A Mormon for President - the Prophecy
Well, since I received very few responses to my introspective entries, I will move on to other topics. Thank you to those of you who sent encouraging comments-I appreciate it!
I am an ameteur prophet. Not a Biblical prophet of course-I fall far short of that. No, just a for-fun predictor of future events. I think I run at about 80%, which is pretty good, don't you think?
For over 2 years now I have told people that it is very possible a Mormon could be our next President. It was kind of fun to see people's reactions-disbelief mostly. How could this be? How could a formerly obscure, rather odd religion (think ploygamy, no coffee or alcohol, etc.) produce an American president?
Several Reasons:
1. No longer obscure, the LDS faith has been pursuing acceptance from society for over two decades now, loudly condemning polygamy and reversing it's patriarichal and racist past, and emphasizing the importance of family. It has succeeded and our relativistic culture ("whatever works for you") has been the perfect environment for it to thrive in.
2. The Democratic front runner is obviously Hillary Clinton. Her shrill voice and feminist, liberal beliefs are going to be too much for most moderates. Ergo, the conservative candidate has a great chance at winning.
3. Two Mormons who are very appealing to watch are Mitt Romney, Republican governor of Mass. and Mike Leavitt, former Gov. of Utah and now on President Bush's cabinet. I bet either could beat Hillary. Leavitt has shown no interest, but Romney is getting ready to run. He has formed an election commitee and is raising money. He has been compared to JFK and has already proven his leadership and appeal. A Republican Gov. of Massachusettes! Pretty amazing!
So there is a very good chance it will be Mitt Romney v.s. Hillary. Who would the country vote for? How about you?
I think Romney would win hands down if it were not for his Mormon faith. His committee knows that and has been consulting with Protesant and Catholic leaders, some from Utah, to figure out what to do about his image. To be sure, his opponents will bring up all of Mormonism's ugly past, as well as it's un-orthodox beliefs. Will people elect a man who believes he will one day become a God and have his own planet?
Well, we will see.
My prophecy: Romney will win against Hillary.
Remember, I am only an ameteur!
I am an ameteur prophet. Not a Biblical prophet of course-I fall far short of that. No, just a for-fun predictor of future events. I think I run at about 80%, which is pretty good, don't you think?
For over 2 years now I have told people that it is very possible a Mormon could be our next President. It was kind of fun to see people's reactions-disbelief mostly. How could this be? How could a formerly obscure, rather odd religion (think ploygamy, no coffee or alcohol, etc.) produce an American president?
Several Reasons:
1. No longer obscure, the LDS faith has been pursuing acceptance from society for over two decades now, loudly condemning polygamy and reversing it's patriarichal and racist past, and emphasizing the importance of family. It has succeeded and our relativistic culture ("whatever works for you") has been the perfect environment for it to thrive in.
2. The Democratic front runner is obviously Hillary Clinton. Her shrill voice and feminist, liberal beliefs are going to be too much for most moderates. Ergo, the conservative candidate has a great chance at winning.
3. Two Mormons who are very appealing to watch are Mitt Romney, Republican governor of Mass. and Mike Leavitt, former Gov. of Utah and now on President Bush's cabinet. I bet either could beat Hillary. Leavitt has shown no interest, but Romney is getting ready to run. He has formed an election commitee and is raising money. He has been compared to JFK and has already proven his leadership and appeal. A Republican Gov. of Massachusettes! Pretty amazing!
So there is a very good chance it will be Mitt Romney v.s. Hillary. Who would the country vote for? How about you?
I think Romney would win hands down if it were not for his Mormon faith. His committee knows that and has been consulting with Protesant and Catholic leaders, some from Utah, to figure out what to do about his image. To be sure, his opponents will bring up all of Mormonism's ugly past, as well as it's un-orthodox beliefs. Will people elect a man who believes he will one day become a God and have his own planet?
Well, we will see.
My prophecy: Romney will win against Hillary.
Remember, I am only an ameteur!
posted by Rob | 9:22 AM
23 Comments:
Rob, you prophet kind of guy...very interesting thoughts you provide. Only time will tell if the "theology" matter will prevent Romney from getting a serious look from evangelicals...but like you, I'd have to admit there's much to look at that is attractive in the conservative Governor of Mass.
Greg
I had shivers reading this posting. It has always fascinated me how wide the divide can be between a person's chosen label of faith (e.g. morman, catholic, lutheran, etc.) and their more concrete and rational positions in life; especially regarding politics. Does Mitt Romney actually beleive that he will be eternally married to his wife and eventually reach a heaven where he is a God? Will mainstream protestants and catholics consider this system of beliefs sane? I doubt the question will even be raised as mainstream religions have effective detached their day-to-day rational thinking from their personal theology. Mormans paint a strong picture of social responsibility and stability. In addition they do a tremendous amount of tangible "good" things for people domestically and abroad.
If I recall (only academically because I am not THAT old) weren't there concerns with JFK and his impartiality regarding government decisions and the influence of the pope caused by his faith? Should we think the same way about the Momran president and Mitt Romney? Should we elect Hillary Clinton who thinks we are the world's caretaker - troops to police the world. OK - probably not enough space to get me started on Hillary Clinton... I'm glad someone else sees this boiling on the horizon.
Conservative evangelical voters are brain dead. Mostly they end up elect millionaires (Romney, Frist, Bush-Cheney) or uneducated charlatans (Delay) who abuse their position to rub elbows with millionaires. In the end the wealthy neo-conservative Republicans use abortion and gay marriage to pose as moral leaders for the evangelical vote, but pursue their only governance philosophy: giving tax breaks to millionaires and multi-national corporations.
Plato notes that a government by
aristocrats only serves aristocrats. (In fairness to Democrats, Plato also notes that the mob only serves the mob.) I prefer the educated conservative (not neo-conservative) to lead. Ford, Bush Sr., Carter were all fiscally conservative pragmatists. Clinton was closer to a conservative pragmatist than Bush Jr. Bush Jr. is an uneducated front man for the super wealthly. He is just a bumbling fool.
President Carter looks oh so righteous in comparison to Bill and oh so smart in comparison to Bush Jr. He was smart, educated, Christian, principled, fiscally conservative, served honorably in the military, cleaned up Georgia dirty politics as a governor ... and still the Tim Lahaye Evangelicals fought to bring 'Jimmy' down. I have read Tim Lahaye's boasting about bring 'Jimmy' down.
Evangelical voters are manipulated to vote for the agenda of millionaires like Romney and the corporations they own. Brain dead.
The Republic
Translation by Benjamin Jowett
Book VIII
....
GLAUCON: And what manner of government do you term oligarchy?
SOCRATES: A government resting on a valuation of property, in which the rich have power and the poor man is deprived of it.
I understand, he replied.
Ought I not to begin by describing how the change from timocracy to oligarchy arises?
Yes.
Well, I said, no eyes are required in order to see how the one passes into the other.
How?
The accumulation of gold in the treasury of private individuals is ruin the of timocracy (the government by men of military honour); they invent illegal modes of expenditure; for what do they or their wives care about the law?
Yes, indeed.
And then one, seeing another grow rich, seeks to rival him, and thus the great mass of the citizens become lovers of money.
Likely enough.
And so they grow richer and richer, and the more they think of making a fortune the less they think of virtue; for when riches and virtue are placed together in the scales of the balance, the one always rises as the other falls.
True.
And in proportion as riches and rich men are honoured in the State, virtue and the virtuous are dishonoured.
Clearly.
And what is honoured is cultivated, and that which has no honour is neglected.
That is obvious.
And so at last, instead of loving contention and glory, men become lovers of trade and money; they honour and look up to the rich man, and make a ruler of him, and dishonour the poor man.
They do so.
...
oligarchies have both the extremes of great wealth and utter poverty.
Now Vince, I am a conservative evangelical voter and I don't think I am brain dead. Of course if I was I wouldn't know it...I think. (I think that I am, therefore I am...I think.)
Weren't Washington, Jefferson, Adams, etc. all wealthy? Wasn't Carter (who most historians I read consider the worst of modern Presidents)? Weren't JFK and LBJ all millionaires, yet fought for civil rights and changed our society for the good?
Well, hey just a little food for thought.
Ah, Romney Jr., Bush Jr., and Huntsman Jr. are all pampered and wealthy kids. They have no basis for empathy, sympathy for those in poverty. Their policies are designed to preserve wealthy estates. Lower classes must hope a penny falls here and there. I do admit that Romney is the most intelligent and capable of the bunch. His better education is very apparent in his abilities and demeanor when compared with the other Jrs.
There are distinct differences from Bush Jr. in the other 'millionaire' presidents you mention:
LBJ was born dirt poor and was a teacher prior to his political career. He married the daughter of a wealthy man.
Interestly, George Washington was a rather poor surveyor and soldier who eventually married into the modestly wealthy estate of a widow.
John F. Kennedy was certainly born wealthy. Younger brother Edward is a spoiled brat, but John and Robert seemed to identified with the common man in ways that Bush Jr. cannot even comprehend. Their more insightful governance was most certainly due to their ability to think and read. Bush Jr. cannot speak in coherent sentences. He squandered his educational opportunities. His wife is articulate and had read books. Bush jr. demonstrates with his lack of insightful speeches that he had not read anything more than comic books.
Carter was the son of a modest farmer. He was an Nuclear engineer in the navy (he can say 'nuclear' properly). He was a successful manager of his farm and business. I suspect your hand selected historians of Hannity and Limbaugh don't have a clue to the value of Carter's presidency. Have you read any of Carter's books? They are quite good. His writing style is simple, but his knowledge and wisdom are apparent. Most people that criticize Carter cannot give an example of any Carter's policy decisions from his administration that they disagreed with. Walter Conkrite interviewed presidents from Truman to Bush Sr.. He said that President Carter was the most intelligent president that he interviewed. Carter's grasp of the complex issues of international situations, history, economy, and policy is impressive. Carter's weakness was the lack of the desire to spin his image. He let his image be spun by the opposition.
While I don't agree with Reagan's politics, he was able to identify with common people. His own background was modest.
While Clinton is a terrible husband, his poor beginnings and clear intellegence produced a decade of decent governence.
John F. Kennedy is the only born-wealthy public official that seemed to have an ability to understand "We the people".
George hears "We the upper 1%ers". His silver spoon is as obvious as his destiny to be the worst president of the 21st century.
Has anyone here ever looked at a tax rate schedule? Doesn't it make sense to cut the taxes of the group who is paying the bulk of them? How is it fair to say that Bush, et al, are only concerned with the upper 1% when clearly this group is bearing the greatest burden in our tax system? Give me a break!
Maybe I'm just a "brain-dead evangelical," but I'm pretty sure that the sanctity of human life is far more important than which social group is favored by our tax system anyway, no matter which party you think is better for the economy. I, as a "brain-dead evangelical," will always vote my moral conscience. Perhaps if one doesn't appreciate living in America, the most free of all nations, they might consider moving to a nation run by Islamic law--I'm pretty sure there aren't any "Brain-dead Evangelical" voters in countries like that.
Vince, forgive me but what planet are you on? I think you have been drinking too much Einsteins coffee!
Ergo:
I do not go by Hannity and Limbaugh-unfair name dropping. I read people like David McCollough(sp?), watch PBS AMerican Experience, and read Smithsonian Magazine and AMerican History Magazine, among others. These are not history journals, but hey, I am a layman.
Washington inherited land and wealth from his brother-marrying Martha just expanded it.
LBJ WAS rich, regardless how and so were all the others-which was my point. They still fought for the rights of common folk.
How about Andrew Jackson for a "common man" President? He was a bigot and decimated the American Indians.
Bush Jr. has stood for the family, fought fanatical tyrants, given us all tax breaks (we got bunkbeds for our kids with it-thank you Mr. President), fought gay marriage, come out against abortion and has been a total gentleman to the worst Presidents in modern history, Clinton and Carter, who pushed abortion and gay rights, failed to fight terrorism, and tanked the economy. Thank God they are both pretty much just writing books now! (by the by-anyone can write a book and say good things-it's action that counts, and I have read over and over again in countless articles and books that Carter did almost NOTHING right! A good Navy officer (how do we even know that is true beyond his word?) is one thing, a national leader is another I.e. John Kerry)
Do idiots graduate from Harvard?
We are heading to the White House next week-we will tell him hi for you -and blame it on the bad coffee!
Rob
Rob,
So Jimmy Carter lied about his Navy carrier? Hmm. Try www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq60-14.htm for a description of his submarine engineering service. Or how about www.americanpresident.org/history/Jimmycarter to read about a couple of 'historical things' like high school valedictorian or US Naval Academy graduate.
Also one might remember a 2002 Nobel Peace Prize. Ahh, that was from liberal European folks. Or Carter being the chief negotiator of the only middle east peace agreement that is still intact (Israel & Eygpt at the Camp David Accords).
President Carter lost his re-election for the exact same reason that George Bush Sr. lost his re-election (I put both in the catagory of 'reasonably good' Presidents). They lost because their own party rebeled against them during difficult economic years. The third party candidate took more than 10% of the vote away from their re-election bid to allow the opposing party candidate to win.
A first term president is generally suffering from the previous president's economic policies. The second term can be blamed on that president. President Reagan suffered from a very severe recession in his first term. It was caused by President Carter's selection of Paul Volcker as the Federal Reserve Chairman two months before the 1980 election. It has been considered an excellent appointment (by historians, believe it or not). Volcker told Carter that if he were appointed he would act immediately to battle the 'stag-flation' economy and it would be very damaging politically. Carter said, 'do the right think'. Volker raised the lending rate to nearly 20% in October one month before election day. It was hugely damaging to President Carter's image for the economy. However, Volker is regarded as a brilliant chairman that successfully reduced inflation from 13% (1981) to 3% in 1983 during those difficult recession years. Greenspan continued Volker's policies. Inflation has not been a problem since. People don't remember, but Carter made a terrific decision in picking Volker.
By the way, Bush went to Yale. Kerry went to Harvard.
I must apologize, Bush is not an idiot.
Dear anonymous,
I am against abortion-on-demand. It is an immoral law.
Why is it that conservatives demand that people with whom they disagree need to move to a differ country?
"You disagree with me, you need to move to Russia!. Hmm. I miss the logic.
History time for top-tax brackets:
During the early years of the Depression (1933) Federal Reserve Chairman Marriner Eccles (a 2nd cousin of mine) recognized that an enormous percentage of the country's wealth was in a very few hands and recommended raising taxes on his income bracket. Economies are driven by large, wealthy middle classes not by large, wealthy family estates.
Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican President, 1901-1909) recognized the same thing and enacted 'trust busting' legislation to keep the four main wealthy families from hiding their enormous wealth tax shelters called trusts. He was successful. And he created a higher tax rate for the highest income earners. If you remember from you High School history, Abraham Lincoln started the income tax.
Well the tax rates went up during World War I to pay for the war. After the War, the top tax bracket was reduced several times. During the roaring twenties is was set at 25%. Money traveled quickly back to the wealthy families out of the middle class pockets. The economy failed at the end of the decade in spectacular fashion.
Eventually, Teddy's distant cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, also recognized that he needed to get access to the wealthy foundations to get the depressed economy moving again. He raised the top bracket tax rate to 63% from the 1920's tax rate of 25%. It was bold but not bold enough.
World War II came. The top tax rate went to 90%!!!! After the War was over the economy exploded ... all while the top tax rate was 90%! In fact, John Kennedy lowered the top tax rate to 77%. The brilliant economy continued to expand all the way to Carter with a 70% top tax rate.
Reagan lowered the rates to 50% then 28%. The trend was returning to the 1920's. The middle class stated its long slide toward poverty and the super wealthy started to appear. The middle class now need two wage earners to manage what their parents in the 1960's could do on one income.
The economy started to tank under Bush Sr. because of the massive government deficit. He correctly raised tax rates to help balance the budget. I suggest that this tax increase balanced the budget under Clinton. Bush Sr. balanced the budget not Clinton!
Take a look at the top tax rates and look at the history above. Supply side Republicans say that lowering taxes on the wealthy stimulates the economy. Very NOT SO. Take a look at the tax rates and recognize that severely decreased taxes on the wealthy lead to a poor middle class. A large tax rate on the very wealthy class helped sustain the richest middle class in the world from 1950 to 1980. Since that time, the middle class has become poorer and billionaires started to appear again. It's the 1920's all over again.
See the rates at:
www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
The question of Romney vs Hillary raises a difficult question for me.
The history presented here has been educational. There is hope that another will rise to the rank of aspiring to become president in 2008 besides the choice above. Although, I am becoming pessimistic in this divided nation that anyone could bridge the "great" divide and unite America again in the near future.
My deep mistrust of the Mormon Faith and its philosophy of men achieving "godhood" is what I call the peak of humanism. Man being his own god. I always have a difficult time bringing myself to vote for anyone regardless of their political philosophy that is Mormon. Mormonism is in the soul of man and will leach out into the rest of his life. I am sure Mr. Romney has done many good works for his fellow man, but his works have only been done for his glory in earning a spot in a heavenly kingdom and not to his Creator. I could not for personal reasons vote for him as President.
Likewise, my deep distrust of another wing of humanism-socialism comes from Ms. Hillary. I say Hillary because she as virtually dropped her last name for obvious reasons-her husband broke her personal trust by cheating on her. I know that the socialist have lofty intentions of helping the poor and suffering, I just don't see the answer in more government programs which tend to be top heavy in administrative costs and have only trickles of aid reach those in need. I could not vote for anyone I consider socialist. Past presidents with great intentions have all ready made too many financial promises to the people that probably can not be met-social security.
In the past I have mostly voted republicans-against socialism-and am an evangelical Christian. I have little knowledge of economic principles, trickle down economics or tax the rich.
I vote republican for moral, security and world view reasons, but am starting to see why 50% of Americans don't vote for anymore.
Wealth from both parties corrupts equally. Both seem to want to protect their own interests. Republicans the business owner, wealthy 1%, etc. Democrats the wealthy union leader, wealthy 1%, etc.
If we are talking election 2008, I would have to write my own name in the blank if the choice was between those two. It would be the first year that I would be eligible (meet the age requirements) to become president.
Jonathon,
Very good. Thank you for your articulate and calm voice on the question. We need to avoid the 'already judged' adjectives.
"Shrill Feminist Hillary" says very little about Hillary Clinton's actual positions. They are just code words for other conservatives to pidgeon-hole Hillary as someone not to listen to.
Saying "Bush is an idiot" is worse. These are Liberal code words to pidgeon hole George as someone not to listen to.
Your calm thoughts on the question are much better than my polemic. Thank you for respecting the readers.
Hillary and Romney are decent humans. Both are NOT evangelical Christians. Both are desiring to serve humanity for good. We may not agree with their ideas, but perhaps we should attribute to them the desire to be good.
There are leaders who have lost their way by chosing the obvious wrong. One Democrat and One Republican were spectacularly exposed for taking bribes recently. Justice is good, but even here we could generously let them be humans who made some bad choices. Their actions still need to be judged. Hopefully, they regret their actions and NOT just regret their exposure.
Thanks again
Rob,
I still am a bit concerned that you would label a moderate, decent fellow like Jimmy Carter as having done "almost NOTHING right."
My favorite politicians are generally moderates. Senator Rudman (Republican) of New Hampshire and Senator Hatfield (Republican) of Oregon were stellar statesmen who would not fair well today in the Republican party. Senator McCain (Republican) of Arizona is pretty decent. Most of the Blue Dog Democrats are in the catagory of my favorites.
Blue Dogs
Jimmy Carter was a fiscal conservative and advocate of a stronger military ability. The liberal eastern democrats lead by Senator Kennedy rebelled against Carter's moderate policies.
Did you know that the key new weapons used during the first Gulf war were initiated under Carter's direction? He felt that building faster long-range bombers to deliver nuclear bombs was a thing of the past. He canceled the B1 bomber program as a military boondoggle that did not enhance security. Instead he initiated two secret programs to develop (a) smart bombs that flew themselves to their target (the bombers only had to get into the air) and (b) stealth fighters and bombers that could evade radar.
The Reagan administration continued these but also renewed the funding for the B1 bomber which has generally not been seen as a replacement for the B52 or as a new ability for the future like the stealthy B2.
Your lack of ability to acknowledge the useful good that the middle of the political spectrum has accomplished is rather disconcerting. There has been a long lasting 'control of the message' as Karl Rove puts it, where Republicans have blasted Carter as the root of all evil until every Republican mouths the dogma without thinking. I saw it almost immediately begin with the Reagan administration blaming every bad thing on the Carter administration. There was no logic behind the blame, it was just "we inherited the situation." Free yourself from such blatant spin.
Ann Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh are extreme rightists who do not recognize the good of the middle. Spin is all they do. I would also put Bauer, Dopson, LaHaye, and Falwell as brothers in Christ but rightists to the extreme of the political spectrum. I must note that I agree with much of their message in Christian and family topics. But they canonize the current extremist Republican platform into Biblical truth. They cast out the demonic centrists, who are concerned with climate change, pollution, the decline of the middle class.
It might be best for you to begin reading a few books from the middle or even on the left.
Try this one:
The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century by three-time Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas L. Friedman
The particulars of the current extremist Republican platform should probably be identified ... later.
I consider Romney a moderate republican. I consider Clinton a slightly left of center democrat. That makes we want Romney over Clinton. I am also an evangelical.
Interesting discussion we've got going here....
Not to digress from the main topic of discussion, but I feel as though I may respond to one of Jonathan's comments about federal programs being top heavy with administrative costs. I guess I can't speak for every federal program, but in my experience as an auditor of certain federal programs, I would have to say that Jonathan's comment is a little off base. In fact, administrave costs for many federal programs does not exceed 5% of the program's expenditures. The problem with many federal programs is not high administrative costs, but rather poor training among those determining eligibility for certain programs, resulting with numerous ineligible individuals on the programs (which is opposite to the assertion that only a small amount of aid trickles to those in need). While we've all heard of the disasters with agencies such as FEMA, I would venture to say that this is not the norm.
Here, here.
My mother was a civil servant in state government. She worked long hours to accomplish her tasks with little pay and no overtime benefits. My mother worked to provide help for kids with severe handicaps and their over burdened parents. These families were generally neglected by their very religous neighbors. I understand this though. It is very hard for neighbors to provide 20 years of need help.
Our state has continually cut costs in social programs over the past 25 years and my mother has struggled to find any relief for these burdened families. When she could not find help from government resources or the dominant religious organization in the state, there was one organization that seemed to always come up with some way to help. The Salvation Army!
I am not in favor of dole welfare, but favor work-fare. However, there are certain situations that require help from our society.
Hurrah civil servants! Hurrah Salvation Army!
Thanks TL for your perspective as auditor.
Again I have recieved an education, but I still have a problem with the 5% number for administrative costs. I am always curious when people decide to use percentages rather than actual numbers. It makes me wonder 5% of a pie is not that much right. Well not that much unless the pie is $2,770 Billon as the federal budget is for 2007.
That means that the federal government uses $138.5 Billion dollars to administer all its programs. I sometimes wonder where all that money goes when the civil servants, the ones down in the trenches are paid so little for their tireless hours of work.
In 2004 there were 1,767,000 federal employees. If that 5% of the budget was for salary of federal employees then that would average to around $78,000 per worker. I would imagine that few civil service workers make that much money.
Just a few numbers easily tracted down from the government webpages. The most disturbing statement I found was not about the numbers or even the percentage but:
"In contrast to the trend of declining deficits in the near term, the longer-term fiscal outlook is more troubling. Without action to reform the Nation’s large entitlement programs—particularly Social Security and Medicare—deficits, tax rates, or both, will increase to unprecedented levels and threaten future economic growth and standards of living."
Sobering words.
Wow, interesting figures. I'll agree that there is waste in the government and there are programs that need to be fixed up. I think, however, that we need to be careful with such hasty calculations though. If only it were as simple as multiplying the total federal budget by 5% to determine an admin estimate (5% is by no means a magic number. This is just the admin limit for some federal grants).
It's always interesting when we start talking about the economy, trying to predict what will happen in the future. I'll admit that it's been a couple of years since I received my economics degree and I don't work in an economics-related field, so perhaps I'm not qualified to comment on the subject, but I was curious about the current state of the economy. So I did a little research and found that Real Gross Domestic Product is up 3.49% from last year, Gross National Product is up 6.80%, unemployment is down, and Real Personal Income is up 6.41%. It seems that the current economy is strong, and one thing that you learn in any economics class is that the US Economy is robust. Does that mean the economy will never tank again? Well, even I'm not stupid enough to say it won't, but all current indicators say that we're currently in a good situation.
(by the way, these and other interesting economic figures can be found at www.economagic.com/popular.htm)
Now, weren't we supposed to be talking about who to vote for in the next election? :) I'll keep my neck out of those discussions!!
My understanding is that Mormons believe that they are children of God (Rom. 8:16) and that they will become joint heirs with God and Christ (Rom. 8:17). Becoming like God is NOT replacing God the Father, because God is always God the Father. No Mormon believes they will become a God unto themselves, as suggested above.
Actually, I think the Mormon doctrine is very close to the ancient doctrine of theosis, a doctrine held by the Greek Othodox.
Would you people have a problem if a Greek Orthodox ran for President?
Anyway, Romney would have to get past the Iowa Caucus, and I think there is a lot of hatred for Mormons in the midwest. If Romney does well in the early primaries, then who knows what could happen.
Jonathan,
For some types of services Government is a good deal. The 5% administation cost is typical for government social services. Which means 95% of the tax dollars in their program goes to services. Let's look at other organizations.
For non-profit organizations that provide social services (competing with government services) I went to the National Center for Charitable Statistic website (Purdue University). The following is from their Brief #5 under "Research Briefs".
Administration/fundraising costs for the sectors of non-profit organizations:
Human Services 20%
Arts, culture 28%
Education 20%
Health 21%
Environmental 22%
Typically 80% of your donated money goes to the actual programs you are donating to. This includes Christian ministries. Those Christian ministries that belong to the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability average around 15% for admin-fundraising. Check with Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance before you give.
Particularly for human services (Social Security, family services, etc.) The administration costs of government programs are generally very low when compared to non-profits.
For compariable profit-sector services (health care) the administration-profit-advertising percentage is enormous. Profit alone is often near 20%.
There are advantages to government providing some services, but not all. The competative market is necessary for adjusting to rapid changes. The government is not quick to change.
Jonathan, the criticism of the 5% administration cost is not warranted. Certainly we should not let government do everything. But some things are done well by a representative government like ours...military for one.
Not sure why I always seem to need to get the last word in, but here I go again.
The 5% used for government administrative cost does not bother me, as much, as another aspect of large government. The duplication of services and bail out emergency spending. First, duplication of services provided by state government and then the same service being provided by the federal government is waste; but mostly duplication of federal services by more than one agency.
Consider Federal Law Enforcement: If the FBI is the federal law enforcement agency, why do we also need the DEA, ICE, ATF, etc? One source of the cost of government is the duplication individual agencies that could all be grouped together into one agency. The combining of agencies would reduce cost.
The reason I get upset about huge government budgets in the billions and billions of dollars is the encroachment large governments have on individual freedom. My position is simply mandated government growth and the addition of more and more services by government can get out of control. The increase forces government to raise the tax burden on all citizens. It lowers the ability of citizens to have ecomomic choice and freedom. It makes them slaves to taxation. Choices have to be made to increase family income forcing many families to have both parents work to maintain themselves. With both parents working, the government then has to step in an create all sorts of programs for these recently neglected kids. It is a cycle that goes on and on.
Second, the emergency spending and bail out money, people begin to pay taxes for services others recieve and are so far removed from those service, they no longer see the value of the service. Example,
I don't know how many people feel, but I am a little tired of having taxes spent so people can rebuild their million dollar houses in hurricane alley year after year with government subsidized loans. The people that live in those high risk areas should have to pay an extra dangereous area tax or something.
So back to topic. Politicians who tend to favor larger government like Ms. Hillary could never get my vote.
Apologies to Rob for hijacking his blog and apologies to others for my selfish rant.
The government should be obligated to help those in need in times from either natural or unforeseen disasters. It is not for any of us to judge whether or not people are abusing the system, but to help those in need. Help those who want to begin the work of starting over;
This new conclusion came to me after much study in God's Word last night and this morning.
Human rights are only meaningful is they are defined in the context of protecting the weaker person. The politically or economically strong generally view their rights as freedom to benefit oneself. The powerful should think of their rights and freedom as 'the freedom to do all that is good'. Freedoms and rights must have limits at evil.
Ah, but we are mixing rights and freedom. It might be good to delineate the two.
Often in the american west, rights are associated with personal freedom. Unfortunately, the American frontier freedom is no longer a working model for the United States. We must acknowledge that we are our brothers keeper because we live within 100 of several brothers. In the frontier this was not necessarily true. We must have wisedom to know where personal freedom ends and societal good begins.
There are plenty of examples to choose from to illustrate the words of dichotomy "weak-strong; personal-societal; rights-responsibilities, freedoms-limits). In all cases extremes of each dicotomy need to be avoided. Let's be wise as a individuals and society as we deal with dichotomies.
Post a Comment
<< Home