tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post3843253794849070801..comments2024-03-28T10:28:25.907-06:00Comments on American Creation: Ronald Reagan, The "Year of the Bible" and Congressional Backing of "the Word of God"Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84700119338116229692011-07-14T10:39:25.766-06:002011-07-14T10:39:25.766-06:00.
I'm either naive or not so cynical ... but I....<br /><i>I'm either naive or not so cynical ... but I try to avoid both. </i><br />.<br />I'm also working on that. But, being critical of the goings on in society doesn't necessarily include cynicism. In fact it is what <i>critical social theory</i> is mostly about.<br />.<br />Otherwise everything is left up for grabs.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76633718850189875882011-07-13T17:29:00.392-06:002011-07-13T17:29:00.392-06:00Ok. I see what you're getting at.
I'm eit...Ok. I see what you're getting at.<br /><br />I'm either naive or not so cynical ... but I try to avoid both.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-52243877603615335602011-07-13T16:33:42.663-06:002011-07-13T16:33:42.663-06:00.
If the rate of return is too low then there are ....<br /><i>If the rate of return is too low then there are no buyers.</i><br />.<br />Exactly my point. <br />.<br />We're so into the trees we can't see the forest.<br />.<br />I cannot for one minute think any billionaire wouldn't stoop to such a strategy. Why would anyone want more if they already had billions? I wouldn't trust super wealthies like the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch even if I had a signed and notarized contract with them. With their money, they can get anything they want and pronto no questions asked. They seem to enjoy the act of being nefarious--of screwing over everyone within their view as long as it serves their purposes.<br />.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-4251411242194260822011-07-13T15:31:21.356-06:002011-07-13T15:31:21.356-06:00Phil: "[...] it could appear as though a stra...Phil: "[...] it could appear as though a strategy is in place to cause America's credit rating to be reduced from Triple A to some lower rating which would cause a rise in the interest rate America would be forced to pay on all future bond sales. Correct?"<br /><br />I don't think there is any nefarious happening. The government sells securities with a rate of return that it chooses. If the rate of return is too low then there are no buyers.<br /><br />Regarding being "messed up", there hasn't been a better time to borrow than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Funds_Rate_1954_thru_2009_effective.svg" rel="nofollow">now</a>. Unfortunately, the debt ceiling prevents borrowing.<br /><br />Of course, even if the interest rate were zero, we still will need to pay the money back. So, we better be prepared to be smart about how the money is to be spent.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-53878194991623289712011-07-13T14:53:09.994-06:002011-07-13T14:53:09.994-06:00.
My understanding is that the rate of interest on....<br /><i>My understanding is that the rate of interest on the "notes" you refer to are set at the time of purchase.</i><br />.<br />So, then, it could appear as though a strategy is in place to cause America's credit rating to be reduced from Triple A to some lower rating which would cause a rise in the interest rate America would be forced to pay on all future bond sales. Correct?<br />.<br />If that's the case, it's just one more example of how America gets messed over by the super wealthy.<br />.<br />Those friggan Republicans are a sly lot.<br />.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-68714226753294162432011-07-13T14:42:49.209-06:002011-07-13T14:42:49.209-06:00Phil,
My understanding is that the rate of intere...Phil,<br /><br />My understanding is that the rate of interest on the "notes" you refer to are set at the time of purchase.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Treasury_security" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Treasury_security</a><br /><br />Quantitative easing has reduced the interest rates to the point they are essentially zero.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Funds_Rate_1954_thru_2009_effective.svg" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Funds_Rate_1954_thru_2009_effective.svg</a><br /><br />I've been wondering to what degree low interest rates have enabled speculator of oil, food, and equities (hence increases in the prices of oil, food, and equities?).<br /><br />I doubt we'll see rates above 2% until the economy begins to pick up steam, but it does appear the Fed is going to raise interest rates.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/economy/fed-lays-out-exit-strategy-roadmap-20110713" rel="nofollow">http://www.nationaljournal.com/economy/fed-lays-out-exit-strategy-roadmap-20110713</a>bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-18250070257728444042011-07-12T19:32:07.756-06:002011-07-12T19:32:07.756-06:00.
Interest rates won't go up until we see infl....<br /><i>Interest rates won't go up until we see inflation.</i><br />.<br />I meant what will happen to the interest our government pays on the national debt notes. Will that rate go up? And, if it does, how will that impact the profits for those forces that hold the notes?<br />.<br />If America is seen as a higher risk, it makes sense that those who purchase our debt stand to make more profits. I don't think people like you and me are buying those notes. They are most likely issued in amounts of a hundred thousand dollars or more. Right?<br />.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-40856153770447586392011-07-12T18:23:08.270-06:002011-07-12T18:23:08.270-06:00Phil,
Interest rates won't go up until we see...Phil,<br /><br />Interest rates won't go up until we see inflation.<br /><br />Given the current economic situation, I don't expect to see inflation any time soon.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-38808257817918885322011-07-12T16:33:14.727-06:002011-07-12T16:33:14.727-06:00.
That was a good idea, too.
.
O Kaaaayuh
.
As lon....<br /><i>That was a good idea, too.</i><br />.<br />O Kaaaayuh<br />.<br />As long as we're going off on tangents, I think I'll ask a question of someone who might have a reasonable answer.<br />.<br />Tom, If the national debt ceiling is not raised, will the interest rate our government pays on the debt be increased?<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-47498560783066918452011-07-12T16:13:11.702-06:002011-07-12T16:13:11.702-06:00I believe it was a good idea. After all, the U.S....I believe it was a good idea. After all, the U.S. was founded on Christian-Judeo principles. I might also add that 1990 was proclaimed the International Year of Bible Reading by President George H.W. Bush. That was a good idea, too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-49372566134772309732009-05-11T07:42:00.000-06:002009-05-11T07:42:00.000-06:00Tom: "Not at all, Ben, under pluralism. The normat...Tom: "Not at all, Ben, under pluralism. The normative need not be the enemy of the new, in an "open-minded" society."<br /><br />Ok. I understand your point. I was (again) focused on a <I>political</I> understanding of "Christian Nation".bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-43215936614068086452009-05-10T20:21:00.000-06:002009-05-10T20:21:00.000-06:00There is no equality between what is favored and w...<I>There is no equality between what is favored and what is not.</I>Not at all, Ben, under pluralism. The normative need not be the enemy of the new, in an "open-minded" society.<br /><br />"Normative" is a righteous philosophical term, describing not only the prevailing belief, but what justified that belief in the first place. Both genesis and praxis.<br /><br />We need not throw the normative out to continue to be open to the new. That would be cementheadedness.<br /><br />[I used "sophistic" here nonpejoratively---concentrating on the formality of the argument and not its underlying content. That's your style, Ben, and in reading you, I've learned to admit when I'm doing it too. Sometimes it's proper to examine the form of the argument, although to limit oneself to that is, well, sophistic as opposed to philosophical.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-80029452445804308772009-05-10T19:24:00.000-06:002009-05-10T19:24:00.000-06:00Tom,
There is no equality between what is favored...Tom,<br /><br />There is no equality between what is favored and what is not. Thus, I'm at a loss to understand how your response stands on its own, unless you intended to imply that your arguemnt is sophistic, in which case any further discussion is moot.<br /><br />As to why establishment threatens religious liberty, are you asking for a defence of the establishment clause?bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-18557863037906927762009-05-10T18:42:00.000-06:002009-05-10T18:42:00.000-06:00Which again is another reason why America was not ...<I> Which again is another reason why America was not founded to be a "Christian" Nation but a nation of religious liberty and equality...</I>..<br /><br /><br />Well, Ben, Jon actually wrote that quote; I replied it's an unnecessary either/or dichotomy.<br /><br />My response stands on its own, and should be answered on those [admittedly] sophistic terms. As you specialize in deconstructing the form of an argument rather than its content, I think you should play by your own rules and standards.<br /><br />The burden of proof is now on you to argue why establishment threatened religious liberty.<br /><br />Then you need to argue your notion of "equality." After all, George Washington was called "first among equals," and he threatened nobody's liberty.<br /><br />But not to be disingenuous and pretend I don't know what you're talking about, I'll add that American <I>pluralism</I> answers your challenge.<br /><br />But if you want to actually participate in these discussions, you need to add affirmative counterargument to your admittedly clever challenges of other people's statements.<br /><br />I look forward to that day.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-11107063287846024602009-05-10T18:13:00.000-06:002009-05-10T18:13:00.000-06:00Tom wrote: "Which again is another reason why Amer...Tom wrote: "Which again is another reason why America was not founded to be a "Christian" Nation but a nation of religious liberty and equality..."<br /><br />Tom, your comment appears (to me) to be a contradiction. Whether the claim is our Nation was founded to be politicaly and/or culturaly a "Christian" nation, how can either qualify as a Nation founded on religious liberty and equality?bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-12329085351178251352009-05-10T13:06:00.000-06:002009-05-10T13:06:00.000-06:00Which again is another reason why America was not ...<I>Which again is another reason why America was not founded to be a "Christian" Nation but a nation of religious liberty and equality.</I>..<br /><br />Why not both? There's no reason to create a dichotomy.<br /><br />But it depends on what "Christian nation" means anyway. To narrow the term to mean "theocracy" is to argue against a claim even the Dominionists don't make.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10288800919316139592009-05-10T07:52:00.000-06:002009-05-10T07:52:00.000-06:00A More Perfect Union....
.
????<A HREF="http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hisownwords" REL="nofollow">A More Perfect Union.</A>...<br />.<br />????Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23043323583057215242009-05-10T07:47:00.000-06:002009-05-10T07:47:00.000-06:00.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to....<br />"We the People of the United States, in Order to form <B>a more perfect Union</B>, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."<br />.<br />We're still working on it.<br />.<br />We have different ideas of what it means to be perfect.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50930876505239714432009-05-10T07:30:00.000-06:002009-05-10T07:30:00.000-06:00Although some Founders mention those religions in ...<I>Although some Founders mention those religions in the abstract, there's no evidence they had any genuine understanding of them.</I>This is something I might want to explore a little more in the future. I see you and Kristo trying to downplay those abstract sentiments which I think were a very important part of their vision for religious equality. And in fact directly led to America eventually being a place where all would be welcomed and treated as equal citizens regardless of their status as "Christians." Which again is another reason why America was not founded to be a "Christian" Nation but a nation of religious liberty and equality.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-75898600214862685012009-05-09T21:55:00.000-06:002009-05-09T21:55:00.000-06:00In any event, I don't claim that Christian theolog...<I>In any event, I don't claim that Christian theology didn't enfluence and/or inspire the founders. Only that the the examples mentioned were "self-evident", and required no support of scripture.</I>Well, Ben, there's a difference between the Bible and Christian theology, theology being reason applied to scripture.<br /><br />Christianity "grew," "evolved," mostly without help form the Enlightenment, and well before there even was an Enlightenment era.<br /><br />Unfortunately, we miss that distinction almost all the time around here, locked in battles between Biblical fundamentalism and 21st century reason.<br /><br />The discussion is often crude, no, um, "nuanced," faith versus not quite reason, but non-religious emotion, passion.<br /><br />Because Christian theology is quite reasonable--it's reasonable by definition---as in John Locke's <I>The Reasonableness of Christianity.</I>"<br /><br />We must compare and contrast the American and French revolutions to see the difference between man-and-God versus man on his own.<br /><br />I reckon you noticed that I was quoting Harry Truman, not myself, on the Matthew and St. Anselm stuff. I'm not prepared to defend Truman's assertion, as I haven't studied it; my point was per the context of Brad's original post--- that what Reagan signed [did he indeed draft it? doubtful] was totally consistent with what Democrat Harry Truman said in 1950, presumably uncontroversial with both parties.<br /><br />And that things have changed, at least for the moment...Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23182682894126695282009-05-09T20:47:00.000-06:002009-05-09T20:47:00.000-06:00Tom wrote: "The fundamental basis of this Nation's...Tom wrote: "The fundamental basis of this Nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days."<br /><br />Tom, there is no necessity for Judeo-Christian religion to support our Nation's law ... including the Bill of Rights. In the absence of the Bible, I'm able to appreciate the value of liberty.<br /><br />Regarding the Bill of Rights, it would be of interest if the founders argued from "Exodus and St. Matthew". I am unware of such examples, but would be very interested in a correction of my knowledge. Did such occur in the debates of the first amendment?<br /><br />In any event, I don't claim that Christian theology didn't enfluence and/or inspire the founders. Only that the the examples mentioned were "self-evident", and required no support of scripture.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84242925304449657152009-05-09T20:36:00.000-06:002009-05-09T20:36:00.000-06:00Magpie:
I don't see how the term "ultra-Christian...Magpie:<br /><br />I don't see how the term "ultra-Christian" drips of panic, etc. After all, isn't the Bible an "ultra-Christian" book?Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-46661941899506461762009-05-09T19:06:00.000-06:002009-05-09T19:06:00.000-06:00Well, of course there were no Mormons yet at the t...Well, of course there were no Mormons yet at the time of the Founding, and I'm afraid I object to the current We Are the World sentiment that Muslims and Hindus [or atheists, but that's a different discussion] have any connection with the Founding principles. For the simple reason that there weren't any around.<br /><br />Although some Founders mention those religions in the abstract, there's no evidence they had any genuine understanding of them.<br /><br />But how about Jews? There were definitely Jews in America at the Founding. "The Bible," not only to Christians, but even in the understanding of someone from another culture [or from Mars!], in common usage includes the New Testament.<br /><br />Therefore, the federal government has no more business telling Jews the New Testament is the "word of God," than it would telling orthodox Christian that "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" is the word of God.<br /><br />[Although as a proponent of federalism, I'd have to say the state of Utah would have that right. Hehe.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-29149425444626607022009-05-09T18:56:00.000-06:002009-05-09T18:56:00.000-06:00Brad Hart writes:
***I think we can infer that th...Brad Hart writes:<br /><br />***I think we can infer that their invocation of the Bible is equivalent to mentioning Christ...sort of like if they had mentioned the Qur'an we could logically infer Islam...something like that.***<br /><br />Perhaps, but "ultra-Christian?" It's a term that drips prejudice, phobia and panic. Is there a better term?Magpie Masonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01390264410632162085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-49066224304030980232009-05-09T18:21:00.000-06:002009-05-09T18:21:00.000-06:00Magpie Mason writes:
***"What is the definition o...Magpie Mason writes:<br /><br />***"What is the definition of "ultra-Christian," and why would either of these proclamations be labeled such? I don't see mention of Christ in either."***<br /><br />I think we can infer that their invokation of the Bible is equivalent to mentioning Christ...sort of like if they had mentioned the Qur'an we could logically infer Islam...something like that.<br /><br />Tom:<br /><br />I agree. Calling the Bible the "Word of God" seems out of line. And anyone who disagrees, just ask yourself this question: what if they had done this for the Qur'an, Book of Mormon, Upanishads, etc.?Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.com