Coming to a Computer Near You: It's Tea Party Jesus!

Because dissent is the highest form of patriotism. 

Are you OK with Oprah, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet earning 1000 times what their secrataries do just because they are honest?  Jimmy Carter reminds us that the greatest evil in the world is not aids, malaria, unclean water, corruption or dishonesty.  It is the growing wealth disparity.

Don't underestimate the damager that these creative individuals are doing to our society.

They have never claimed that Jesus, or even God, is on their side.

No. He says those decisions should be made locally, and not at the federal level.

Both Valerie and Joshua ran recent pieces on how we "should not abide" 50% of Americans earning less than the median income in America.  Their pieces were not about food, shelther or access to medical care and we know that 50% of Americans don't lack these things.  Their point was that it is a travesty to be in the bottom 50% of the income level.

It is not a misrepresentation to say that the driving value of those two writers is materialism.  And based on the comments that were posted with those articles, and other, I believe it is fair to say that the core values of Valerie and Joshua are are mainstream here.

Yes, you are right.  Scripture can be "adjusted" for any purpose.  We see this consistently on this blog.

But our founding fathers didn't use scripture the way this blog does, to score political points by saying "look at us, scripture supports our position".  Our founding fathers really wrestled with their faith and sought to develop a political system that they thought was consistent with scripture.

Probably not.

Maybe.

Probably not and that is why they call themselves evangelicals. We have lots of people who evangelize for whatever belief or creed is in vogue for the day.

Also, many people fail to distinguish between faith and belief.

Not sure where you make a connection between Ayn's super-individualism and the Tea Party.  Are you saying that if you believe in fiscal responsibility that you must also believe in "every man for himself"?  I'm not sure that I see any connection.  In fact, I would say that Tea Party followers are more likely to care about their fellow man than the "raise taxes raise entitlements" crowd that follows this blog.  I would measure this by the portion of their time and treasure which they commit to helping the poor.

You characterization of Tea Party followers certainly doesn't fit any of the followers I've met, and I interact with many.

The Tea Party claims their principles are based on the founding fathers of our country, who based their principles on scripture.

An oversimplication -- the Puritans did base their principles on Scripture but had lot of opposition outside New England.

You are right that there are no claims that the occupy crowd principles are based in any way on scripture.  I think we can agree that the occupy crowd principles are not based on scripture.

Scripture can be "adjusted" for any purpose.

Scat, I don't think this has become a blog for conservative-minded people to gather and make personal attacks on non-conservatives.  It appears to me that Kansas, Deacon and all the progressive favorites are still here driving the conversation.

Did you watch the Tea Party Jesus parity?  It was just full of mean-spirited attacks on the Tea Party and wasn't accurate to Tea Party beliefs.  I didn't see many calling out Tim for linking to such a video when this blog is intended to be above that mean-spirited labeling stuff.

I don't think Hazel is intending to offend you.  I think that she is trying to point out that what conservatives and liberals view as important and moral are completely different.  Like I said before, conservatives are OK with some being poor while others are filthy rich and liberals are not. 

Actually, I think it is healthy for us to move away from the name calling typified by the video and start having real discussions on the core values that drive our philosophies  Having those deeper discussions helps us to clarify exactly what we believe and why.  I think we should welcome girls like Hazel and hope that she brings a friend.

Scat, no need to get all defensive.  I'm just pointing out that we can find something constructive in Ayn Rand's writings.  Please don't twist what I said.  First, I didn't say that conservatives are spiritual people or that liberals are all materialistic.  I was speaking to the core value that drives conservative and liberal thought.  Those individuals that call themselves conservative or liberal come from a variety of backgrounds and most don't fully understand the basic values that drive the ideology they follow.  The point isn''t that conservatives are all spiritual because there are certainly secular conservatives.  But Ayn points out that conservatives welcome government control over "moral issues". 

And I did not equate being materialistic with being sinful.  Conservatives would argue that what the poor need most is spiritual transformation, not material things.  But liberals would argue that true morality involves providing material things for the poor.  I did not make value judgments on which is more Biblical and which is sinful.

And why do you mention rich conservatives?  Do you think all rich people are conservative?  That is far from true.  The majority of the rich are liberals!  Or are you trying to say that most conservatives are wealthy?  That is far from true as well, because as we’ve already discussed, wealth is not a primary value in the conservative world view.  Notice I didn’t say that wealth is not a primary value for any individual conservative, because it is for many.  But the conservative world view is a different matter.

scat, if I understand what Hazel is saying it isn't about who is more spiritual but how each of us defines what spiritual means.  If you were to meet a homosexual man making $42,000/year what emotions would you feel?  If you are part of the religious right (is it OK to use labels here) you might be angry about his homosexuality and want to fix that.  If you are Valerie or Joshua (see I'm carefully going to avoid labels this time) you might be angry that this man has a lower income and want to fix that.

If you can identify what make you angry you will then be able to identify what your values are.

Hazel, you've raised a great discussion here!

Scat, when I talk about the values behind Tea Party thought or conservative thought I do so knowing that there are a wide variety of individuals that identify with the Tea Party or conservative movement.  The parity acknowledges that the Tea Party has roots in religious belief.  But I would be the first to resist saying that individuals saying they follow those philosophies are predominately Christians who are deeply spiritual.  There are many that believe in conservative thought that have no interest in God at all.  But, they must be comfortable being aligned with a philosophy that has the roots that it does.

On the liberal side, you are right, there is a wide variety of liberal thought and it would seem no cohesive connection between the various strains.  But I started this conversation talking about a very specific thought pattern presented by Valerie that says it is a travesty that 50% of Americans live on incomes that are less than the median income.  If we look back in history to when this idea first blossomed we see that materialism was the root value.  And what is the answer that Valerie, and others, propose to this problem?  It is the redistribution of wealth.  Now I know that there is a wide variety of thought in liberal ideology.  But I do find it instructive that every bill that the Democrats have pushed in the past 3 years has had the redistribution of wealth as a primary thread.  This is true of health care reform, the stimulus, cap & trade, bailouts to GM and etc.  But I’m not yet to the point of saying that if the end result is common then this must imply that the root value is also common.

But certainly you can grant me that Valerie’s core values, even if they don’t represent all liberals in our world, to fairly well represent the liberal authors on this blog?

(because those of us not making billions shouldn't have to pay).

No leftie I know says only billionaires should pay taxes, only a fair rate.

"They" may be calling for higher taxes for the rich but only because the rich get all the advantages at the expense of the less privileged. Level the playing field.

Is this an official "occupy" statement? If not, I highly recommend you change your username so as not to mislead people into thinking you speak for "occupycincinnati"  or any other occupy group. As I understand it they are very careful about who, if anyone, speaks for any group as a whole.

Let me rephrase since not all conservatives base their worldview on scripture, even though the foundation of much conservative thought is based on scripture.  Instead, let me say that Evangelicals would say the most important thing in life is spiritual transformation.  They would say this regardless of whether the individual is rich, poor or in between.  But the key difference is that the liberal would argue and say, no, if the individual is poor, the most important things is more material things.

Now the Tea Party would argue that the most important thing is the liberty to pursue what that individual believes is the most important thing.  And for many Tea Party followers they would say for their own lives material things are not #1.  Many of them choose careers that are either family friendly or fit their passion instead of choosing what will pay the most.  Many explicityly choose to be one wage families when they could choose to be double income families.  But they believe that liberty to choose, for themselves and for others, is most important.

But again, the liberal would come along and say, you don't have the common sense to know that being poor is deplorable.  Your being poor needs to be fixed.  That is why people like Valerie say "we can't abide by 50% of Americans living on less income than the median income!"