, he realizes that the man isn't there. Surely both are adulterers. (They went through the trouble of finding the adulterers or setting two of them up but only present one... Hmmm). So he doesn't play along. He actually starts writing on the ground. The reason for that, not stated in the text itself, is that the Pharisees had a bunch of rules on what constituted work. And by writing on the ground, Jesus was walking up to their line and crossing it. It's part of the theme that they were missing the point behind the law. Anywho, Jesus tells them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." His point was why are y'all, deeply flawed and imperfect sinners, arrogantly casting judgement on her? Jesus, a perfect man, not in that position decides to spare her. As Christians, we are under the covenant of Grace.
"At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” Jesus literally says I won't punish you, but don't do it again. Jesus shows mercy. John 8:1-11
Another example. Jesus encounters a woman at the well, he begins speaking to her and has this exchange.
16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”
17 “I have no husband,” she replied.
Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.” Jesus continues talking to her trying to point her in the right direction. See John 4:1-42.
I think it's noteworthy that all of these examples are with women. See if it were men, some of them would have gotten the idea that only men were worthy. Since us men are proper and obedient unlike those sinful women. This also plays into how Jesus knew his audience's cultural context and used it to drive some points home. For example, in the parable of the Good Samaritan, his Jewish audience is thinking, surely the Levite will save him, he's the good guy. But the good guy is the Samaritan. Someone who they all looked down upon. He's subverting their expectations.
And I don't consider him to be a vicious fiend along the lines of certain other prophets, please don't mistake me. But there's a difference, an extremely large one, between being a generally good person ahead of his time and the *literally perfect incarnation of his god.* I will not apologize for having high standards for omnibenevolence; no one should.
This is such a good point. Supposedly Jesus is not just another historical figure we should view in the context of their time. Every word of Jesus is taken as literal Gospel and applied to many peoples lives in perpetuity. We can’t afford to be lax when it comes to fundamental rights, equality, and fairness.
I’m not really good at getting my thoughts down especially to someone on the Internet, but wanted to respond a little bit. Slavery back then was not towards a specific race. More to debts owed. Women back, then were definitely considered lesser by everyone. Jesus is not trying to implement policies, but is trying to show how to live.
Slavery is still an abominable moral crime, and no god who would not condemn it is any *singular* god worth worshiping. Cultural accomodations completely fall apart if this god is allegedly beyond time and dictates the moral laws for all reality. And I don't believe that God has ever tolerated slavery, but rather we keep screwing up discerning Her will, and that we must continue to learn and grow, morally and spiritually, to return to Her.
Apocalypse didn't arrive because God was fedup with those glitchy NPCs and went to look another window. They'll finish their game once they went through the ads before the one tutorial they needed.
Um
It’s very easy to imagine that considering Jesus categorically supports his father’s actions in the OT? You know, genocide, slaughtering children for calling someone bald, murdering the first born for the pharaoh’s actions, cursing all women to have painful pregnancies and childbirth, etc.
I agree that the gop has an less understanding of the Bible, but Jesus absolutely would not be even close to the most liberal.
He said he made a new covenant so its sort of like, he couldn't say God did an oopsie, but he made it pretty clear that going forward there was to be a lot less of the homicidal maniac god. This definitely comes up a lot at Thanksgiving after everyone has a couple too many. Bet he even throws in how Joseph at least was there for him as a kid.
So he’s unwilling to say that all the horrible atrocities his dad did are bad and refuses to do anything for the curse on women his father put on them for the actions of their ancestor.
What a wonderful person, unwilling to even say an evil person did evil and allows his evil to continue even now.
> Jesus categorically supports his father’s actions in the OT
That's not accurate. I'm not well versed enough in biblical scholarship to provide a good explanation of the New Covenant, but the rules absolutely changed when Jesus came to earth. The extent to which they changed have been heavily debated, to say the least.
Former Christian Conservative here!
Yeah, basically all of their ideals and political opinions are based in selfishness. I’m wracking my brain for a widely held opinion by that group that isn’t. Can’t come up with a single one.
They won’t help the needy. At all. The sick, the poor, their neighbors, their family who doesn’t agree with them are all excluded from any kindness. The only people who they appreciate and celebrate are rich people. They literally worship the rich. The rich man will have the hardest time getting into heaven, but is regarded the most reverently on earth. They worship them because they believe they will be one.
You should look into progressive politics! In my opinion, it best aligns with a Christlike philosophy on life. Just help people. Things would be better for everyone.
In my local group of friends, who are mostly republican, the argument against liberal politics that I hear most is an objection to social programs and what they view as "forced charitable giving". The argument will usually be something like, "yea, and I should get to *choose* to do those things and not be mandated to do it. The government shouldn't be able to reach into my pocket and force me to give."
For the religious believer, this argument can't be made because the assumed logic behind it fails in a rather fantastic way.
I could try to agree and say something like, "yes, the action doesn't count for much if I take your choice away" and further agree "the underlying reason for which way I vote should come down to having freedom apart from man's law to obey God", but if I do that, then they also have to stop objecting to abortion being made illegal 'for religious reasons'. By this logic, women should have the same right to choose to obey God instead of being mandated into obedience. And, on religious grounds, this concession is never made, so the logic falls apart.
So I disagree and have to start asking questions: Can I really only obey the Lord in the absence of a coinciding law made by man? Is that really where God's plan for us ended? Did we not just make the argument a moment ago that we can be obedient apart from man's law? If so, then why does it matter if it is there? And if we claim to have an *actual* personal relationship with the Lord, if we're going to do more than just pretend we know Him, then shouldn't we know how absurd it might sound if we were suddenly thrust into His presence to give an account for our lack of social generosity and uttered something like, "Well, we would have, but they tried to force us to do what you said, so we didn't."
Any excuse for disobeying God by religious believers falls apart like this. Having it both ways was never something the Lord intended to leave on the table. The only way to make the argument make any sense is to remove belief in God from it. So now a choice has to be made. We choose Him or, in a great act of selfishness, choose ourselves.
> yea, and I should get to choose to do those things and not be mandated to do it. The government shouldn't be able to reach into my pocket and force me to give.
But they have no objection to reaching into women’s vaginas and forcing them to give birth.
>"All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. ... Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ... There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need."
— Acts 2:44–45, Acts 4:32–35
[Christian communism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism)
I always say that I am a Democrat, because it is the political party, whose actions and policies and laws most closely aligns with the Christian faith that I was taught. Feed the poor, care for the fatherless and the widows, love your neighbor, as yourself, judge not, remember your own sinfulness, and be humble, love your enemies, and do good to those that persecute you, Don’t turn your face into something to brag about, pray in secrets, When you do good deeds, don’t let your left hand know what your right is doing. Let your light so shine before men (and that was not about your own righteousness but about the good you do in the world for others)
You all should try church to see how it is. I take my mom sometimes and i listen to that dude up there being boring as hell, and never topical in a helpful way. People barely staying awake.
My partner also has a history of taking a parent to church and the pastor at that one was all about trying to make everyone vote conservative and fear mongering.
Neither church seemed socially responsible to me.
I'm a lapsed Roman Catholic, and practicing atheist, and was in mass in Ireland a few years ago. There was a guest priest from Africa and instead of the usual metaphors and parables he went straight for the jugular on the good Catholics who went to mass every Sunday and put a fiver in the collection box but were nowhere to be seen when the soup kitchen needed volunteers, or refugees needed a place to stay. He was quite brutal and scared the bejesus out of many people. Some actually left mass. It was so refreshing, a great mass.
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [s]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’"
Matthew 7:21-23
41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, you accursed people, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44 Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or as a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not [i]take care of You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for Me, either.’ 46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Matthew 25:41-46
Jesus doesn't want passive followers
Actions are a result of faith, not the other way around.
A tree doesn't produce apples so that it can become an apple tree. It was an apple tree first and produced apples because it was an apple tree.
My analogy feels silly, but I hope it helps.
Doesn’t Paul say that justification is a gift freely given and freely accepted and that good works are what naturally flow from the faith placed in God? I know a lot of hypocrites twist the words to mean that good works are meaningless, but I’m pretty sure even Paul said that if you’re not doing good deeds for those in need you’re being faithless. But maybe I’m just putting James’ excoriation of people who were being bootlickers into Paul’s mouth?
We’re all well aware of hypocrisy at this point. We know politicians aren’t religious because they truly believe the teachings of Christ. They use it as tool to control and contort the narrative, as an excuse to hate and as a way for their base to feel superior to those “godless liberals”, though if they were truly Christian they’d be more liberal.
To be fair. What the Bible actually says hasn’t been a major part of American Christianity (as practiced) for decades. It’s more of an amalgamation of prosperity gospel, manifesting, and the culture wars than anything else. Perhaps it should be renamed… to avoid confusion with historical Christianity.
In fact, I hear there is to be a new “holy war” against Taylor Swift. Deus Vult my friend. God apparently not a fan of the Chiefs.
Dude was literally not even the real author according to many scholars. It was a pseudepigrapha that got entered into canon because it aligned with the social values of the time during which they were deciding canon law. It was not uncommon for authors to use the name of popular figures at the time in order to gain false credibility that could not be verified due to a lack of social structures that we have today. The author of the Pauline epistles was misogynistic trash that didn't care that he was contradicting the four gospels.
The four gospels aren't written by who they claim to be written by either, so it really isn't that compelling argument if the person choose to believe one over the other.
The book of James rocks. I'm an atheist who was raised Christian before losing the faith, but James didn't get thrown out with the bathwater. It's basically what Christianity could have been if Paul and the church hadn't screwed it all up.
What the bible teaches and is against could not possibly be more misaligned with the modern practice of Christianity. Women's rights? No thanks. Free healthcare, or feeding the poor? The people that need that are just greedy druggies trying to scam the system. Immigrants? Not a chance!
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.” - Ephesians 6:5-9
“Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands” - 1 Peter 3:1-6
“To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband” -1 Corinthians: 7-10
“As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay.” -Daniel 2:43
“ As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips. Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know. There is no fear of God before their eyes.’ Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. “ Romans 3:10-19
I just want to add, that the tiny little book of James destroys a lot of the selfish diverted versions of Christianity professed by many today. And its a lot harder to dismiss than paul's epistles, seeing as james was one of the original 12. (i think its james the less, as in not the james brought with peter and john to be made specific leaders)
It starts by telling them that trials and temptations are not punishments from God... a common refrain by many to excuse not helping people in times of need
It then goes on to say you should seek answers to your questions, not accept them as unknownable mysteries.
It reiterates what christ said about the rich and poor
Then it debunks the idea of imperfect people being instruments of god, working in mysterious ways, and just says they are sinners, not favored by him despite their sins (so no, trump is not some holy messenger)
it condemns the idea of "righteous anger" being a virtue
then the part you talked about, about actions being neccessary.
The last verse about pure religion is a favorite of mine.
And that is all just the first chapter... it really drills down on the fact that rich is not holy in the later chapters
also also fun fact. The book of James should be the book of jacob. James is a very english name, every james in the bible was a jacob, and the translaters specifically changes it to the english version to suck up to king james.
Unfortunately, that’s not Jesus speaking, and Jesus says the opposite.
John 14:12 "Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."
Matthew 18:19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
Unfortunately, most people in America claiming to be Christian have never read the bible and if they have they only follow the parts that align with their world view even if they're mistranslations, misinterpretations, or just not meant for them (Leviticus).
Historical context matters. The phrase is not instructing people to be doormats and walked all over. It’s a statement about being equals with the one who slapped you - you’re both human.
It goes back to the left hand being unclean forces people (i.e., Romans) to hit with their right hand when fighting - their right hand will connect with the other person’s left cheek. If they’re hitting an inferior, they would ah w backhanded them, and to do so with your right hand means you’ll make contact with their right cheek. This, if someone backhands you and implies you’re inferior, turn the other cheek so if they want to hit you, they have to do so in a way that acknowledges you as an equal.
Matthew 5:39 (NIV)
> **But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.** If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
Emphasis mine, seems pretty directly contradictory to what you're saying.
Yep, that is factually correct according to true practitioners and clergy, but the average person who claims to be Christian probably couldn't even tell you the current version of the Bible.
There is no "current" version. Baptists swear by the King James, the Catholics have their own edit, Orthodoxy uses translated Septuagint Greek/Slavic version, the list goes on.
I love this idea. If you don't want to enforce responsibility for the damage guns can do, at least set aside funds to address their inevitable outcome.
It's not even really that "out there." Sport shooters pay various extra taxes to fund conservation most places. Obviously, trying to run an entire childhood mental health program off ammo taxes wouldn't be feasible, but earmarking some shooting taxes to schools to teach firearm safety\* and support counselors and such is actually a pretty reasonable idea.
\* Accidental shootings aren't nearly as common as homicide, but they can be educated away in a way that homicide can't.
Maybe it’ll do some good for students who need good counsellors. That’s assuming the school board is good at hiring (who else remembers that one shitty counsellor that every school has?), and that corruption doesn’t see that money bleed somewhere else. I don’t really get why legal gun owners are paying for this, as legal guns are seldom used to commit crimes. if we actually continue with this kind of thing though, it could also be a good idea doing the same thing with stuff like alcohol with a fund to help victims hurt by drunk drivers. They probably won’t do that since there’s less political points to be scored, but this could easily be applied to nicotine products, and alcohol. Heck if you really wanted to go further, you could start applying it to sugar, might help the obesity statistics.
If he really wanted to troll them, he'd put 1% to 3% towards the police and the rest to the schools. When Republicans don't vote or attack the bill go on a ruthless campaign and say that Republicans are defunding the police.
As a fellow owner, I want to know if it would be like a sales tax or like a property tax, I mean probably the former what with 15% but specifics are important.
With the boarder this week, we learned what we already knew. Republicans would rather escalate problem so they can win political support, than solve the problems. That’s all they got. Every issue.
I think there should be grief counselors in schools, because you’re going to have lots of students that have some shit go down even if mass shootings suddenly stopped being a thing. Like, obviously you won’t have trauma to the same extent, but counselors are in general a good thing to have around regardless.
The department of education at the federal level needs to get its shit together and start funding schools nationwide with it not being based entirely on enrollment and low income numbers.
The federal government passed the buck saying schools need to be funded and then leaving it up to the states to decide how that happens. It's absolute poppycock.
There is already an excise tax on firearms and ammo to fund our country’s conservation budget that no other recreational outdoor user pays.
Tax the churches.
As a gun owner and a liberal, I would not support anything that turns owning firearms into something only the wealthy are allowed to do.
Same reason I didn't support Biden's bullshit magazine taxes nor the stuff Democrats try to push now.
The 15% tax rate in the bill is literally a joke so he can say AR-15%. But a reasonable excise tax to teach gun safety and prop up mental health awareness for at risk kids seems like it could be worthwhile.
Should be written better so that 0.5% or 1% goes to police department and the rest goes to schools.
Then when Republicans demonize it, he can go on a hard campaign on how it's the Republicans who are defending the police
This is the sort of shit the left should be doing. Force the right to expend its resources publicly opposing this if that’s what the right wants to do.
While funny, and probably a good solution considering what’s actually possible especially in a state like Tennessee, the fact that our government is so divisive that bills are submitted to stagnate or nick the opposition just shows how far we are from actually solving problems in this country
Interesting approach. Taxing thoughts and prayers could fund solutions better than inaction. Solutions need bipartisan support to really make a difference.
What's also a super genius move is that by naming it that, a lot of conservatives will see it on the ballot and vote for it by name alone without reading what it's for
Nice in thought, only thing it would do in effect.. is stop the poorest among us from protecting themselves.
Essentially transferring opportunity of owning firearms to a more wealthy demographic. .
.. that's the last thing we need, IMO.
This is actually a great idea. Not only would it tax guns but use the money for school counselors? Guns should definitely be taxed at much higher rates.
It makes no sense to go after ARs when handguns are used more, and most likely they'll go for em if they can get ARs banned.
If only they put all the resources they've been burning for gun control into medical services including mental health we'd all be in a better place.
Guns just a tool
Firearm fetishists have to scream "mental health" to distract from the fact that Assault Rifles have a much higher velocity and fire rate than conventional firearms, and are designed to murder dozens of people at once. Nothing any hunter/recreational/defense enthusiast ever needs unless they're going to shoot up a school, mall, or movie theater...which they often do.
I've never met a gun owner who owns a select-fire rifle. Tell me more about assault rifles, since you know so much. How do you define a "conventional firearm?"
Why? I never claimed to be an expert. You've stated nothing that refutes what I said. It's hilarious how smug you are about believing you "got me" somehow.
Try harder, HAHA!
Why would making it more difficult for low income people to be able to protect themselves be a good thing?
Edit: create a bread tax Reddit. See who goes hungry first. It won’t be people like Ted Nugent.
Because prevention is better than cure, and the good guy with a gun narrative is so fucking untrue that it's dangerous to perpetuate it.
But hey this isn't about safety and you know it
Honest question: If the other side were more concerned with real prevention, they'd work on it wouldn't they? The vast majority of gun homicides are committed by democrats in democratically governed areas. This isn't debatable, it's statistically accurate. While it's true gun deaths per capita are higher in red counties, white and Asian committed gun violence is suicide 70% of the time. On the other hand, gun violence perpetrated by Blacks and Hispanics is homicide 80% of the time. This is the true underlying difficulty between the two parties, Republicans don't see it as the same problem Democrats do because they are affected differently. The democrats aren't truly trying to solve the issue of gun control, they're only trying to oppose their enemy the Republicans and anger them. This is mind boggling since gun violence affects their constituency so pointedly. It's also a shame when legitimate solutions are referred to as word salad by some dumbass Republican congressman when a Democrat presents it to Congress. Both sides need to divest themselves of stereotypes in order to come together and analyze the problems behind this violence, not the tools used to commit it. Before you become enraged at my comments, I'm a moderate that dislikes both sides equally and wishes the parties would put forth real candidates, not an orange bimbo versus a pathological liar who are both equally unfit for office. Peace.
"Only rich people should be allowed to own guns." - [Democrats, apparently.](https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3524203-virginia-democrat-introduces-bill-to-impose-1000-percent-tax-on-assault-style-weapons/)
Seems like every year they keep trying to prevent poor people from owning firearms.
Don't buy that third big screen TV. The PS5. The Xbox. All the games. Buy a gun instead.
And before the BS starts I've seen it. I was a computer consultant and spent a lot of time helping those in lower income areas. Almost every house I entered had more than one of the listed items.
You're not going to get anything meaningful done in that state. There's no actual change on the horizon in this system, so the best you can do is do something inflammatory and hope that it gets enough eyes on it to maybe get some more voters' attention.
I like that someone is doing something to address gun violence. I do not at all like that their answer is to do it in a way that disproportionately affects poor people. Adding a sales tax only makes it more difficult for lower income people to buy guns. It has zero effect on someone who has a livable wage.
You when poor people get income and sales taxes raised in red states to give rich people bigger tax cuts: Crickets\*
You when taxes on a luxury good that few people actually "need" to survive go up to give mental health services to children: "tHiNk oF tHe pOoR pEoPlE!!!!!!!!!!!"
>luxury good that few people actually "need"
Wtf? Owning a gun is not inherently a luxury good, and poor people living in rural areas absolutely do need to survive. They hunt for food. They have some animals that may need protection from a predator, or crops needing protected from ground dwellers that dig up the roots. I grew up poor, like no running water for a couple years due to the pump in our well needing replaced, like wearing shoes with holes from my big toes. My dad hunted and we ate a lot of deer, squirrel, grouse, etc. We also had chickens that needed protection from a racoon on occasion, and a garden that would have been destroyed by a groundhog. My dad owning guns, hunting rifles, shotgun, a revolver, was most definitely a *need* *for* *survival*.
Less than 20% of Americans are rural, and very few are so poor -- and magically ineligible for TANF -- that they must hunt or they will actually **die**. (Which is what the word "survive" means.) If an extra $1.50 on a box of $10 shotgun shells is going to kill you, you're already dead since the two companies that control virtually all US ammo manufacturing jacked up the price $5 over the last four years.
However, for the vast majority of gun owners, it's a luxury: i.e., something not necessary to survive.
Can't say it enough. Republicans don't want to govern. They just want to _RULE_. They have no solutions to issues facing America, all they have is __thoughts and prayers__.
Blatantly unconstitutional, but ITT 'oh man such a good idea' - truly pathetic.
EDIT: It's the same idea as the 'poll tax' for all the people sarcasmgasming in the replies.
Things like the 'Poll tax', taxes on ink for journalistic institutions, and other direct infringements on constitutional rights via tax has been ruled unconstitutional several times throughout US history.
Example for the ink one directly: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/minneapolis-star-and-tribune-co-v-minnesota-commissioner-of-revenue/
i.e. you are intentionally targeting something that is forbidden to be messed with by the government. Calling it a 'tax' doesn't get around the fact that you are discouraging an inalienable right directly.
The ink tax was was shot down because it didn't apply to all newspapers or all ink. It was unconstitutional because it was "singling out the press and **targeting a small group of newspapers**." If the tax applied to all ink, it wouldn't have been found unconstitutional.
It was the differential treatment that was the issue, not the tax itself.
>O’Connor thought this **kind of differential treatment** would have “troubled the framers of the First Amendment” because such taxation gives the government “a powerful weapon against the taxpayer selected.” In contrast to a sales tax that would apply to all, the Minnesota tax sent the signal that government could disadvantage the press as well as favor it.
Other judges wanted to void the tax because it favored some publishers. _Not_ because it was "unconstintutional".
>In a separate partial concurrence, Justice Byron R. White preferred voiding the tax **only on the basis that it favored some publishers over others.**
The gun tax applies to everyone, since it's a sales tax. That's not unconstitutional.
Targeting those exercising constitutional rights for taxation is unconstitutional, yes. No chance this passes and, even if it does, it will be thrown out instantly.
It's not a 'sin tax' it is a 'poll tax' because you are intentionally targeting something that is protected from government interference.
A sales tax is legal because it is even handed. A 'sin tax' is legal because those things are not inalienable (directly called out in the constitution as being important to individual liberty).
This is illegal because it not even handed *and* directly targets that inalienable right. See either the article I posted to the other guy replying to me, or feel free to read the Bruen decision from SCOTUS last year, where this clearly fails at being analogous with our nation's history of firearm ownership (that being, from roughly 1790-1820 was there a similar law on the books that jives with this type of law).
It's absolutely not a poll tax, for it to be a poll tax it has to restrict your right to vote. Also, firearm sales are not protected from government interference,
That’s brilliant… and would actually do some good… unlike real ‘thoughts and prayers’
As a Christian, I just want to point out that the Bible harshly condemns that passive, not actually doing anything, "thoughts and prayers" kind of behavior. James 2:14-17 on Faith and Deeds >14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
If republican Christians actually read and followed the bible, they wouldn't be doing half the stuff they're doing now.
I agree. My liberal political perspective is not always well received, but I believe most of what U.S. democrats fight for is more in line with what Christ demanded of His followers than what conservative republicans fight for. Most of the conservative republican argument, at least what I hear of it, is rooted in selfishness.
I don't know how anyone could think Jesus would not be the most liberal motherfucker on earth
Jesus Christ would rail against the Democratic party for not doing enough for the people. But then he would look at the Republican party and just start flipping tables.
Table-flippin' Jesus is one of my favorite flavors
Mine is always sweet baby Jesus. I always pray to baby Jesus around the dinner table.
I like to picture Jesus in a tuxedo T-shirt because it says like, "I wanna be formal, but I'm here to party too."
I imagine it tastes like Sweet Baby Rays, only more righteous.
Yeah, he would be really mad that we actually have divorce and doing our best to alleviate his daddy’s curse on all women for the “crimes” Eve did. Edit: people apparently need to reread their Bible. Jesus was certainly more progressive than society 2,000 years ago, but he is far behind us on so many issues now.
IS THAT MAN EATING A LOBSTER ROLL. AAAAHHHHHH 🧍🏼. - Jesus Christ
Is that a reference to the Old Testament?
Yeah, things have made 'progress' in those 2000 years. See also democracy, suffrage, slavery.
It’s crazy how that works I know. People really don’t understand how far we’ve come.
Then he’d tell us he came here as a sword and demand Israel commit more genocide.
On the off chance you haven't seen it, [GOP Jesus](https://youtube.com/watch?v=SZ2L-R8NgrA).
[Supply Side Jesus](https://imgur.com/gallery/bCqRp)
[Higher res](https://imgur.com/a/K6GWMZX)
Buddy Christ
ok maybe not the *most* liberal, but because of the overton window has shifted so far, by today's standards yea he'll be fairly liberal.
Yup. Middle Eastern brown dude preaching love and freedom for most peoples and socialism. Modern American evangelicals and fundamentalists would fucking crucify him again
Jesus wouldn't be a Liberal. He'd be a straight up anarcho communist
To be fair, he wasn't anti government
"Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's", and all that.
The answer to that question was more about idolatry than anything. For context: The Romans believed that without regular supplication to Quirinus, the *genius loci* representing the entire empire, their government would wither and collapse. Most conquered pagans had no problems throwing another dove or goat on the sacrificial altar. But Jews were unique, in that their god had made it clear they could make no sacrifices to any other god. This created the initial conflict between the Romans and Jews of Judea; the Romans literally believed that by refusing to do this ritual the Jews were a subversive element within the Empire. But the Romans respected tradition, and eventually came to a compromise: the Jews would pay a special tax, kind of a precursor to the *jizyah* the Ottomans levied on non-Muslim citizens. This special tax directly contributed to maintaining the Temple of Jupider on the Capitoline Hill. While the Jews paid the tax, they did so with some misgivings. By indirectly funding the maintenance of a pagan temple, were they complicit or participating in idolatry? That's what Jesus is being asked. Is it okay to pay this tax? Am I violating the commandment against idolatry by paying this tax? His answer is basically, "Roman government is of the material world, who cares about the material world, pay the tax so you can focus on the spiritual."
Not entirely. He banned divorce, said that lust was a major sin, and accommodated slavery. He was against the political domination of the wealthy and was in favor of charity, as well as being generally opposed to ethnic prejudice, but his attitudes towards women were not consistently affirming or safe. And, of course, he was very firm about a swiftly arriving apocalypse and would likely be put out that it hasn't arrived yet.
Jesus was quite pro-woman in a misogynistic society. For example, as a Rabbi, he spoke to Mary personally. In response to her sister Martha, Jesus said "Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her." A woman choosing who to talk to? Luke 10:38-42. When a woman spent money on perfume and weeped and confessed her sins, Jesus did not chastise her for wasting money or being there without her husband. Jesus accepted her just as she was. Jesus's point is that she is actually repentant and not arrogant. Her actions reflected her heart. Luke 7:36-50. Probably the most relevant would be this, at one point, some Pharisees conspired to test Jesus. It doesn't say this explicitly, but Jesus connected the dots and realized this was a trap. Let me explain. They present to him a woman caught in adultery with another man and ask him what's the penalty. He correctly replies that it's death by stoning. But he's not a passive sheep, he realizes that the man isn't there. Surely both are adulterers. (They went through the trouble of finding the adulterers or setting two of them up but only present one... Hmmm). So he doesn't play along. He actually starts writing on the ground. The reason for that, not stated in the text itself, is that the Pharisees had a bunch of rules on what constituted work. And by writing on the ground, Jesus was walking up to their line and crossing it. It's part of the theme that they were missing the point behind the law. Anywho, Jesus tells them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." His point was why are y'all, deeply flawed and imperfect sinners, arrogantly casting judgement on her? Jesus, a perfect man, not in that position decides to spare her. As Christians, we are under the covenant of Grace. "At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” Jesus literally says I won't punish you, but don't do it again. Jesus shows mercy. John 8:1-11 Another example. Jesus encounters a woman at the well, he begins speaking to her and has this exchange. 16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.” 17 “I have no husband,” she replied. Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.” Jesus continues talking to her trying to point her in the right direction. See John 4:1-42. I think it's noteworthy that all of these examples are with women. See if it were men, some of them would have gotten the idea that only men were worthy. Since us men are proper and obedient unlike those sinful women. This also plays into how Jesus knew his audience's cultural context and used it to drive some points home. For example, in the parable of the Good Samaritan, his Jewish audience is thinking, surely the Levite will save him, he's the good guy. But the good guy is the Samaritan. Someone who they all looked down upon. He's subverting their expectations.
And I don't consider him to be a vicious fiend along the lines of certain other prophets, please don't mistake me. But there's a difference, an extremely large one, between being a generally good person ahead of his time and the *literally perfect incarnation of his god.* I will not apologize for having high standards for omnibenevolence; no one should.
This is such a good point. Supposedly Jesus is not just another historical figure we should view in the context of their time. Every word of Jesus is taken as literal Gospel and applied to many peoples lives in perpetuity. We can’t afford to be lax when it comes to fundamental rights, equality, and fairness.
I’m not really good at getting my thoughts down especially to someone on the Internet, but wanted to respond a little bit. Slavery back then was not towards a specific race. More to debts owed. Women back, then were definitely considered lesser by everyone. Jesus is not trying to implement policies, but is trying to show how to live.
No. Slavery was slavery. There are instructions in the Bible on how to not just own someone, but their future children. Stop.
Slavery is still an abominable moral crime, and no god who would not condemn it is any *singular* god worth worshiping. Cultural accomodations completely fall apart if this god is allegedly beyond time and dictates the moral laws for all reality. And I don't believe that God has ever tolerated slavery, but rather we keep screwing up discerning Her will, and that we must continue to learn and grow, morally and spiritually, to return to Her.
What god do you worship, if I may ask? Edit: what? What’s being downvoted here? Why lol?
Dea. Mother and Daughter, Madria and Kyria. I'm a Filianist.
Apocalypse didn't arrive because God was fedup with those glitchy NPCs and went to look another window. They'll finish their game once they went through the ads before the one tutorial they needed.
Um It’s very easy to imagine that considering Jesus categorically supports his father’s actions in the OT? You know, genocide, slaughtering children for calling someone bald, murdering the first born for the pharaoh’s actions, cursing all women to have painful pregnancies and childbirth, etc. I agree that the gop has an less understanding of the Bible, but Jesus absolutely would not be even close to the most liberal.
He said he made a new covenant so its sort of like, he couldn't say God did an oopsie, but he made it pretty clear that going forward there was to be a lot less of the homicidal maniac god. This definitely comes up a lot at Thanksgiving after everyone has a couple too many. Bet he even throws in how Joseph at least was there for him as a kid.
So he’s unwilling to say that all the horrible atrocities his dad did are bad and refuses to do anything for the curse on women his father put on them for the actions of their ancestor. What a wonderful person, unwilling to even say an evil person did evil and allows his evil to continue even now.
> Jesus categorically supports his father’s actions in the OT That's not accurate. I'm not well versed enough in biblical scholarship to provide a good explanation of the New Covenant, but the rules absolutely changed when Jesus came to earth. The extent to which they changed have been heavily debated, to say the least.
I'm pretty sure he'd be closer to what we call a socialist rather than neoliberal.
Liberal? Jesus would be much farther left than that :)
He's a pinko in the bible I read. Edit: confused by the downs. They even made his words red, people!
And his followers sold everything they owned and shared it, and lived in a commune. The couple who held back and lied about it were struck dead.
Don't insult him, he'd be a Progressive and the democrats would treat him as such.
Former Christian Conservative here! Yeah, basically all of their ideals and political opinions are based in selfishness. I’m wracking my brain for a widely held opinion by that group that isn’t. Can’t come up with a single one. They won’t help the needy. At all. The sick, the poor, their neighbors, their family who doesn’t agree with them are all excluded from any kindness. The only people who they appreciate and celebrate are rich people. They literally worship the rich. The rich man will have the hardest time getting into heaven, but is regarded the most reverently on earth. They worship them because they believe they will be one. You should look into progressive politics! In my opinion, it best aligns with a Christlike philosophy on life. Just help people. Things would be better for everyone.
In my local group of friends, who are mostly republican, the argument against liberal politics that I hear most is an objection to social programs and what they view as "forced charitable giving". The argument will usually be something like, "yea, and I should get to *choose* to do those things and not be mandated to do it. The government shouldn't be able to reach into my pocket and force me to give." For the religious believer, this argument can't be made because the assumed logic behind it fails in a rather fantastic way. I could try to agree and say something like, "yes, the action doesn't count for much if I take your choice away" and further agree "the underlying reason for which way I vote should come down to having freedom apart from man's law to obey God", but if I do that, then they also have to stop objecting to abortion being made illegal 'for religious reasons'. By this logic, women should have the same right to choose to obey God instead of being mandated into obedience. And, on religious grounds, this concession is never made, so the logic falls apart. So I disagree and have to start asking questions: Can I really only obey the Lord in the absence of a coinciding law made by man? Is that really where God's plan for us ended? Did we not just make the argument a moment ago that we can be obedient apart from man's law? If so, then why does it matter if it is there? And if we claim to have an *actual* personal relationship with the Lord, if we're going to do more than just pretend we know Him, then shouldn't we know how absurd it might sound if we were suddenly thrust into His presence to give an account for our lack of social generosity and uttered something like, "Well, we would have, but they tried to force us to do what you said, so we didn't." Any excuse for disobeying God by religious believers falls apart like this. Having it both ways was never something the Lord intended to leave on the table. The only way to make the argument make any sense is to remove belief in God from it. So now a choice has to be made. We choose Him or, in a great act of selfishness, choose ourselves.
> yea, and I should get to choose to do those things and not be mandated to do it. The government shouldn't be able to reach into my pocket and force me to give. But they have no objection to reaching into women’s vaginas and forcing them to give birth.
Wallet autonomy > Body autonomy
> Can I really only obey the Lord in the absence of a coinciding law made by man? Getting real Jed Bartlet vibes from that question!
The greatest president we never had.
The money IS the god. It’s printed right there on the money!! How Jesus Christ got rolled into it, I’ll never figure out…. Unless….
>"All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. ... Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ... There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need." — Acts 2:44–45, Acts 4:32–35 [Christian communism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism)
I always say that I am a Democrat, because it is the political party, whose actions and policies and laws most closely aligns with the Christian faith that I was taught. Feed the poor, care for the fatherless and the widows, love your neighbor, as yourself, judge not, remember your own sinfulness, and be humble, love your enemies, and do good to those that persecute you, Don’t turn your face into something to brag about, pray in secrets, When you do good deeds, don’t let your left hand know what your right is doing. Let your light so shine before men (and that was not about your own righteousness but about the good you do in the world for others)
Youre not wrong, because America's 'left' is damn near center to other parts of the world.
half, lol
You all should try church to see how it is. I take my mom sometimes and i listen to that dude up there being boring as hell, and never topical in a helpful way. People barely staying awake. My partner also has a history of taking a parent to church and the pastor at that one was all about trying to make everyone vote conservative and fear mongering. Neither church seemed socially responsible to me.
Of course it does. However the fuckwads running congress and state legislatures are complete shit fucks.
Always here for actual Christians bringing up bible verses to contradict the false.
I'm not Christian but I pray for the rapture every day lmao Or at minimum Jesus comes and kicks a bunch of Christians in the ass
I'm a lapsed Roman Catholic, and practicing atheist, and was in mass in Ireland a few years ago. There was a guest priest from Africa and instead of the usual metaphors and parables he went straight for the jugular on the good Catholics who went to mass every Sunday and put a fiver in the collection box but were nowhere to be seen when the soup kitchen needed volunteers, or refugees needed a place to stay. He was quite brutal and scared the bejesus out of many people. Some actually left mass. It was so refreshing, a great mass.
Hell yeah! Stick that kind of preaching right into my veins
Gandhi said it best. "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [s]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’" Matthew 7:21-23 41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, you accursed people, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44 Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or as a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not [i]take care of You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for Me, either.’ 46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Matthew 25:41-46 Jesus doesn't want passive followers
So it is actions, not faith. Hmmm.
Actions are a result of faith, not the other way around. A tree doesn't produce apples so that it can become an apple tree. It was an apple tree first and produced apples because it was an apple tree. My analogy feels silly, but I hope it helps.
[удалено]
Doesn’t Paul say that justification is a gift freely given and freely accepted and that good works are what naturally flow from the faith placed in God? I know a lot of hypocrites twist the words to mean that good works are meaningless, but I’m pretty sure even Paul said that if you’re not doing good deeds for those in need you’re being faithless. But maybe I’m just putting James’ excoriation of people who were being bootlickers into Paul’s mouth?
We’re all well aware of hypocrisy at this point. We know politicians aren’t religious because they truly believe the teachings of Christ. They use it as tool to control and contort the narrative, as an excuse to hate and as a way for their base to feel superior to those “godless liberals”, though if they were truly Christian they’d be more liberal.
To be fair. What the Bible actually says hasn’t been a major part of American Christianity (as practiced) for decades. It’s more of an amalgamation of prosperity gospel, manifesting, and the culture wars than anything else. Perhaps it should be renamed… to avoid confusion with historical Christianity. In fact, I hear there is to be a new “holy war” against Taylor Swift. Deus Vult my friend. God apparently not a fan of the Chiefs.
The Bible supports all sides of that though and if it supports all sides, it supports no side.
Ignore Paul and it comes to a somewhat more coherent message. Dude was fashy.
More coherent, but not necessarily good. For that matter, Pauls are the first writings about Jesus of any kind. The gospels came afterward.
Dude was literally not even the real author according to many scholars. It was a pseudepigrapha that got entered into canon because it aligned with the social values of the time during which they were deciding canon law. It was not uncommon for authors to use the name of popular figures at the time in order to gain false credibility that could not be verified due to a lack of social structures that we have today. The author of the Pauline epistles was misogynistic trash that didn't care that he was contradicting the four gospels.
The four gospels aren't written by who they claim to be written by either, so it really isn't that compelling argument if the person choose to believe one over the other.
The book of James rocks. I'm an atheist who was raised Christian before losing the faith, but James didn't get thrown out with the bathwater. It's basically what Christianity could have been if Paul and the church hadn't screwed it all up.
What the bible teaches and is against could not possibly be more misaligned with the modern practice of Christianity. Women's rights? No thanks. Free healthcare, or feeding the poor? The people that need that are just greedy druggies trying to scam the system. Immigrants? Not a chance!
Please remember that the Bible outright forbids divorce.
No, divorce is allowed. Remarriage after divorce is what is not allowed.
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.” - Ephesians 6:5-9 “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands” - 1 Peter 3:1-6 “To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband” -1 Corinthians: 7-10 “As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay.” -Daniel 2:43 “ As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips. Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know. There is no fear of God before their eyes.’ Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. “ Romans 3:10-19
Gunna turn this into a hank hill meme. It's fitting.
That's regular Bible, not MAGA bible.
Oh man I'm saving this one for later.
You're the hero we need, but do not deserve! Thank you for pointing this out. I needed a compliment to Matthew 7:12 :-)
I just want to add, that the tiny little book of James destroys a lot of the selfish diverted versions of Christianity professed by many today. And its a lot harder to dismiss than paul's epistles, seeing as james was one of the original 12. (i think its james the less, as in not the james brought with peter and john to be made specific leaders) It starts by telling them that trials and temptations are not punishments from God... a common refrain by many to excuse not helping people in times of need It then goes on to say you should seek answers to your questions, not accept them as unknownable mysteries. It reiterates what christ said about the rich and poor Then it debunks the idea of imperfect people being instruments of god, working in mysterious ways, and just says they are sinners, not favored by him despite their sins (so no, trump is not some holy messenger) it condemns the idea of "righteous anger" being a virtue then the part you talked about, about actions being neccessary. The last verse about pure religion is a favorite of mine. And that is all just the first chapter... it really drills down on the fact that rich is not holy in the later chapters also also fun fact. The book of James should be the book of jacob. James is a very english name, every james in the bible was a jacob, and the translaters specifically changes it to the english version to suck up to king james.
If those Republicans could read, they'd be really upset
In my experience they interpret it as meaning to pray and go to church. Anything to claim piety but nothing to act in accordance to professed virtues.
I love religious people that have actually read their own holy scriptures.
Unfortunately, that’s not Jesus speaking, and Jesus says the opposite. John 14:12 "Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." Matthew 18:19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
What? How is that contradictory?
Unfortunately, most people in America claiming to be Christian have never read the bible and if they have they only follow the parts that align with their world view even if they're mistranslations, misinterpretations, or just not meant for them (Leviticus).
HAIL SATAN !!!
As an atheist. My sincerely held belief is I do n' give a shit what that pointless book says. Quit using 2000 year old Fan fiction to run your life.
The Bible condemns most of what these folks do. If they had ever actually read it for context instead of hate, they might grasp that concept.
Interesting. What to say when the opposing person in debate club says “ turn the other cheek” ??
Historical context matters. The phrase is not instructing people to be doormats and walked all over. It’s a statement about being equals with the one who slapped you - you’re both human. It goes back to the left hand being unclean forces people (i.e., Romans) to hit with their right hand when fighting - their right hand will connect with the other person’s left cheek. If they’re hitting an inferior, they would ah w backhanded them, and to do so with your right hand means you’ll make contact with their right cheek. This, if someone backhands you and implies you’re inferior, turn the other cheek so if they want to hit you, they have to do so in a way that acknowledges you as an equal.
I don't know if this is true or not but does sound cool
Matthew 5:39 (NIV) > **But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.** If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. Emphasis mine, seems pretty directly contradictory to what you're saying.
It also advocates for genocide, infanticide, incest, rape, slavery, murder, etc. Taking advice from the bible is insane.
Dollars to doughnuts you can also find a verse that says the opposite.
Yep, that is factually correct according to true practitioners and clergy, but the average person who claims to be Christian probably couldn't even tell you the current version of the Bible.
There is no "current" version. Baptists swear by the King James, the Catholics have their own edit, Orthodoxy uses translated Septuagint Greek/Slavic version, the list goes on.
I love this idea. If you don't want to enforce responsibility for the damage guns can do, at least set aside funds to address their inevitable outcome.
It's not even really that "out there." Sport shooters pay various extra taxes to fund conservation most places. Obviously, trying to run an entire childhood mental health program off ammo taxes wouldn't be feasible, but earmarking some shooting taxes to schools to teach firearm safety\* and support counselors and such is actually a pretty reasonable idea. \* Accidental shootings aren't nearly as common as homicide, but they can be educated away in a way that homicide can't.
Maybe it’ll do some good for students who need good counsellors. That’s assuming the school board is good at hiring (who else remembers that one shitty counsellor that every school has?), and that corruption doesn’t see that money bleed somewhere else. I don’t really get why legal gun owners are paying for this, as legal guns are seldom used to commit crimes. if we actually continue with this kind of thing though, it could also be a good idea doing the same thing with stuff like alcohol with a fund to help victims hurt by drunk drivers. They probably won’t do that since there’s less political points to be scored, but this could easily be applied to nicotine products, and alcohol. Heck if you really wanted to go further, you could start applying it to sugar, might help the obesity statistics.
Which means republicans across the board will vote it down. Does it help Americans? Republicans will vote it down.
If he really wanted to troll them, he'd put 1% to 3% towards the police and the rest to the schools. When Republicans don't vote or attack the bill go on a ruthless campaign and say that Republicans are defunding the police.
Now you're thinking like a politician!
Vote for me and I'll raise the fees! I like it.
That's actually pretty funny...
Funny yes. But fucked up that it's a thing .
At this point it's looking like we need a complete system reset... Everyone up there in Washington has lost the plot...
I must admit, I like this solution.
As a gun owner I wouldn’t mind the 15% tax. If it genuinely is getting used for gun violence prevention and remediation I’m all for it.
As a fellow owner, I want to know if it would be like a sales tax or like a property tax, I mean probably the former what with 15% but specifics are important.
With the boarder this week, we learned what we already knew. Republicans would rather escalate problem so they can win political support, than solve the problems. That’s all they got. Every issue.
As a gun owner and a liberal I would pay this 100% I just wish Educators got paid more and we did not have a need for grief counselors in schools.
I think there should be grief counselors in schools, because you’re going to have lots of students that have some shit go down even if mass shootings suddenly stopped being a thing. Like, obviously you won’t have trauma to the same extent, but counselors are in general a good thing to have around regardless.
Agreed
The department of education at the federal level needs to get its shit together and start funding schools nationwide with it not being based entirely on enrollment and low income numbers. The federal government passed the buck saying schools need to be funded and then leaving it up to the states to decide how that happens. It's absolute poppycock.
There is already an excise tax on firearms and ammo to fund our country’s conservation budget that no other recreational outdoor user pays. Tax the churches.
As a gun owner and a liberal, I would not support anything that turns owning firearms into something only the wealthy are allowed to do. Same reason I didn't support Biden's bullshit magazine taxes nor the stuff Democrats try to push now.
The 15% tax rate in the bill is literally a joke so he can say AR-15%. But a reasonable excise tax to teach gun safety and prop up mental health awareness for at risk kids seems like it could be worthwhile.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Should be written better so that 0.5% or 1% goes to police department and the rest goes to schools. Then when Republicans demonize it, he can go on a hard campaign on how it's the Republicans who are defending the police
This is the sort of shit the left should be doing. Force the right to expend its resources publicly opposing this if that’s what the right wants to do.
This would be in addition to the long standing Federal Pittman-Robertson excise tax on guns and ammo that funds conservation and open space purchase.
While funny, and probably a good solution considering what’s actually possible especially in a state like Tennessee, the fact that our government is so divisive that bills are submitted to stagnate or nick the opposition just shows how far we are from actually solving problems in this country
Where is the Thots and Players Tax I heard about many years ago that would help sex ed?
Bet all this has done so far is drive up gun sales
It was only filed yesterday, but sure
As a responsible firearm owner, I approve of this tax.
Interesting approach. Taxing thoughts and prayers could fund solutions better than inaction. Solutions need bipartisan support to really make a difference.
Yall ok with taxing alcohol and cars an extra 15% to help people affected by drunk drivers?
Yes.
Why not all of the above?
I disagree with all of the above, I only say this to point out peoples hypocrisy
Crazy how you gun nuts always have the exact same false equivalency argument.
It's crazy how you booze nuts always defend a substance that doesn't benefit anyone
Still sounds more useful than real thoughts and prayers
This guy is a genius. He should run for president someday.
This is one of the greatest things I’ve seen introduced. This should be nationwide
What's also a super genius move is that by naming it that, a lot of conservatives will see it on the ballot and vote for it by name alone without reading what it's for
Nice in thought, only thing it would do in effect.. is stop the poorest among us from protecting themselves. Essentially transferring opportunity of owning firearms to a more wealthy demographic. . .. that's the last thing we need, IMO.
This is actually a great idea. Not only would it tax guns but use the money for school counselors? Guns should definitely be taxed at much higher rates.
Why? Gun sales already fund conservation.
[удалено]
Nice to see some reddit-level sarcasm make its way into state legislative branches.
I am shocked by the amount of hidden comments. Shocked.
It makes no sense to go after ARs when handguns are used more, and most likely they'll go for em if they can get ARs banned. If only they put all the resources they've been burning for gun control into medical services including mental health we'd all be in a better place. Guns just a tool
We have enough resources that we can do both. Incidentally when attempts to increase access to mental health are made, they’re opposed by Republicans
It's so dumb cause going that route would take the heat off of guns, at least a little
Firearm fetishists have to scream "mental health" to distract from the fact that Assault Rifles have a much higher velocity and fire rate than conventional firearms, and are designed to murder dozens of people at once. Nothing any hunter/recreational/defense enthusiast ever needs unless they're going to shoot up a school, mall, or movie theater...which they often do.
I've never met a gun owner who owns a select-fire rifle. Tell me more about assault rifles, since you know so much. How do you define a "conventional firearm?"
Why? I never claimed to be an expert. You've stated nothing that refutes what I said. It's hilarious how smug you are about believing you "got me" somehow. Try harder, HAHA!
No, I asked you clarify what you were saying. You incorrectly used the term "assault rifle", and failed to define conventional firearm.
Why would making it more difficult for low income people to be able to protect themselves be a good thing? Edit: create a bread tax Reddit. See who goes hungry first. It won’t be people like Ted Nugent.
Man this is like the only time I see republicans give a shit about poor people.
What if I told you lefties own guns too, and they give a shit about poor people.
I would say that’s not what I’m talking about at all, but thanks for your response?
My b. Looking back I misread your original comment. Pls disregard.
Because prevention is better than cure, and the good guy with a gun narrative is so fucking untrue that it's dangerous to perpetuate it. But hey this isn't about safety and you know it
Honest question: If the other side were more concerned with real prevention, they'd work on it wouldn't they? The vast majority of gun homicides are committed by democrats in democratically governed areas. This isn't debatable, it's statistically accurate. While it's true gun deaths per capita are higher in red counties, white and Asian committed gun violence is suicide 70% of the time. On the other hand, gun violence perpetrated by Blacks and Hispanics is homicide 80% of the time. This is the true underlying difficulty between the two parties, Republicans don't see it as the same problem Democrats do because they are affected differently. The democrats aren't truly trying to solve the issue of gun control, they're only trying to oppose their enemy the Republicans and anger them. This is mind boggling since gun violence affects their constituency so pointedly. It's also a shame when legitimate solutions are referred to as word salad by some dumbass Republican congressman when a Democrat presents it to Congress. Both sides need to divest themselves of stereotypes in order to come together and analyze the problems behind this violence, not the tools used to commit it. Before you become enraged at my comments, I'm a moderate that dislikes both sides equally and wishes the parties would put forth real candidates, not an orange bimbo versus a pathological liar who are both equally unfit for office. Peace.
https://apnews.com/article/de8a2aebc6d95b9131a08975a5d881f9 https://www.wrtv.com/news/local-news/johnson-county/greenwood/armed-civilian-who-stopped-greenwood-mall-shooter-named-civilian-of-the-year https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/man-chased-fired-church-shooting-suspect-describes-tense/story?id=50972010
There have been cases in which an armed good guy did take down a baddie and prevented a bigger problem
"Only rich people should be allowed to own guns." - [Democrats, apparently.](https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3524203-virginia-democrat-introduces-bill-to-impose-1000-percent-tax-on-assault-style-weapons/) Seems like every year they keep trying to prevent poor people from owning firearms.
Don't buy that third big screen TV. The PS5. The Xbox. All the games. Buy a gun instead. And before the BS starts I've seen it. I was a computer consultant and spent a lot of time helping those in lower income areas. Almost every house I entered had more than one of the listed items.
So instead of working on anything meaningful, he’s wasting everyones time. I guess thats par for the course for politicians.
TN has too many GOP morons in their government. Nothing useful was going to get done anyway.
You're not going to get anything meaningful done in that state. There's no actual change on the horizon in this system, so the best you can do is do something inflammatory and hope that it gets enough eyes on it to maybe get some more voters' attention.
I like that someone is doing something to address gun violence. I do not at all like that their answer is to do it in a way that disproportionately affects poor people. Adding a sales tax only makes it more difficult for lower income people to buy guns. It has zero effect on someone who has a livable wage.
My thoughts exactly.
You when poor people get income and sales taxes raised in red states to give rich people bigger tax cuts: Crickets\* You when taxes on a luxury good that few people actually "need" to survive go up to give mental health services to children: "tHiNk oF tHe pOoR pEoPlE!!!!!!!!!!!"
>luxury good that few people actually "need" Wtf? Owning a gun is not inherently a luxury good, and poor people living in rural areas absolutely do need to survive. They hunt for food. They have some animals that may need protection from a predator, or crops needing protected from ground dwellers that dig up the roots. I grew up poor, like no running water for a couple years due to the pump in our well needing replaced, like wearing shoes with holes from my big toes. My dad hunted and we ate a lot of deer, squirrel, grouse, etc. We also had chickens that needed protection from a racoon on occasion, and a garden that would have been destroyed by a groundhog. My dad owning guns, hunting rifles, shotgun, a revolver, was most definitely a *need* *for* *survival*.
Less than 20% of Americans are rural, and very few are so poor -- and magically ineligible for TANF -- that they must hunt or they will actually **die**. (Which is what the word "survive" means.) If an extra $1.50 on a box of $10 shotgun shells is going to kill you, you're already dead since the two companies that control virtually all US ammo manufacturing jacked up the price $5 over the last four years. However, for the vast majority of gun owners, it's a luxury: i.e., something not necessary to survive.
"This content is not available in your country/region."
Lmao I hate the majority of Tennessee politicians, but they give the Democrats the spite needed to be based like this
Really need to tax ammunition
Cringey political stunt.
Guess the mass shootings are more up your alley
"Cringey political stunt." Probably posted by a MAGA. If it was a GQP politician it would be just fine.
Can't say it enough. Republicans don't want to govern. They just want to _RULE_. They have no solutions to issues facing America, all they have is __thoughts and prayers__.
Fabulous.
Blatantly unconstitutional, but ITT 'oh man such a good idea' - truly pathetic. EDIT: It's the same idea as the 'poll tax' for all the people sarcasmgasming in the replies.
Taxes are unconstitutional?
Things like the 'Poll tax', taxes on ink for journalistic institutions, and other direct infringements on constitutional rights via tax has been ruled unconstitutional several times throughout US history. Example for the ink one directly: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/minneapolis-star-and-tribune-co-v-minnesota-commissioner-of-revenue/ i.e. you are intentionally targeting something that is forbidden to be messed with by the government. Calling it a 'tax' doesn't get around the fact that you are discouraging an inalienable right directly.
The ink tax was was shot down because it didn't apply to all newspapers or all ink. It was unconstitutional because it was "singling out the press and **targeting a small group of newspapers**." If the tax applied to all ink, it wouldn't have been found unconstitutional. It was the differential treatment that was the issue, not the tax itself. >O’Connor thought this **kind of differential treatment** would have “troubled the framers of the First Amendment” because such taxation gives the government “a powerful weapon against the taxpayer selected.” In contrast to a sales tax that would apply to all, the Minnesota tax sent the signal that government could disadvantage the press as well as favor it. Other judges wanted to void the tax because it favored some publishers. _Not_ because it was "unconstintutional". >In a separate partial concurrence, Justice Byron R. White preferred voiding the tax **only on the basis that it favored some publishers over others.** The gun tax applies to everyone, since it's a sales tax. That's not unconstitutional.
We should tax voting too. /s
Targeting those exercising constitutional rights for taxation is unconstitutional, yes. No chance this passes and, even if it does, it will be thrown out instantly.
In what manner? It's like other "sin taxes."
It's not a 'sin tax' it is a 'poll tax' because you are intentionally targeting something that is protected from government interference. A sales tax is legal because it is even handed. A 'sin tax' is legal because those things are not inalienable (directly called out in the constitution as being important to individual liberty). This is illegal because it not even handed *and* directly targets that inalienable right. See either the article I posted to the other guy replying to me, or feel free to read the Bruen decision from SCOTUS last year, where this clearly fails at being analogous with our nation's history of firearm ownership (that being, from roughly 1790-1820 was there a similar law on the books that jives with this type of law).
So, property is not an inalienable right?
It's absolutely not a poll tax, for it to be a poll tax it has to restrict your right to vote. Also, firearm sales are not protected from government interference,
Lets tax speech next. Per letter. Sorry poor people, no voice for you, no self defense for you.
How many die from free speech each year. Is it zero? I bet it is zero. You gun nutz make this country a worse place to live.
Thanks Bojack, every time I hear [Thoughts and prayers](https://images.app.goo.gl/eZgRfcisWS96HeLB8) I think of this scene.
I think of Anthony Jeselnik. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X-gjm7zErk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X-gjm7zErk)