Friday, May 26, 2006

Leg or wing?

Sorry to those of you (and myself) who have been anticipating not-so-patiently a long-awaited new post from me. The following is not what I had in mind, but is rather an impulse ricocheted from Tom's latest blog-post (see bottom left bar) and will be quick to write. He is one of my favourite people, normally...

As a disclaimer, although not as an apology for I am not ashamed of my political beliefs (if you allow me to explain/debate them!), it is late, I am tired, I do not have my political head on, should not engage in politics on very little sleep and a baited impulse, and this net-test may be influenced by all sorts of bias which may result in its not reflecting my true views (especially as I had to ask the Oracle of Delphi - Wikipedia - for a breakdown of one or two political terms before I made my quickfire choice). But here goes.

You scored as Republican. <'Imunimaginative's Deviantart Page'>

Anarchism

75%

Republican

75%

Socialist

58%

Democrat

58%

Green

58%

Communism

42%

Nazi

17%

Fascism

8%

What Political Party Do Your Beliefs Put You In?
created with QuizFarm.com


In conclusion I appear to break the mould a little, but my underlying tendencies are republican. Hmm, maybe I shall comment on that when I've considered it longer.

11 Comments:

Blogger Cathy said...

Lol. Sounds either medical or military. Maybe it is.

10:09 AM  
Blogger TJC said...

Cathy dear, my esteem level for you has risen. Anarchist 75%??! Brilliant! Did you put yes to the abolition of property? Or is that hoping too high? lol.

Much love (whatever our political differences...!), and will talk to you more soon,

Your bro xx

9:27 PM  
Blogger TJC said...

P.S. I think 'Anarchlican' rolls off the tongue better.

11:56 AM  
Blogger Cathy said...

If God allows people to have, gain and protect their own property (loads of OT refs), I'm afraid I must too. Otherwise who's to say to whom the earth "belongs"? Not to mention why would the 8th commandment exist? Or the 7th... and if you think about it the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th. Actually lying and coveting does come under violating people's ownership of the truth about them and the fact that their stuff is their own.

Also, as we've covered before with regard to capitalism, in my mind property etc comes in two stages: 1) how you get your stuff 2) what you do with it.

I'm a capitalist as regards the first stage (well, with some big changes), but something unorthodox with regard to the second... Biblical politics are very rarely represented truly and fully in secular isms.

Anyway I'm very glad you changed your blog-face - it's much nicer now! And yes, we can discuss these things to our heart's content very soon.

10:31 PM  
Blogger TJC said...

The earth belongs to all mankind equally, or it's supposed to, along with her resources. Man is also supposed to share his belongings with his neighbour, if we are talking biblically. Anybody knows that this doesn't happen though.

The OT references seem to only accept the fact that there is property, not condone or endorse it, but if you can find me verses to the contrary, email me.

12:12 PM  
Blogger Cathy said...

Indeed you are right as you speak of stage two - we should indeed share and share alike; there is enough for everyone - on this I am completely with you and also hope that your love of tea, my dear, extends to fairtrade varieties?

But you have actually supported my view of stage one: "The earth belongs to..."; "...share his belongings".

The concept of "belonging" is God-given - the Levites "belonged" to God - a wife "belongs" to her husband - otherwise I shall ask again, why is stealing wrong? Surely stealing would therefore be ok if the thief were poorer than the thieven. But it isn't.

Maybe it isn't right that some are poorer than others, but that wouldn't make it right for them to thieve from others. Robbing the rich to give to the poor may redress the balance, but it's still wrong. It "belongs" to one and not the other. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's..." What Caesar then does with it is on his own head.

I was struck by something different in Proverbs 31 recently. Look at the woman's attitude to wealth/belongings. She works hard for her money; she sees that her trading is profitable; she even sees a field and buys it. Her earning is noble. That's stage one.

Stage two: what does she do with her money? Well, she provides portions for her servants; she opens her arms to the poor and those in need. But also her family is clothed in scarlet to keep them from cold, and she herself is dressed in fine linen and purple. Intriguing.

It's not wrong to be rich; God made Job very rich. Equally we must remember our wealth is from God (God also made Job very poor) and we must honour Him with what we have.

11:23 AM  
Blogger Cathy said...

Equally, if the OT accepts and even protects the fact that people own stuff, why then should we not?

11:26 AM  
Blogger TJC said...

But none of this still seems to endorse property, only accept it. I guess the fundamental difference between Christianity and communism (as one example of an ideology which forwards the abolition of property) is that the former condones equality through the sharing of one's own belongings, and the latter condones class equality through the taking of other people's property.

So, ultimately (and purely materially), each are working for the same end, but through very different means - the Christian one being the more ethical, loving and appropriate. So the Christian ideology is obviously better - but seeing as the West, whilst nominally 'Christian', doesn't really apply this to any great effect (to Third World countries in particular), then another answer is perhaps needed.

Humans are imperfect, and capitalism / communism / anarchism / fascism / etcetera are never going to work 100%, to the benefit of both proletariat and bourgeoisie. Power always ends up in someone's hands.

12:53 PM  
Blogger Cathy said...

Very good call, brother. All true. I enjoyed reading that balanced vignette.

Our argument shall perhaps move in due course to: Given the secular society in which we live, the multifarious complex problems this world suffers, and the general abandonment of Christian ethics or principles, which ideology is the most likely to achieve the most balanced and ethical end, via the most balanced and ethical means?

I have a feeling we may struggle under this one for far longer.

5:58 PM  
Blogger ernie said...

CATHY!!!

update... now... or else... ermm, i dunno.

goodness me i miss you lady! have so much to tell you... and im sure much to hear from you!

love you lots xxx

10:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Keep up the good work » »

3:18 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home