I’m the enemy, ’cause I like to think; I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, “Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?” ...Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? -Edgar Friendly, character in Demolition Man (1993).
Disclaimer: Some postings contain other author's material. All such material is used here for fair use and discussion purposes.
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
--------------------------
This is what happens when government violates the Constitution. This is what happens when the oh-so-wise elected representatives with nearly unlimited access to astronomically large sums of money and egos to match essentially say, "How hard can it be?" This is what happens when unevolved pond scum, entirely convinced of their own superiority, are given unaccountable power.
----------------------
A watchdog says U.S. government expects to lose $9.7 billion on its bailout of General Motors. The government spent $49.5 billion to save GM five years ago. The Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program says the government has recovered $34.5 billion. That leaves $15 billion. (No it doesn't. The government also loses the time value of money, that is, what that money could have earned if invested. In addition, that $49.5 billion was borrowed money, so we had to pay interest on it. Finally, the economic ripple effects of redistributing this kind of money is felt throughout the economy as some people get money that was taken from the pockets of others and as people might have purchased cars from other manufacturers if GM and Chrysler had been allowed to fail.) The government got 61 percent of GM’s stock in the bailout. It has sold all but 7 percent, or 101 million shares. Those would have to sell for $148 each to break even. GM stock was trading at $35.72 Tuesday. The inspector general says in a report to Congress that the government is showing a $9.7 billion loss on its books. (To be borne by the American taxpayer, thank you very much.) The government says it bailed out GM and Chrysler to save 1 million jobs and prevent a deeper recession. (That's $49,500 per job saved, not including the funds spent on Chrysler's bailout. And it's not even possible to know how many jobs were saved, because had GM and Chrysler been allowed to fail, many of those people would have gotten jobs elsewhere. It is also impossible to demonstrate that the bailouts prevented a deeper recession. We have no possibility of a doubleblind study. Such assertions are based on wishful thinking.
But even so, this economic downturn continues to this day. Tens of millions of unemployed, banks failing, companies failing, peoples' savings wiped out, home equity gone [if they've been lucky enough to keep their home], welfare rolls bursting, SNAP payouts quadrupled, $17 trillion in debt, plus a hundred trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities... It's nonsense to think that by any standard the economic downturn is ameliorated by government spending, or that we are coming out of it, or that any of the touted numbers are accurate. We are being lied to.)
Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------------
We've seen Mr. Elliff's writings before, and generally they're well thought out and informative. However, this particular missive is somewhat lacking. We think that Mr. Elliff is suffering from a very common malady, tunnel vision, something which we on occasion suffer from. We all tend to get locked into our perspectives and then overlook information that would refute our theses.
-----------------------------
You could put the entire teaching about church music in the New Testament in a paragraph or two. (Ok, so here's his premise, that the amount of time Scripture discusses something is related to its importance. Hmmm. Try applying that test to, say, the Trinity to see how that works out.)
Add to this teaching those spirited illustrations of corporate singing in heaven displayed in the last book of the Bible, when angels and throngs of people fill the air with thundering six to eight line choruses. When it comes to intentional instruction about music, however, there are really only four passages in the New Testament:
Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord. Ephesians 5:19
Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. Colossians 3:16
Therefore, let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. Otherwise, if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks since he does not know what you are saying? For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. 1 Corinthians 14:13-17
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 1 Corinthians 14:26
(Notice how he artificially limits the scope of the topic to "N.T. teaching Scriptures" in order to establish his premise. But any doctrines about music in the church, as well as any other doctrine, are based on the whole of Scripture, not just directly instructional passages. But even here Mr. Elliff fails. In order to demonstrate his unfortunate cherry picking, we list below additional N.T. Scriptures related to music and praise, and in particular, one that contains direct instruction, James 5:13:
Lk. 15:25 Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing.
Lk. 2:13-14 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.”
Lk. 2:20 The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.
Lk. 5:25 Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God.
Lk. 17:15 One of them, when he saw he was healed, came back, praising God in a loud voice.
Lk. 18:43 Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they also praised God.
Lk. 24:52-53 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.
Ac. 2:46-47 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Ac. 3:7-8 Taking him by the right hand, he helped him up, and instantly the man’s feet and ankles became strong. He jumped to his feet and began to walk. Then he went with them into the temple courts, walking and jumping, and praising God.
Ac. 4:21-22 After further threats they let them go. They could not decide how to punish them, because all the people were praising God for what had happened. For the man who was miraculously healed was over forty years old.
Ac. 10:45-46 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Ac. 16:25-26 About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them. Suddenly there was such a violent earthquake that the foundations of the prison were shaken. At once all the prison doors flew open, and everybody’s chains came loose.
Ro. 15:8-11 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written: “Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles; I will sing hymns to your name.” Again, it says, “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.” And again, “Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and sing praises to him, all you peoples.”
He. 2:12 He says, “I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises.”
Ja. 5:13 Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise.
We can see there is more to music in the N.T. than just a "measly" four Scriptures. We included incidents of praise, since in the Hebrew culture praise and music are so interwoven. They are a celebratory culture, where singing, dancing, and other physical demonstrations of worship are commonplace. In fact, praise and music are almost interchangeable.
Clearly the N.T. has a lot to say about music and worship, more than Mr. Elliff is letting on. But why does he exclude the O.T.? The O.T. is replete with all sorts of incidents and expressions of musical worship. One particularly noteworthy and instructive instance is where David created a entire framework surrounding the idea of worship in the Tabernacle.
1Ch. 6:31: "These are the men David put in charge of the music in the house of the LORD after the ark came to rest there."
And look what David intends to do at this tabernacle.
Psalms. 27:6: "Then my head will be exalted above the enemies who surround me; at his tabernacle will I sacrifice with shouts of joy; I will sing and make music to the LORD."
There is much more O.T. Scripture on worship, so we could say a lot more regarding this, but suffice to say that arbitrarily limiting our source material is an artificial delineation not warranted by the subject matter.
We also need to note that Mr. Eliff seems reluctant to actually quote the magnificent choruses of Revelation. He writes about, "...those spirited illustrations of corporate singing in heaven displayed in the last book of the Bible" as if they're not particularly important. Perhaps not important to making his case, we suppose. We shall remedy his oversight and add them ourselves because of their great richness in contributing to the topic at hand:
Re. 5:12-14 In a loud voice they sang: “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!” Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!” The four living creatures said, “Amen”, and the elders fell down and worshiped.
Re. 5:9 And they sang a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.
Re. 5:11-12 Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. In a loud voice they sang: “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!”
Re. 14:3 And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No-one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.
Re. 15:2-4 And I saw what looked like a sea of glass mixed with fire and, standing beside the sea, those who had been victorious over the beast and his image and over the number of his name. They held harps given them by God and sang the song of Moses the servant of God and the song of the Lamb: “Great and marvelous are your deeds, Lord God Almighty. Just and true are your ways, King of the ages. Who will not fear you, O Lord, and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before you, for your righteous acts have been revealed.”
Pressing the issue further, there are many Scriptures in the N.T. that do not indicate actual music, yet we must include them because they suggest worship:
Mt. 5:12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Lk. 6:23 Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets.
Ac. 2:25-28 David said about him: “I saw the Lord always before me. Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will live in hope, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence."
Ph. 3:1 Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord!
Ph. 4:4 Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice!
That’s it. For all the millions of dollars spent on buying equipment, paying music leaders, crafting multi-level music programs, training choral leaders, and building buildings that accommodate elaborate musical presentations, these verses comprise a very tiny pedestal upon which to rest such a large elephant as the music program of the church. (Ahh, so this is it. He's not interested in whether or not the modern manifestation of music in the church is Scriptural; rather, he's bemoaning the money spent on it!)
With all this going on, you would think that surely under it all you would discover a solid foundation of Scripture to support such massive, expensive and time-intensive behavior. (Would Mr. Elliff like to point out any Scripture that speaks to any sort of expenditure related to other cash-hungry church programs, with the exception of ministry to the widows and orphans? There is so much that goes on in churches today that is not addressed by the Scriptures. Is Mr. Elliff making an Argument from Silence?)
Sadly, however, very few churches think through what the New Testament teaches when forming their music strategy. What did churches of the New Testament, large or small, mature or new-born, do with music under the tutelage of the Apostle Paul? (What other church ministries, organizational features, or expenditures do we find addressed in Scripture? What did Paul teach regarding them? Does Mr. Elliff's church do this:
They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved." Acts 2:42-47
If not, why not?)
“I Go Because I Like The Music”
I’m guessing, but I doubt that anybody joined with the early believers because they liked the music. (Mr. Elliff admits his lack of information, but happily makes this into evidence for his case. However, had it been true that the early church [that is, a version of church few churches emulate today] lacked music, it would have been jarring to a culture steeped in celebratory expression of worship.
Mr. Elliff has no way of knowing what attracted the early believers. He appears to be arguing his case based on the actions of misguided people in today's church. But we prefer the biblical explanation.)
If they were looking primarily for music and show, (He slips in "show," as if being attracted by the worship was the same thing as being attracted to the show.)
perhaps the local temple would have been the better choice. The pagan temple worship that most people knew in those days included plays, dance, singing, and even parades, but the early believers appear to have never thought of emulating their kind of worship in order to attract such people for Christ. (How does he know this? He's speculating, based on his personal preferences as to how a church ought to conduct itself.
But the author errs too ways. First, he restricts his comments to pagan churches, when the Temple was a central operating point of the early church. Ac. 2:46:
Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts.
Second, if churches are implementing worship programs to attract people for Christ, the author would need to cite evidence.)
Early church music was no match for the extravaganzas temple leaders could put on. Unlike our churches today, early Christians didn’t even compete with them. (Again, he can't possibly know this.)
The Jewish Temple worship was also highly skilled, choreographed and perhaps exciting to listen to, but, again, the early church seemed to by-pass that approach to winning people to Christ, or for designing their church life together. (He uses words like "perhaps," "appeared" and "seemed," yet he writes with such certainty about what you and I must do, and what every church must be like.
And the Jewish Temple worship is an indicator of the importance of music in the culture of the day, which likely spilled over into the early church in some form. Mr. Elliff draws precisely the opposite conclusion based on no evidence whatsoever.)
In more recent days (yet long before Christian people used the words “Church Growth”), (Church growth was never discussed until recently? Really?)
enterprising leaders sought to attract crowds to their churches with music. It was called “special music.” (??? "Special music" was for the purpose of attracting crowds? Mr. Elliff will cite Miss Roselle's shrill "special music" as an example. So this unpleasant music was specifically designed to attract crowds? This doesn't even make sense.)
I once made up an entire verse of a well-loved solo piece in a large church which rhymed but didn’t make sense. Perhaps that could be called “special,” but not most of what happens in churches every Sunday. What we do each week in churches might better be called “routine music.” We should say, “Miss Roselle will give the routine music this morning.” It doesn’t matter if Miss Roselle wilts the flowers with her shrill soprano warble, the order of service demands “special music.” It is planned out and pressed into the agenda, even if you have to get the most ungodly church members to do it. How did the apostle Paul ever make it without special music prior to his messages? (Once again Mr. Elliff is attempting to establish his perspective by pointing to bad behaviors and the failings of particular people. What have these got to do with the Scriptural basis for music in the church? By extension, does he criticize other practices in the service using the same criteria? Like announcements, offering, or Sunday school? )
But some churches offer more than a shrill solo. Some lay out a feast of music that is close to dazzling. Nobody announces that Miss Roselle will sing. She just does it—maybe with smoke rising up all around her. And many more do it after her. I cannot count the number of times in churches around our nation when I’ve heard music that was so professional, practiced, and polished that it would rival any ticket-only concert. Only the top musicians could be engaged to do it. (This is odd. He first criticizes churches for amateurish music, now he's unhappy with skilled musicians. Mr. Elliff finds himself at odds with David. 1Ch. 25:6-7:
All these men were under the supervision of their fathers for the music of the temple of the LORD, with cymbals, lyres and harps, for the ministry at the house of God. Asaph, Jeduthun and Heman were under the supervision of the king. Along with their relatives — all of them trained and skilled in music for the LORD — they numbered 288.
So, does Mr. Elliff want good worship music or bad worship music? Or perhaps no worship music?)
Everybody else is “audience.” (Unsupported assertion.)
To be more truthful, Miss Roselle wouldn’t have a chance to warble among such musicians. (More bad behavior cited. This doesn't advance his argument at all, any more than it would justify the call to eliminate all pastors from churches because some of them are bad or errant preachers.)
Often people join churches only when they “like the music.” (Do they? Does Mr. Elliff have any evidence for this? And really, if they go to church for the music and end up getting saved or healed, or decide to become a missionary or evangelist, what difference does it make what motivated them to go to church?)
For many people, that alone is enough to satisfy. Sadly, many churches are so music-driven that the teaching of the word is swallowed up in its ample motherly arms until it is nearly irrelevant. Three weeks without the full production, and the church building would be emptied. (This may or may not be true, he doesn't know. Nor does he really know the Word is being swallowed up. He's created a cause and effect scenario that he actually cannot demonstrate.)
Don’t mistake my concern for a lack of desire for excellence. (???)
I once thought I would give my ministry life to music. I know something about it. But it seems to me that we have gone to elaborate extremes before reflecting on what the New Testament has to say.
The New Testament on Music
So how should we integrate moving, meaningful, Christ-exalting music into our church’s life? What should we do or not do? I could suggest a thousand things off the top of my head (beginning with, “Have a talk with Miss Roselle.”). But what we need is not better ideas, but biblical ideas. Let me suggest a few things the Bible teaches. I believe these are among the most critical ideas, because these are all God has chosen to say about music to the New Testament church in the New Covenant. Be prepared for some radical concepts:
First, the verses above indicate that music should be about edification of believers. (Perhaps Mr. Elliff forgot that he quoted Ephesians 5:19: "Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord." That would be vertical, wouldn't it? One might get the feeling that Mr. Elliff is looking to affirm his own beliefs from Scripture, rather than allowing Scripture to establish and inform his beliefs. In fact, worship is specifically directed to the Lord. "Worship" is proskuneo, which means to fall down/prostrate oneself to adore on one's knees." There is nothing at all the suggests worship is the music we do in church.)
At least this is the emphasis in Paul’s writing. (Left unquoted and unreferenced.)
From John’s Revelation we see music employed for praise, but Paul is straight as an arrow about insisting on edification as his principal directive. Music is not all vertical. (Perhaps not, but worship is.)
It also keeps others in view. We are to “speak” to each other with music, and “teach” and “admonish” (warn) each other. It should go without saying that edification is not the same as entertainment, (A false binary choice.)
which makes people happy and excited, but often does not deal deeply with the soul in the way that the word “edification” implies. The simple music of a congregation, for instance, when seeking to teach each other through thought-provoking words and music, can be a potent tool for spiritual development. This concept alone might change the content and manner of your music experience. (As we see from the Scriptures we added to his list, there is a lot of Scripture regarding "vertical" expressions, including the O.T.. We need to note that "vertical" expressions were ingrained into the culture of the time, so we shouldn't be too surprised that Paul spends little time instructing on something that was already so abundant and richly expressed.)
Second, music is to be a way to “let the word dwell richly among you.” This means that good music is the “word” or the “message” musically presented. It is joined to the testifying word, the preached word, the taught word, the prayed word of God, in such a way that the time spent together becomes a baptism in the word of God. The music of the song carries “the word,” “the message,” or “the truth” of God on its wings.
Third, Christian music is often to be an offering to the congregation from a spiritually-minded brother or sister. Paul says “each one has a psalm” as if to say, individuals come prepared and spiritually ready to sing a psalm (or, by extension, a spiritual song or hymn) to the group for their edification; or perhaps they are to suggest their psalm to the group for corporate singing. This does not preclude thinking through a song beforehand as opposed to being entirely spontaneous, but when offered, it often will give the appearance of spontaneity in the meeting itself. I know it is entirely out of range for most of us to consider this idea at all, but I’m only reporting what I’m reading. In the early church, people made contributions of their gifts and talents for the building up of the body. It was part of what it meant to have body-life in the church. The meetings were more or less open to believers’ gifts—orchestrated by God; not chaotic. To think otherwise is to be more a child of the Reformation than the New Testament. (It's not often that conservative teachers are willing to go here. Kudos, Mr. Elliff! This is radical stuff, which should indicate that music in the church is much more important than even the churches with "dazzling" productions affix to their presentations.)
Fourth, by necessary assumption, coordination of the meeting, including all musical gifts, must have been the responsibility of the elders who were in charge of guiding the believers, under the headship of Christ. I don’t think they would have understood an “order of service” as a means of doing this. The people simply brought their gifts and made their contributions under the guidance of the Spirit, looking to the elders as leaders for shaping the meeting as needed. Wise elders may have curbed the excesses of some, or even refused to allow others to offer their supposed gift, but however they worked it out, their meetings were open for the sharing of gifts and talents under their sagacious oversight. (Yes. Again, radical stuff. The expression of music and other spiritual activities are governed by the elders. Pastors are conspicuous by their absence!)
Fifth, though Paul did not rule out ecstatic singing (singing in the spirit without engaging the mind), he admonished the church to “sing with mind also.” The larger point being made is that what is sung must be able to receive the “Amen” from those who are there. He mentions the “ungifted” being among them. It must be, on some level, understandable to them also. Here Paul is not approving what he denies earlier in 1 Corinthians (that those without the Spirit cannot understand the things of God), but is only meaning that people need to hear intelligible words in their singing. I am not going to delve into this debated issue of praying in the spirit and the matter of tongues, or the issue of interpreting such speech, but I am only making the obvious comment: Our singing must be intelligible to have its greatest value. It is what is intelligible that is ultimately most edifying. Understanding is important. (Given that Mr. Elliff is a contributor to worldviewweekend.com, this is a courageous admission. His publishers are confirmed cessationists, so he might want to be a little more circumspect about the spiritual gifts.)
Sixth, a variety of music forms may used. Whatever is meant by “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs,” we may at least note that this was not a “hymns only” church, or a “psalms only” church. I know there are arguments about these words from those who practice exclusive psalmody. Even so, I take the view that these represent varying forms of music found in the church. Who would argue that an emotive Scripture praise song done by memory is usually more appropriate during a heartfelt prayer-time, than the singing of even such a great hymn as “A Mighty Fortress is Our God”? We need variety.
Seventh, no music directors are seen in the early church pattern of worship. Paul highlighted in Ephesians 4 the human gifts to the church Christ left us: “apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.”
Surprisingly, he did not mention “music directors.” (Why should he? Sunday School Director is not there either.)
When spiritual gifts are listed in 1 Corinthians, Romans and 1 Peter, nothing about a music gift is mentioned there either. (This is a strange line of argument. Mr. Elliff appears to be mistaking a talent for music for a gift of the Spirit. Talents and gifts are not synonymous.)
Though I owe a lot to those music directors I enjoyed as a boy, and though there are some godly ones that I sincerely appreciate, the absence of such a staff position in the local churches of the New Testament documents is glaring. (On what basis can he claim this? He has not presented any evidence for this assertion.)
This is not to say that pastors who have musical gifts cannot do some wonderful things with music related to the church, but they should be pastors (elders, overseers) in every sense of the word. At the same time, musical gifts are not a requirement of pastoral ministry.
Finally
All I’m really saying is that, like a child in the park, we have run off in all directions related to music without consulting our Father for His wishes. For 60 years my uncle faithfully and lovingly brought his sister chocolate-covered cherries for Christmas. Only in her late 80s did she tell me privately that she never liked chocolate-covered cherries. He had never consulted her, but assumed his taste was hers. What if we like what we do for God, but God doesn’t like it at all? When our practice, as sincere as it might be, almost totally disregards the body-life design of God for the church spelled out for us in great detail in the New Testament, we surely are working against His intentions. Even if arriving at His view of the church means that we make major structural changes, would it not be right to do so?
The main lesson, summarized, is that early New Testament believers purposefully abandoned choreographed, professional and elaborate musical presentations to the shadowlands of the temple age, and moved forward into the simpler, more fluid and flexible, leadership of the Spirit. (Once again he makes his assertion, but hasn't demonstrated it or offered any evidence.)
Although I’m not sure exactly how all of this is accomplished, I would rather be attempting to go His direction than assuming I know better than God what He likes. With careful attention to the body language of the New Testament, and authentic trust in God, surely we can take steps, gradually if necessary, to return to this glorious simplicity, beauty and balance.
I have been spending time thinking about how the church is so somber. It is happy to tell us to mourn and repent, but rarely tells us (or even, allows us) to celebrate. There is something we have been missing regarding worship, joy, laughing, and dancing.
The culture of Israel remains to this day a culture of celebration. Since our Christian roots grow out of Israel, why do we not exalt the Lord with singing and dancing? Why are we so self-conscious about raising our hands? Why have we allowed the kill-joys into our midst?
I am more and more persuaded that if we release joy and celebration in our midst, people will be healed, set free, and saved. Consider that in the account of Jesus raising the little girl back to life, he did not allow the mourners into the room: "When he arrived at the house of Jairus, he did not let anyone go in with him except Peter, John and James, and the child’s father and mother. Meanwhile, all the people were wailing and mourning for her. 'Stop wailing,' Jesus said. 'She is not dead but asleep.'” Lk 8:51-52
This is not to say we should not weep and mourn. Especially when it comes to sin, we should certainly do so. But there is a time for mourning and there is a time for joy. Weeping may remain for a night, but rejoicing comes in the morning! The sadness of our souls will always give way to the celebration of the King of Kings. The joy of the Lord is our strength, our downcast souls are not. "Why are you downcast, O my soul? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my
Saviour and my God." Ps. 42:5-6
Take a look at this partial list of Scriptures that have to do with celebration/joy/ dancing. I think you will see, like I did, that there is change that needs to happen. I'm changing my attitude to one of rejoicing.
-------------------------------------
Le. 9:23-24 Moses and Aaron then went into the Tent of Meeting. When they came out, they blessed the people; and the glory of the LORD appeared to all the people. Fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed the burnt offering and the fat portions on the altar. And when all the people saw it, they shouted for joy and fell face down.
2Sa. 6:5 David and the whole house of Israel were celebrating with all their might before the LORD, with songs; and with harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals.
2Sa. 6:21-22 David said to Michal, “It was before the LORD, who chose me rather than your father or anyone from his house when he appointed me ruler over the LORD’s people Israel — I will celebrate before the LORD. I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes. But by these slave girls you spoke of, I will be held in honour.”
1Ch. 15:15-16 And the Levites carried the ark of God with the poles on their shoulders, as Moses had commanded in accordance with the word of the LORD. David told the leaders of the Levites to appoint their brothers as singers to sing joyful songs, accompanied by musical instruments: lyres, harps and cymbals.
1Ch. 16:27-29 Splendour and majesty are before him; strength and joy in his
dwelling-place. Ascribe to the LORD, O families of nations, ascribe to the LORD glory and strength, ascribe to the LORD the glory due to his name. Bring an offering and come before him; worship the LORD in the splendour of his holiness. Ec. 3:4 a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance.
Ne. 8:8-12 They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read. Then Nehemiah the governor, Ezra the priest and scribe, and the Levites who were instructing the people said to them all, “This day is sacred to the LORD your God. Do not mourn or weep.” For all the people had been weeping as they listened to the words of the Law. Nehemiah said, “Go and enjoy choice food and sweet drinks, and send some to those who have nothing prepared. This day is sacred to our Lord. Do not grieve, for the joy of the LORD is your strength.” The Levites calmed all the people, saying, “Be still, for this is a sacred day. Do not grieve.” Then all the people went away to eat and drink, to send portions of food and to celebrate with great joy, because they now understood the words that had been made known to them.
Ps. 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling.
Ps. 16:11 You have made known [Or You will make known] to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand.
Ps. 27:5-6 For in the day of trouble he will keep me safe in his dwelling; he will hide me in the shelter of his tabernacle and set me high upon a rock. Then my head will be exalted above the enemies who surround me; at his tabernacle will I sacrifice with shouts of joy; I will sing and make music to the LORD.
Ps. 30:11 You turned my wailing into dancing; you removed my sackcloth and clothed me with joy.
Ps. 43:4-5 Then will I go to the altar of God, to God, my joy and my delight. I will praise you with the harp, O God, my God.
Ps. 43:5 Why are you downcast, O my soul? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Saviour and my God.
Ps. 47:5 God has ascended amid shouts of joy, the LORD amid the sounding of trumpets.
Ps. 47:6 Sing praises to God, sing praises; sing praises to our King, sing praises.
Ps. 126:2 Our mouths were filled with laughter, our tongues with songs of joy. Then it was said among the nations, “The LORD has done great things for them.”
Is. 35:10 and the ransomed of the LORD will return. They will enter Zion with singing; everlasting joy will crown their heads. Gladness and joy will overtake them, and sorrow and sighing will flee away.
Je. 31:12-13 They will come and shout for joy on the heights of Zion; they
will rejoice in the bounty of the LORD — the grain, the new wine and the oil, the young of the flocks and herds. They will be like a well-watered garden, and they will sorrow no more. Then maidens will dance and be glad, young men and old as well. I will turn their mourning into gladness; I will give them comfort and joy instead of sorrow.
Lk. 6:21 Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.
Ac. 13:52 And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.
Ro. 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Ro. 15:13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Ga. 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, Ga. 5:23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
1Th. 5:16-20 Be joyful always; pray continually; give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt.
I saw this video posted by one of my leftist facebook friends.
I want to dig a little deeper into the source material of this, analyze some of the assumptions made, and examine not only the phrasing and terminology employed, but the motives behind them.
Politizane posted the video in November of 2012, and it's all the rage on the Leftist websites. We don't know who Politzane is. His youtube account was set up at the same time the video was posted and is the only thing he has posted. Apparently he has major connections, because every leftist website is citing the video. Makes me wonder if it was planted by leftist operatives and then circulated to foster its legitimacy.
Politizane begins, "A Harvard business professor and economist asked 5000 people..." So who is this Harvard "business professor?" A little research reveals it is Michael I. Norton. Dr. Norton is not an economist, he is a psychologist, with a "B.A. in Psychology and English from Williams College and a Ph.D. in Psychology from Princeton University."
Dr. Norton measures peoples' psychological attitudes about money. That's his job. Oh, and he teaches a couple of courses: "The Art of Marketing Science," and the "Program for Leadership Development and Strategic Marketing Management executive programs." This sounds to me like he's interested in how attitudes and opinions can be manipulated.
Here's his study, done in 2005. In it we find a premise, that is, "income inequality" not only exists, but is something that ought to be measured, surveyed and evaluated. Dr. Norton also wrote an article for the N.Y. Times. Here we read,
"My colleagues and I are now exploring whether educating Americans about the current level of wealth inequality (by showing them charts and pictures) might increase their support for policies that reduce this inequality."
So his research is focused on manipulating opinions! He's not a scientist, he is a political operative interested in achieving political outcomes. He has an agenda.
Worse, his objective is to find ways to make it easier to redistribute wealth. From the Times article:
"In addition, we are assessing whether different forms of redistribution – for example, raising the minimum wage, or longer term interventions like reducing disparities in education – are less likely to evoke heated opposition, and perhaps increase advocacy for greater wealth equality."
His aim is to reduce opposition to his political objectives. That's the nature of his "research."
Ok, now that we know this "scientist" has an agenda we can evaluate the rest of the video in terms of it also being a propaganda piece designed to manipulate opinions. Remember, Politizane says he just can't get the poll out of his mind. And the pollster admitted that he is trying to change attitudes. Can we conclude that Dr. Norton and Politizane share the same objectives? Could they be the same person?
Politizane informs us in the video that wealth in the U.S. is "shockingly skewed." To skew means to distort something. Something is out of kilter, it's not the way it should be, it's deviated from the ideal. To label something as skewed, coupled to the word "shockingly," is to make an a priori assumption that wealth distribution needs to be brought back to some sort of proper arrangement.
Politizane sets out to prove what he assumes. He attempts to present a "scholarly" veneer on the presentation, assuming a problem for which the video will provide a solution. But are we able to agree this is a problem? Is the premise sound? What, if any, problems are due to the "shockingly skewed" distribution of wealth? Even the use of the word "distribution" is a value judgment, presuming that certain outside forces are (or ought to be) working to "give" extra wealth to some and "take" it from others.
Next to appear on the screen is the text "'Dreaded' Socialism." Note that the video puts "dreaded" in quotes. The addition of the quotes is designed as a diminutive, so we are supposed to think that socialism isn't such a bad idea to consider. In keeping with this, Politizane says, "We all know that won't work" with a bit of sarcasm in his voice, suggesting that maybe socialism will indeed work.
We must pause to note at this point that the Left vociferously objects to being called socialists. They get quite huffy and accuse conservatives of not understanding socialism. They resent the identifier, most likely because it is accurate. Socialists prefer their agenda to remain under wraps, obscured by emotion-laden words like "compassion," "fairness," "equality," and "tolerance."
Apparently what we need is a little socialism to solve the "problem" of wealth inequality.
Now the discussion moves on to the actual poll results. Unfortunately, Politizane does not inform us of a crucial fact: Dr. Norton dealt with "net worth," not the rich, middle class, and poor. From the N.Y. Times article:
"We might think that people who have 'zero net worth' have nothing. But in fact, having zero net worth increasingly means owning a lot (cars, televisions, even houses) – but also owing a lot."
So we aren't talking about poor people at all! This completely changes the character of the issue, which means any conclusions Politizane draws aren't related to the poor at all.
Moving on. The first poll is the what those who were polled thought was the ideal distribution of wealth. Politizane intones, "Even the poor people aren't poor, the poverty line has stayed almost completely off the chart." Wait. We just learned that we aren't necessarily talking about poor people at all. But more crucially, the delineation level deemed to be the "poverty line" is a political selection. The "poverty line" even appears as a government chart, which is modified regularly. Therefore, it isn't possible to have 100% of the populace above the poverty line. The bottom level, say 10-15%, is automatically the poor.
Politizane moves on to Dr. Norton's second poll: "expectation of present reality." This is what the polled individuals thought was the way it really is right now, worse than the ideal distribution of wealth cited before. Quoting the voice-over: "The poorest 20-30% are starting to suffer quite a lot. The middle class is certainly struggling more than they were." Ah, the suffering. How horrible. I'm sure it is obvious by now that we cannot determine any level of suffering based on the net wealth of anyone. This is nothing more than emotional manipulation.
Politizane next covers the actual distribution of wealth, not what those who were polled believed it to be. At this point we don't know if the graph is accurate, given Politizane's propensity for manipulation. "1% has 40% of nation's wealth, the bottom 80% has 7% of wealth." It must be a revelation to Politizane that the poor don't have money and the rich do. This is known as a tautology.
And, it has "gotten worse over the last 20-30 years." Actually, it has been for a lot longer than that. But "20-30 years" is a time frame that conveniently brings it close to home, as if recent events and political disagreements are to blame. With the exception of 2001-2007, the Democrats have had either partial or total control of the government in the modern era. But things have gotten worse? How is that possible? After trillions of dollars wealth transfer and progressive taxation, and the incessant demonization of the wealthy, things are not better? The Great Society didn't make society Great?
The "top 1% own half the country's stocks bonds mutual funds, bottom 50% only own 1/2%, which means they aren't investing, they're just scraping by." Ok, so it must also be surprising that the rich also can afford to own investments but the poor can't? Another tautology.
Continuing on, Politizane asks: "Is a wealthy CEO working 380x harder than the average worker?" Note the pejorative characterization. More critically, note also that the conversation has switched from wealth to income. We are suddenly talking about something completely different,
But let's go with it. Does Politizane not know that pay is not based on how hard someone works? A construction worker probably works harder than anyone, as far as physical labor. A brain surgeon probably doesn't break a sweat. Who should be paid more? Obviously, the one whose skill is rarer.
Workers are paid based on the value, skill, and productivity they bring to the workplace, not by how hard they work. Why does Peyton Manning earn millions of dollars per year? Because he possesses skills that fill stadium seats. Why does a backhoe operator earn more money than a ditch digger? Because a backhoe operator can move a lot more dirt.
So, CEOs may not seem to work particularly hard, but they have a rare skillset. They are (or should be) paid based on the huge profits they generate for the company. But we need to note that the relationship is voluntary. Society does not get to decide the value of the CEO's work, the Board of Directors do. If the stockholders don't like it, they can vote or get rid of their shares. If the consumer doesn't like it, he can take his shopping dollar elsewhere.
The video concludes, "We certainly don't have to go all the way to socialism to find something that is fair." Wow. this single sentence contains a wealth of idiocy. First, there is that ubiquitous "we." As previously noted, the employer-employee relationship is consensual, private, and not a matter for society to decide. And "we" never means you and me, it means government.
Second, there is an implicit assumption that nothing has been done up until now. We apparently haven't had decades of redistribution. Socialists are new on the scene. So today is a new day, where we are starting with a blank slate, trying to decide the best way to punish the rich help the poor.
Third, there is really no such thing as a little bit of socialism. Therefore, we are perfectly justified in deeming any particular economic feature as socialism, even if the system in which it appears is not socialistic. We are talking about principles, you see, and socialistic principles, wherever they appear, are worthy of being reproached. And can we ask, if we shouldn't go "all the way to socialism," just far should we go?
Fourth, he tells us that surely we can "find something that is fair," which apparently means a society that contains exactly the right amount of socialism. The video tells us the total value of the nation's wealth is $54 trillion, money that must be just sitting around in a pot somewhere, waiting to be divvied up in a "fair" way by these oh-so-wise socialists. Of course, they know exactly what is fair. And, they want to bring the force of government down upon us all to make it happen. So "we," meaning government, is going to come up with a "fair" way to take money from the people who earned it and give it to people to which it does not belong. Government, I guess, ought to have to power to decide who has too much money, and who else deserves it more.
This is the economics of envy, where people sit in judgment of others, deciding what those others are entitled to, and taking the excess away. They imagine they know better what is fair. They believe they ought to be able to legislate morality by punishing greed. So the greedy take money from the greedy and give it to the greedy.
This fellow seems to be entirely persuaded of his own cleverness and logic. Now while I appreciate his attempt to boil down the climate change debate to a simple chart, his parameters are faulty because he bases them on false assumptions. Therefore, his conclusions are likewise false. For example:
1) He assumes we are doing nothing now. However, we are spending billions if not trillions of dollars on mitigating the effects of climate change. The money is already flowing
2) He assumes that spending this money will solve the problem. But he cannot know if the strategies being utilized at present will have the desired effect, and he cannot know if other technologies will be developed in the future.
3) He assumes that we have the capability to change the environment. This has not been demonstrated.
4) He assumes that the efforts directed at climate change are not posturing. That is, he doesn't know the motives or objectives of the actors are actually intended to improve the ecology of the planet. They might be simply creating methods to financially benefit. They may intend to shift the balance of political power. There is no way of knowing if the powerbrokers of the environmental movement really have genuine concern for the environment and will as such expend their efforts and resources to improving it.
5) He assumes that if we do nothing, bad things will happen. He cannot know this either.
If we were to be honest, we would follow a line of logic that does not presuppose what we intend to prove. Like this:
A) Is climate change happening?
B) If it is, what is causing it?
C) Can we demonstrate that the effects are bad?
D) Is it possible to reverse the effects?
E) What is the best way to achieve this reversal?
F) Is it feasible to do?
G) How will we know if we've succeeded?
There may be other intermediate steps to insert in this flow of logic. I've just hit the highlights. The question is, has anyone asked any of the questions beyond B or perhaps C? Has anyone asked if we can really change the course of the global climate? Has anyone considered that the US government doesn't have the Constitutional power to impose the climate change agenda? Has anyone stopped to ask if it is within our reach financially to achieve this? Has anyone set a goal that will tell us when we have succeeded?
So, this gentleman in the video thinks he has resolved the debate, given us a course of action, and justified any and all government intervention into the economy and peoples' daily lives in the name of saving the planet. Wow, reading that again, he almost sounds delusional, doesn't he?
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
--------------------------
I find it vaguely amusing when leftists start citing "facts" about this or that thing. Invariably the documentation is unavailable once one starts looking for it. I truly believe that a lot of leftists simply go to thinkprogress.org or some other leftist website and simply copy and paste.
Here's an example:
-------------------------
On Oct. 1 House Republicans said the American people don’t want Obamacare, (Actually, poll after poll says that ACA is and has remained unpopular. What the House Republicans say is not really relevant.) and shut down the government (Yes, this is the constantly-repeated mantra of the Left, dutifully reinforced by a complicit media. However, there are two parties, and if neither budges, both are to blame. This simple equation seems to be too much for the Left to understand.) because President Obama refused to defund or delay Obamacare as a condition for keeping the government open.
Also on Oct. 1, government health care exchange computers crashed because of the overwhelming demand for health insurance (Yes, the computers crashed. No it wasn't due to demand. Demand is an economic concept related to supply. A business, after reviewing the marketplace and the competition, decides to offer a product for sale. Consumers decide whether or not they want to purchase the product. If the product suits the consumer's criteria, he will purchase the product. With obamacare, there is no consensual relationship, because the consumer is required to purchase the product. Therefore, there is no demand, there is only a rush of people seeking to discover what they will be required to do.) — nearly 10 million uninsured citizens visited the federal Obamacare website on the first day. (These things are not hard to check. HHS claims 4.7 million. The Huffington Post claims 2.8 million. 10 million is the initial claim some have reported, but subsequent reports have shown lower and lower numbers. And remember, these are the claims made by government, which has a vested interest in the success of the program. Still no report on actual successful enrollments.
The letter writer also claimed that they were "uninsured citizens." We don't know if they were uninsured, and we don't know if they were citizens.)
Some Republicans acknowledged that they were desperate to end Obamacare, because once people experienced it, they would like it. (I looked high and low for documentation for this claim. The only links I could find is Democrats and Leftist claiming it.)
As news stories appeared illustrating the anger being felt all across the country as the government shutdown began to take effect, House members began frantically proposing piecemeal stop-gap measures to fund whatever program was the news story of the day. ("Frantically" is an editorial comment. Actually, the strategy was deliberate and calculated, used to demonstrate that President Obama and the Democrats had no intention of compromising, rejecting every funding bill that came their way.)
One Republican House member has said, “We’re not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don’t even know what that is.” (Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind. apparently said this. Has anyone ever heard of him? Is he some sort of mover and shaker? How happy the Left must be to find an obscure Republican to give them a quote they could run with.
But beyond that, I'm really wondering what is wrong with what he said? The implication is the Republicans share this perspective, including the insinuation that they don't even know why they're doing it. But there is the matter of context. In the wake of hardnosed opposition from the Democrats and their unwillingness to budge at all, Rep. Stutzman simply threw up his hands and said in effect, "We aren't going to get anything out of this. Why bother to negotiate?" There's more than one way to interpret his remarks.) (Senate Democrats offered him a “group hug.”)
Another GOP congressman said the government shutdown is the Republicans’ “Braveheart” moment.
The head of the National Republican Congressional Committee told wealthy business donors, alarmed by the effect on the economy of the shutdown and threat of government default: “We have to do this because of the tea party. If we don’t, these guys are going to get primaried and they are going to lose their primary.” (It's interesting when I look up these quotes. They're reported on every leftist website from The Huffington Post to democraticunderground. And they all seem to cross reference each other. The Daily Beast at least noted that the remarks are disputed.
What's more interesting here is that these remarks are being made by the Big Republican Money, those hated and reviled millionaires blamed for all the nation's woes. The working man's party, the Democrats, well, they just can't compete with all that money rolling into political campaigns because the rich hate the poor and are greedy and eeeevil... wait. Um, they're quotable? Well, yes. Suddenly they are full of gravitas because they spoke badly of the TEA party! Hooray, we have some new heroes!)
Even right wing groups headed by the Koch brothers and Karl Rove are disassociating themselves from the events they promoted. (Yes, they're heroes too! Hooray for Karl Rove! Hooray for the Koch brothers. Yes, we hated you before, but we love you now. You're so wonderful because you criticized the TEA party.) But it is too late. The tea party members are safe, in the gerrymandered districts these groups had funded. (Gerrymandering never bothered the Left before. It's only when someone else does it that it raises their hackles.) The country was held hostage by 40 hardline House members who are motivated by their radical ideology, as well as by 100-plus Republican members who are afraid of being “primaried.” (Ooo, those evil, hateful, hardline TEA partiers! I hate those guys. They actually believe government is too big and spends to much, so that makes them racist, homophobic, child molesting wife beaters. And I bet they drink 44 oz. sodas, too.)
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------
This kind of thinking is what one gets when one not only listens to the Left, but believes it wholesale without even a hint of understanding the irony. The writer, Mr. Staffanson, so perfectly spews the hateful rhetoric and hyperbolic rants of the Left that one might think this is satire. But it isn't. Mr. Staffanson actually believes this, and not only that, he thinks he's doing a service by sharing it with us all.
I'm going to actually analyze Mr. Staffanson's childish hyperbole, though I'm not sure why I should bother. For reasons known only to God Himself, Mr. Staffanson seems completely comfortable characterizing his ideological enemies as terrorists while remaining completely oblivious to the bombastic, boorish nature of his prose.
Note how effortlessly he vomits 1) hateful invective, 2) strawmen, 3) non sequiturs, 4) stereotyping, and 5) anti-intellectual emotionalism. Hold on to your sphincters, here comes some really outlandish spewing.
----------------------------------------
America has its own Taliban in the tea party.
In the Islamic world, the Taliban mission is to bring back the days of the Caliphate when women knew their place and dictatorial rule prevailed within strict religious parameters. (So our first example of hate. Mr. Staffanson attempts to draw a parallel between the TEA party and the Taliban by asserting that the TEA party is attempting to put women in their place. His evidence? Well, he doesn't provide any. What we have here is a bare assertion presented as unvarnished fact. A polite interlocutor would simply reject this out of hand without comment. Failing that, we will simply say to Mr. Staffanson, "Prove it." Provide a single shred of of corroborating fact, like a representative quote from a prominent TEA party activist. One will do.)
The tea party mission is to bring back the days when women, blacks, Hispanics and some others, particularly a black president, knew their place as second class citizens. (Having established his indefensible premise, Mr. Staffanson moves on to charges of racism, again undocumented. Can he point to a single quote, a youtube video, something on a TEA party website, that backs up his hyperbole?
The TEA party is nothing more than a lose association of people who have certain views in common. So we might ask, which TEA party group is he talking about? Indeed, can he point to ANY group that has such beliefs? No, but like a good little Leftist he parrots the talking-point rhetoric promulgated by the hateful Left.
Who is he to say what the TEA party's mission is? One group, the TEA Party Patriots, actually has one: "The Tea Party Patriots’ mission is to restore America’s founding principles
of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free
Markets." You will note that there is no comment about race. Indeed, such views are perfectly reasonable, responsible, and widely shared.
The Left loves to make everything about race. Therefore, simple disagreement about the issues of the day cannot be about principle, thoughtful consideration of the facts, or reasonable disagreement amongst diverse world views. No, the very act of disagreeing with President Obama is prima facie evidence of racism.
Impugn the opinion and dismiss. It's an easy and quick method to shut down debate. It's nothing more than a variant of Godwin's Law, a conversation ender, an anti-intellectual way to marginalize and negate those who disagree.) The days when government was controlled by white, largely corpulent, old men whose mantra was Republican. (As is typical for the Left, it is convenient and easy to make stereotypes about people while ignoring actual facts. It was the Democratic party that actively supported institutional racism and Republicans who opposed it. The Democrats support racism to this day, relegating blacks to modern-day plantations where they have no hope of escaping or making a better life for themselves.
The Left doesn't believe that blacks can be successful on their own. Blacks must be kept in line in order to perpetuate the idea that they are victims. Any black that leaves the plantation is attacked in the most hateful and vile ways imaginable. Oh, and can we note that government is still controlled by "white, largely corpulent, old men," It is Democrats who perpetuate the failed system they themselves created and benefit from?) Whose god was business also controlled and operated by white men for whom the bottom line was maximum profit at all cost, regardless of negative effects on the environment, on workers and on society in general. (You would think that the Left would come up with some new ideas. But they have been regurgitating the same tired tropes and spitefully malevolent rhetoric for decades. These rich old white Democrats have tailored the system to personally enrich themselves while presenting themselves as caring and compassionate. Look at the destruction they have wrought! 17 trillion in debt, enmity between races at an all time high, and a system that rewards the successful at the expense of the worker. Everything bad that has happened in the country was during a the times when Republicans couldn't stop a single thing the Democrats wanted to do. They have been in charge for decades, with a brief hiatus between 1995 and 2007. During that time the Republicans acted exactly like Democrats and continued the big spending habits of their Democratic predecessors. It was only in 2010 that the Republicans recaptured the House, but with a Democrat for President and a Democratic Senate, they still don't have the power to do anything.)
The Islamic Taliban has limited but lethal capacity for destruction in theirs and other countries by force and bloodshed.
The American Taliban, the tea party, has limited but lethal capacity to do much more damage to its country and the outside world not by force and bloodshed but by using the tools of the democratic system negatively in ways largely unthinkable. (There are only 80 or so TEA party people in the House, and a handful in the Senate. They have no power at all. But note the tacit admission regarding democracy. Democracy is the high doctrine of the Church of Government the Democrats so love. The Left loves to tout democracy, but when it doesn't go their way, they will summarily abandon it. Democrats don't believe in democracy, they believe in power. They only object when someone else uses that power in way they don't like.)
Where is the outrage? Where is the response of the majority? (The outrage is everywhere. It permeates Leftist circles. it's on the news every day. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone decrying the actions of Ted Cruz. It is laughable to assert there is no outrage. It's even more absurd to believe that 48% of the country are terrorists. But this is what passes for intellectualism on the Left. This is what Leftists do when someone disagrees with them. It is scorched-earth rhetoric, it is uncivil discourse, it is the response of limited minds to diversity. Tolerance is a one-way street. Dissent is no longer patriotic. What's amazing to me is that anyone still takes these people seriously.)
yeah...soooo ok....we know pretty much zippo regarding the health insurance "requirements" beginning next year.
I was told that in our case (very little income) it may be an ok deal. That if my husband does not sign up for any insurance plan but needed healthcare it would cost him a fine of $95 for not having signed up for any program. Do you know if that is true? How will the various Doctors bill for services rendered if a person does not have some kind of health insurance?
what about eye and dental?
I realize these things may be different state to state but honestly I have not made the time yet to research this stuff out.
Am thinking I will get caught up on my book/paper work & then tackle this topic.
I will be different than my husband beginning this year > Medicare A&B - which I need to look into as well & come to some understanding about. I know I evidently have to pay for part B.
And, should I opt for additional supplemental insurance beyond that would cost. But...at this point.......trying to sort out where to start > mainly for him but also for me. I get a bunch of stuff in the mail but putting it in a pile until I can face it!!
HELP!!!
------------------------
My reply:
It's complicated, both from the financial/tax perspective as well as the spiritual perspective.
You are correct about the fine, except that it is a per person fine, and it increases every year. My understanding is that it is subtracted from your tax refund, and the law specifically prohibits any other collection mechanism. If this is true, then planning your taxes to get no refund would mean no fine at all.
If your income is low, you would qualify for substantial subsidies, probably lowering your premiums to almost nothing. In order to get the subsidies, you must enroll through the exchange. You can still buy insurance outside the exchanges, but those don't have subsidies.
How would you receive healthcare without insurance? Tough question. Another part of obamacare is that hospitals would be penalized severely by giving out too much charity. You read that right. If they are too compassionate, they will be faced with severe fines. I suspect that charity-minded people will find some way to minister to the poor, the widows, and the foreigners. They won't let a law stop them from doing what God calls them to.
You are probably beginning to get the idea that obamacare is not really healthcare, it is control. This is what I mean by it being a spiritual issue. This is insidious in its evil. In the name of helping people the government is oppressing them. People who are too poor to have health insurance will be fined to pay for people who have health insurance. This is wicked and reprehensible.
I am tempted to sympathize with those who will resist this evil in every way possible, though that is a dangerous course. Those who thirst for power are not easily dissuaded from accumulating more, and dissent riles these kinds of people.
Medicare has some limitations in coverage, so people buy supps to cover some of the holes. There are several choices with varying features. I don't sell med supps, so I really can't advise you as to which is best.
As far as dental and vision, obamacare has some sort of provisions, depending on the plan selected. There are several, like bronze, silver, gold, etc., each with their own features. The only way to know what they are is to enroll on an exchange. The problem is, you have to give all your personal information before you get a chance to see pricing and coverage. This means if you decide not to buy, they know where to find you.
Sorry I couldn't be more help. As I said, it's complicated.
Rich
-------------------------
Her reply:
Thnx Rich - Nothing simple about it. Yes, I agree; it is about control and the changing of a nation. Your reply was in fact helpful to me as I prepare myself to delve into this issue and find out what the options are available.
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------------
Mr. Mosolf, in typical leftist fashion, spews forth with half formed thoughts, denigrating characterizations, and ludicrous strawmen as he bows before the all powerful government. We will also discover that the title of the letter, which the newspaper editorially provides, is not what the letter is about. Read on:
-----------------------------------
Way back in 1961, Ronald Reagan, a class B movie and TV actor, warned Americans of dire consequences if Medicare was enacted into law. Mr. Reagan said: “One of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” (After the obligatory leftist pot-shot at Reagan, we find Mr. Mosolf's first misdirection. The actual quote: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
Reagan's remarks were in the context of government incrementally taking over free enterprise in the name of compassion, of which Medicare was only a stepping stone. Strangely, on the heels of the implementation of obamacare, Mr. Mosolf is unable to recognize his own irony. We've had 5 decades of increasing intervention of government into our private choices, including healthcare, and things have never been more expensive, complex, and wasteful. The fact that Reagan was right did not seem to occur to Mr. Mosolf.)
Sound familiar? Ironically, President Reagan’s “sunset years” were spent in the foggy world of advanced dementia where he received excellent medical care to which retired government employees are rightfully entitled. (Another little pot shot at the hated Reagan rendered in order to... what, show that government employees should not have health care? Can we ask what relationship to socialized healthcare has to the fact that government employees have healthcare?)
Today, neo-Reaganites are telling Americans we owe it to our children and our children’s children to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) so we can have freedom as we know it. Sound familiar? (If someone has said this, they are as correct as Reagan was. We already know what a disaster Medicare is. It is functionally bankrupt, just as Social Security is. If only Mr. Mosolf could point to a government success story somewhere and say, "see how wonderful government is doing with this program?" President Reagan's prescient thoughts are coming back to haunt us as we discover anew with each subsequent generation that government wants more power over our choices. I am thankful that there are still elected officials who are fighting the good fight against government overreach in the name of "compassion.")
Just what is this freedom these folks are babbling about? (Mr. Mosolf doesn't know. He can't conceive of a world where people can make personal choices without being told by some bureaucrat what is good for them.)
Is it freedom to be priced out of the health care market due to ever increasing insurance premiums or being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition? Is it the freedom to lose your coverage due to job or business loss? (Another bit of misdirection. Lacking a working knowledge of the concept of freedom, Mr. Mosolf dredges up some unrelated leftist talking points in order to suggest that freedom must be the ability to have health insurance no matter the circumstances.
Another concept that eludes Mr. Mosolf is the understanding that life is full of risks, and the ostensible purpose of these heavy-handed government mandates is to lessen risk. Would it be too obvious to point out that risk cannot be eliminated, and in fact, cannot be lessened systemically? Risk can only be redistributed. There is always a choice made, whether deliberate or unconscious, between taking a risk and transferring risk to others.
Let's go a little deeper by means of an analogy. In the world of finance I can purchase AAA rated bonds which are very low risk. So why doesn't every investor buy AAA bonds? Because there is a tradeoff. Low risk bonds have a low rate of return. I can obtain much higher yields by buying penny stocks, but my risk is much higher. By choosing AAA bonds, I experience investment risk, that is, my investment doesn't grow as fast as it could if I invested elsewhere. The risk here is the difference in value at some point in the future when I cash in. I lost money [a risk] by choosing security over yield.
Back to government-provided risk mitigation. What do I give up by not being able to choose to take certain risks myself? Freedom! The freedom to choose for myself the risk of certain activities. Government chooses for me, and anytime government chooses for me and denies me my choice, I have lost freedom. Not to mention the risks associated with bureaucracy, inefficiency, and lowed productivity as government's choices have ripple effects all through society.
In addition, the problem with these government programs is there is no stopping government from making other choices for me. Really, what mechanism is there to prevent government from choosing what I eat, what kind of house I can buy, or who I can marry? If government can mandate my healthcare, why can't it mandate my health? We know that regular exercise improves health outcomes, so how would anyone object to mandatory daily calisthenics? How would we stop government from banning football, a risky sport? I'm sure you can conceive of many other things that are risky that people choose to do. All these choice, by the same reasoning, can be legislated by government. What's to stop them?)
As a man in his “sunset years,” I ask myself, should I be involved in suggesting health care policies or leave it to this new generation to fix things? (Astonishing. He's wondering if he should force people to do things.)
With that said, I am optimistic by how young people have, for the most part, embraced universal miscegenation (Whaaaa? Miscegenation: intermarriage between races: marriage or cohabitation between people of different races. Mr. Mosolf veers off course in a truly odd way. This is a strange little world of irrelevancies that he lives in.)
along with the natural evolution of human values. (Apparently he wanted to write a longer letter, because this stuff makes no sense at all.)
And it’s refreshing to view that old Argentine in the Vatican showing signs of being young at heart. (It must be wonderful in his land of pink unicorns and fairy dust. Is Mr. Mosolf also showing signs of dementia in his sunset years?)
In reality it’s out with repressive conservatism and in with progressive humanism. (After a tour de force of leftist fantasies about controlling people, limiting their choices, and forcing them to do things they do not want to do or face the penalty of law, Mr. Mosolf's letter climaxes in a truly absurd Hallelujah Chorus of obliviousness. I am left speechless. Regarding the letter's title, people do not reject conservatism. They live conservative lives despite their political philosophy. For example, the most rabid leftist still expects to be paid for the work he does on behalf of his employer. He expects his paycheck to be higher if he works harder or more hours. He expects to pay for food, shelter, and the niceties of life by his own choice and at times he deems convenient to him. He expects to receive what he paid for. He makes every attempt to lower his tax bill. He expects people to stop at stoplights and not rob him on the street. He would never show up on his neighbor's doorstep and demand that his neighbor pay for his healthcare. He wants people punished for their crimes. He lives in the nicest neighborhood he can afford, and rarely if ever make a deliberate choice to live in a ghetto if he doesn't have to. Nearly everyone lives according to conservative principles. Few leftists voluntarily send more money to government. Rarely do they voluntarily seek government to make their daily decisions for them. Hardly any live their lives in a manner that suggests that they welcome more government intervention into their lives. People naturally love freedom, love to choose for themselves, and expect others to do the same. Conservatism is natural.)
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------
So this church receives a million dollar endowment from a fellow who died. It's a good thing that the pastor of the church asked his congregation to pray about how to spend the money. Time will tell on what they end up deciding, but in the meantime I have a suggestion on how to spend the money:
Is. 58:6-10 “...to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter — when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness will go before you, and the glory of the LORD will be your rear guard.
"Then you will call, and the LORD will answer; you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I. If you do away with the yoke of oppression, with the pointing finger and malicious talk, and if you spend yourselves on behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise..."
Ja. 1:27 "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
See, that was easy, wasn't it? Christians really don't need to pray about things that God has already commanded.
--------------------------------
The estate of a reclusive railroad retiree who lived in a small motor home without running water has donated $1 million to a northwestern Montana church where his mother taught Sunday school and Bible study classes.
The Daily Inter Lake reports executor Doug Johnson announced Roger Wold’s bequest on Sunday at Christ Lutheran Church in Whitefish. He said he was made in honor of Wold’s mother, Dee Wold.
Wold was 75 when he died in February 2012.
Johnson says Wold lived frugally so he could buy real estate and that he owned lots along Whitefish Lake, including an 80-acre parcel where he parked his motor home.
The Rev. John Bent asked the congregation to pray for the next 40 days to consider how the money might best be spent.
D.G.: Really? Your employer doesn't offer a healthcare plan? Sorry to hear that. Pretty much all my friends who have full-time jobs get healthcare through their employer, so aren't on the exchanges.
Me: All health plans are subject to obamacare provisions.
D.G.: Then in what sense is the Federal Employee plan not?
Me: Congress exempted themselves from many of the provisions imposed by obamacare. http://www.nationalreview.com/...#!
John Fund - Congress’s Exemption from Obamacare
D.G.: Obamacare doesn't require full-time workers to move onto the exchanges; in fact, it was explicitly based on the idea that employers should continue to provide healthcare for full-time employees, and have to pay a penalty if they don't.
Republicans added an explicit proviso that treats Congress /more restrictively/ than other employees, by requiring them to go on the exchanges even though their employer offers its own health plan.
Basically, Vitter is trying to force a big Congressional paycut. He's saying that not only should Congress be forbidden from using their employer-provided plan, they should also lose a major benefit that is part of their compensation package.
I know Congress is unpopular; I'm not particularly happy with them either. But if you want to cut Congressional pay, do it directly; don't try to claim that you're eliminating some kind of special privilege.
Me: As I said, all health insurance plans must now conform to obamacare provisions. The reason for the exchanges is to obtain a subsidy, which are not available from the non-exchange policies.
As to what employers will do, many employers of less than 50 employees are already doing a defacto move to the exchanges by discontinuing their health plans.
D.G.: So is your objection to the fact that Federal employees have insurance? Or if ACA hadn't been amended to move Congress to the exchanges, and Congress were simply treated like all other Federal employees, would you be okay with that?
Me: "Senator David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, has demanded a floor vote on his bill to end an exemption that members of Congress and their staffs are slated to get that will make them the only participants in the new Obamacare exchanges to receive generous subsidies from their employer to pay for their health insurance."
Me: Why should they get nearly free healthcare and we don't?
D.G.: Why should they get paid a salary by the Federal Government and we don't? Because they're Federal employees!
If you think Federal employee benefits are too generous, then make that case. If you think that Congress should get worse healthcare benefits than other Federal employees, then make that case.
But Republicans are the ones who pushed a rule in the first place that said that Congress had to be treated differently from any other person with an employer-provided health plan
Me: Obamacare is the law of the land, but certain groups are exempted or get special treatment. What other special treatment do you think people should get? Should some people be exempt from theft or murder? If the rules don't apply to everyone, they should not apply at all. Thus my exemption pass.
D.G.: In what sense are they exempt from the law of the land? The law of the land--an amendment which Republicans proposed, no less--is that Congress should get healthcare through the exchanges. Another law of the land is that the Federal government pays for Federal employees' healthcare.
Now, you say that combining those two laws gives you a stupid result, I completely agree. Congress should have just been treated like any other employee, and allowed to receive employer benefits. But the Republicans insisted on passing a special provision for Congress, so we have the stupid result that we do.
Me: You've just made my case. They've insulated themselves from the effect of the law by paying the cost of it. That is, we pay the cost of ours and theirs.
D.G.: Because they're our employees. I still haven't heard you answer why you think that Congress shouldn't receive the same health benefits as all other Federal workers.
