America's future

[GW Johnson]

If you ditch the ideologies and just look at what works, and at what our cultural traditions have been going back to the Roman Republic, I think you will find that it is extremism itself that is the bad actor. This is true whether it is political extremism or religious extremism that we talk about.

Left wing extremism (socialism) is just as bad as right-wing extremism (fascism). As a matter of fact, to the subjugated population, both look identical, ignoring all the political babble. It's the same armies goose-stepping all over everybody, whether they were Soviet or Nazi, or any other brand.

That is why I hate to see Americans bad-mouthing either political party as being evil or unAmerican. Both parties are needed, and all the other viewpoints as well, but they have to talk to each other and work together to do the people's business, or else our system of governance cannot function. Extremism stops that dialogue, which is why we have endured 30-some years of Congressional gridlock, and have fallen behind much of the world, and have spent ourselves to the edge of oblivion not fixing the pathetically-obvious problems.

Same thing applies to religion. Everybody understands the danger posed by the Muslim extremists we are at war with. Not everyone understands that not every Muslim is an extremist, especially over here. Some understand how pervasive extremism is over there in the mideast, and that it is spreading over here. Very few understand and almost none will admit that the spread of Muslim extremism is fueled by western oil money, and has been for about 50 years now.

That connection to oil is the Achilles heel of the extremists, and we have not exploited it after a decade of open war. Why? It is not politically convenient in a Congress paralyzed by political extremism, and horribly corrupted by big bags of corporate money. We look exactly like the Iraqis, by the way, in how our Congress doesn't work right. (That last is just me in the corner yelling that the emperor has no clothes, but I am correct!)

Nobody over here wants to admit that there are extremist Christians and extremist Jews, as well. What is the difference between blowing up an abortion clinic here in the states for God, and blowing up a sidewalk cafe in Baghdad full of people who believe differently than you, again for God? Not one whit. Useful rule of thumb: if that little voice inside you is telling you to kill for God, then that ain't God you are listening to.

So, in my book, Barry Goldwater was dead wrong in 1964. Extremism is not only a terrible vice, it is the most pernicious evil humanity has ever faced, all through the millennia. I see way too much of it in public discourse here in the states, including some of these conversations here in this forum. That fills me with sadness, and a great fear for our future. It is the wrong path.

[djolds1]

Left wing extremism (socialism) is just as bad as right-wing extremism (fascism). As a matter of fact, to the subjugated population, both look identical, ignoring all the political babble. It's the same armies goose-stepping all over everybody, whether they were Soviet or Nazi, or any other brand.

That is why I hate to see Americans bad-mouthing either political party as being evil or unAmerican. Both parties are needed, and all the other viewpoints as well, but they have to talk to each other and work together to do the people's business, or else our system of governance cannot function. Extremism stops that dialogue, which is why we have endured 30-some years of Congressional gridlock, and have fallen behind much of the world, and have spent ourselves to the edge of oblivion not fixing the pathetically-obvious problems.

Both parties are utopian - "conservatives" the Lockean 18th/19th century gradualist version, "liberals" the Rousseau/Robespierre/Lenin 19th/20th century "change NOW" variety.

Utopianism cannot last forever. The human animal is inherently conservative in that it does not like change.

Same thing applies to religion. Everybody understands the danger posed by the Muslim extremists we are at war with. Not everyone understands that not every Muslim is an extremist, especially over here. Some understand how pervasive extremism is over there in the mideast, and that it is spreading over here. Very few understand and almost none will admit that the spread of Muslim extremism is fueled by western oil money, and has been for about 50 years now.

1) Commands to conquest and subjugation of the nonbeliever are built into the structure of Islamic scripture;

2) Islamic scripture is held to be the direct word of God, and so not open to "interpretation" in the Judeo-Christian sense. See the theology of al-Ghazali and contrast that with the theology of Augustine. IOW Der Panzerpope got it right in his Regensberg Lecture in 2006;

3) IOW your hoped for moderates are the sacrilegious and apostate, not the mild to moderate to fervent believers;

4) It is the more educated and cosmopolitan Muslims from the Middle East that tend to make it to the American side of the Atlantic. The lesser educated end up in Europe;

5) Demographic composition can be a boon for the US, but also a risk. Revolutionary cadre always comes out of the petit bourgeoisie. Muhammad Atta for instance was a university engineering student, not dirt poor;

6) Demographically, the unassimilated generally poorer Muslim immigrants in Europe are coalescing into a unified neo-tribe focused on the mosques funded by Wahhabi Islam.

That connection to oil is the Achilles heel of the extremists, and we have not exploited it after a decade of open war. Why? It is not politically convenient in a Congress paralyzed by political extremism, and horribly corrupted by big bags of corporate money. We look exactly like the Iraqis, by the way, in how our Congress doesn't work right. (That last is just me in the corner yelling that the emperor has no clothes, but I am correct!)

Six decades of open war, not one. The beginning dates to the collapse of the European Empires and the recognition by Muslims that their several centuries-long losing streak may be over. Israel is an excuse and a remaining offense to their egos, not a cause.

Nobody over here wants to admit that there are extremist Christians and extremist Jews, as well. What is the difference between blowing up an abortion clinic here in the states for God, and blowing up a sidewalk cafe in Baghdad full of people who believe differently than you, again for God? Not one whit. Useful rule of thumb: if that little voice inside you is telling you to kill for God, then that ain't God you are listening to.

The mainstream of Christianity is "God is love." The mainstream of Islam is "Dar al Harb vs Dar al Islam." Compare and Contrast.

[Diogenes]

Don't think the Lord is all that happy with Capitalism either. The Old Testament contains prohibitions against charging interest.

Where?

Never mind, I found several but notice that a number of bibles use the term "usury" rather than "interest". One wonders if the terms had distinct meanings BEFORE the Catholic prohibition against ANY interest or whether "usrury" simpy meant "charging interest". I note that even in the Old Testiment, there was no prohibition against the charging of interest, simply to the charging of interest to Isrealites. Seems usury on the goyem was ok. One wonders why so many folks hated Jews for so many years.

Also, most if not all of the prohibitions against usury was if loaning to the poor. Hmmm.

My recollection is that "Usury" is excessive interests. If I remember correctly, it is any interest rate in excess of 10%. i.e. "loan sharking."

[Diogenes]

I never understood why Christians could jump on the Socialist bandwagon...

Socialism relates to Christianity not by the consideration of money, but by the consideration of welfare for others.

Now, you and I are both pretty sure that a not inconsiderable fraction of socialist politicians are in it [up to their trotters] for their own gains, be those financial or just some lust for power that normal folks find sick, and that the reality of socialism is the same as power struggles, history over, have always been.

But the essence of left-wing is that everyone has a role to play in helping the weaker members of society, whereas the right-wing is Adams-ian and recognises that by primarily helping yourself that you a) pull everyone else up by their bootstraps, and b) that by getting yourself comfy, you are then able to not only use your own money to help others but you can then leverage help from others.

Like I say, giving your house away to a homeless person just as you are going on a month long vacation is, for a month at least, of net benefit to all, but you are storing up a slight problem for later! Thus it is that Adams revelation that thinking of your own consumer interests helps society generally is the long-term beneficial manifestation of self-interest, but those myopic enough will think that helping others, by imposed detriment on those in a well-managed and financially stable state, is a good thing.

Bear in mind that, much as the West would have you think otherwise, the majority of people in the Communist block felt reassured and comforted by an authoritarian communist state, and many would seek to go back to those times. For the larger majority of the population, communism would look like it does quite well for them. Obviously, here on a forum where people go out of their way to express their opinions, such folks as us would be entirely resentful of such a state. But we are in the minority, brother!!

So, comrades, political choices are personal choices. You can argue one way or the other. But, personally speaking, I stand on the side I have stated here; to fail to recognise the truth of Adams revelation, that self-interest promotes the best long-term social gains, is myopic.

I have long stated that the allure of socialism is it's attempts to take a concept everyone is familiar with on a familial and\or community basis, and apply it to a nation.

In a family, everyone should look out for each other, (natural socialism) and help to carry each other's load. That is natural, and comfortable for most people. The ideological disconnect occurs when you try to take this notion and apply it to the larger population where people do not have those strong bonds of kinship or friendship.

Even in a family, the desire to help other members can only be sustained as long it is perceived that some members are not freeloading off the others. (among siblings. Parent child relationships accept that children cannot contribute much.)


The operative flaw in communism\socialism is wishful thinking that the nature of man can be modified to be unconditionally unselfish.

Ain't gonna happen.

[Diogenes]

If you ditch the ideologies and just look at what works, and at what our cultural traditions have been going back to the Roman Republic, I think you will find that it is extremism itself that is the bad actor. This is true whether it is political extremism or religious extremism that we talk about.

Left wing extremism (socialism) is just as bad as right-wing extremism (fascism). As a matter of fact, to the subjugated population, both look identical, ignoring all the political babble. It's the same armies goose-stepping all over everybody, whether they were Soviet or Nazi, or any other brand.

You got this far, and I had to interject. The Left wing is always about increasing the power of government, the Right win is about constraining government.

If you know what a Libertarian is, THEY Are the extreme right wing. They are the exact opposite of Governmental control over everything. (Communist\Socialist\Democrat)

Communism and Facism are identical in operation, and not very different in Philosophy. Both the Nazi's AND the Communists were "LEFT" wing.
Nazi is an abbreviation for National Socialist German Workers Party.

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei


The Right wing wants the government to become SMALLER. The Left wing wants the government to become BIGGER. It's just that simple.

That is why I hate to see Americans bad-mouthing either political party as being evil or unAmerican. Both parties are needed, and all the other viewpoints as well, but they have to talk to each other and work together to do the people's business, or else our system of governance cannot function. Extremism stops that dialogue, which is why we have endured 30-some years of Congressional gridlock, and have fallen behind much of the world, and have spent ourselves to the edge of oblivion not fixing the pathetically-obvious problems.

I perceive that you are not cognizant of the history of both parties. It is my opinion that once informed of the history of both parties, it would be easy for any reasonable man to conclude that the Democrat party is indeed evil, and the Republican party is merely bad.

The Modern Democrat party began with Andrew Jackson, who defied the Supreme court and Forced the Indians off their lands in the South. (see Indian Removal act.) It was both immoral AND illegal. In a word it was EVIL. The Lands taken from the Indians were acquired by whites and turned into slave plantations. Again, EVIL. And this is the Legacy of the man who FOUNDED the DNC (Democratic National Comittee)

The Ramifications of this man's acts are still not worked out to this very day. Now the Indians want their land back.


First Republican President? Abraham Lincoln. (abolished slavery.)

Same thing applies to religion. Everybody understands the danger posed by the Muslim extremists we are at war with. Not everyone understands that not every Muslim is an extremist, especially over here. Some understand how pervasive extremism is over there in the mideast, and that it is spreading over here. Very few understand and almost none will admit that the spread of Muslim extremism is fueled by western oil money, and has been for about 50 years now.

Oh, I will admit that readily enough. If only we could drill and supply our own oil, of which we have abundant quantities. Gee, I wonder what force is preventing us from defunding those Muslim extremists and boosting our own economy by using our own oil? DEMOCRATS!

Seriously, it is the Democrats. As with everything else about that party being twisted to an evil purpose, the Nuclear furnaces of Iran were created and are now being fueled by Democrats and their policies. Carter Created Theocratic Iran by undermining the Shaw, and Democrat Policies keep American Oil off the markets. Many bad things are happening as a result.

That connection to oil is the Achilles heel of the extremists, and we have not exploited it after a decade of open war. Why? It is not politically convenient in a Congress paralyzed by political extremism, and horribly corrupted by big bags of corporate money. We look exactly like the Iraqis, by the way, in how our Congress doesn't work right. (That last is just me in the corner yelling that the emperor has no clothes, but I am correct!)

Yeah, the extremest Democrats are preventing the common sense solution of using American Oil. 1, because they HATE oil companies, and 2. They are excessively worried about Wildlife and Pollution.

Nobody over here wants to admit that there are extremist Christians and extremist Jews, as well. What is the difference between blowing up an abortion clinic here in the states for God, and blowing up a sidewalk cafe in Baghdad full of people who believe differently than you, again for God? Not one whit. Useful rule of thumb: if that little voice inside you is telling you to kill for God, then that ain't God you are listening to.

Have you ever heard of a man named John Brown? Was his raid on Harper's Ferry an act of terrorism? Surely the thought that people who were enslaved but wanted to be free has no bearing on the acts that he committed?


As far as i'm concerned, there is little moral difference to blowing up an Abortion clinic than to blowing up Auschwitz, Dachau or Bergen Belsen. They are all factories that manufacture death from the bodies of living victims. The Slogan over Auschwitz was "Arbeit Macht Frei". The slogan for Abortion clinics should be "Abortion Macht Frei." Dr. Joseph Mengele was an Abortionist. That ought to tell you everything you need to know about which side of the "Evil" border this activity belongs.

So, in my book, Barry Goldwater was dead wrong in 1964. Extremism is not only a terrible vice, it is the most pernicious evil humanity has ever faced, all through the millennia. I see way too much of it in public discourse here in the states, including some of these conversations here in this forum. That fills me with sadness, and a great fear for our future. It is the wrong path.

It's good to know that you don't want any "extremism" in defense of YOUR life, liberty or property. I personally feel that compromising on certain issues like being raped, killed or imprisoned is simply not acceptable.

The Founders were extremists. The Abolitionists were extremists. Both instigated wars that forged the decent aspects of this nation.

How about Martin Luther and his Ninety-Five Theses nailed to the Church door? After all, we wouldn't want anyone to get "extreme" about the selling of indulgences.

How about the Magna Carta? King John forced to sign by a bunch of extremists.

Lincoln was an extremist.

[Diogenes]

Left wing extremism (socialism) is just as bad as right-wing extremism (fascism). As a matter of fact, to the subjugated population, both look identical, ignoring all the political babble. It's the same armies goose-stepping all over everybody, whether they were Soviet or Nazi, or any other brand.

That is why I hate to see Americans bad-mouthing either political party as being evil or unAmerican. Both parties are needed, and all the other viewpoints as well, but they have to talk to each other and work together to do the people's business, or else our system of governance cannot function. Extremism stops that dialogue, which is why we have endured 30-some years of Congressional gridlock, and have fallen behind much of the world, and have spent ourselves to the edge of oblivion not fixing the pathetically-obvious problems.

Both parties are utopian - "conservatives" the Lockean 18th/19th century gradualist version, "liberals" the Rousseau/Robespierre/Lenin 19th/20th century "change NOW" variety.

Utopianism cannot last forever. The human animal is inherently conservative in that it does not like change.

You've left out Edmund Burke and the Burkean Philosophy which is far more pertinent to Conservative ideology and it is NOT Utopian. Neither is Adam Smith's economic philosophy upon which the modern Capitalistic mind set is based. (Adam Smith and Edmund Burke were contemporaries and friends. Their thinking is complementary not adversarial.)

Same thing applies to religion. Everybody understands the danger posed by the Muslim extremists we are at war with. Not everyone understands that not every Muslim is an extremist, especially over here. Some understand how pervasive extremism is over there in the mideast, and that it is spreading over here. Very few understand and almost none will admit that the spread of Muslim extremism is fueled by western oil money, and has been for about 50 years now.

1) Commands to conquest and subjugation of the nonbeliever are built into the structure of Islamic scripture;

2) Islamic scripture is held to be the direct word of God, and so not open to "interpretation" in the Judeo-Christian sense. See the theology of al-Ghazali and contrast that with the theology of Augustine. IOW Der Panzerpope got it right in his Regensberg Lecture in 2006;

3) IOW your hoped for moderates are the sacrilegious and apostate, not the mild to moderate to fervent believers;

4) It is the more educated and cosmopolitan Muslims from the Middle East that tend to make it to the American side of the Atlantic. The lesser educated end up in Europe;

5) Demographic composition can be a boon for the US, but also a risk. Revolutionary cadre always comes out of the petit bourgeoisie. Muhammad Atta for instance was a university engineering student, not dirt poor;

6) Demographically, the unassimilated generally poorer Muslim immigrants in Europe are coalescing into a unified neo-tribe focused on the mosques funded by Wahhabi Islam.

That connection to oil is the Achilles heel of the extremists, and we have not exploited it after a decade of open war. Why? It is not politically convenient in a Congress paralyzed by political extremism, and horribly corrupted by big bags of corporate money. We look exactly like the Iraqis, by the way, in how our Congress doesn't work right. (That last is just me in the corner yelling that the emperor has no clothes, but I am correct!)

Six decades of open war, not one. The beginning dates to the collapse of the European Empires and the recognition by Muslims that their several centuries-long losing streak may be over. Israel is an excuse and a remaining offense to their egos, not a cause.

Nobody over here wants to admit that there are extremist Christians and extremist Jews, as well. What is the difference between blowing up an abortion clinic here in the states for God, and blowing up a sidewalk cafe in Baghdad full of people who believe differently than you, again for God? Not one whit. Useful rule of thumb: if that little voice inside you is telling you to kill for God, then that ain't God you are listening to.

The mainstream of Christianity is "God is love." The mainstream of Islam is "Dar al Harb vs Dar al Islam." Compare and Contrast.

The rest of this you got absolutely right, and said it better than I probably could have. A Year ago I read a wonderful essay regarding the Islamization of Europe. The Salient points were that the ever larger growing Muslim population will have little respect for European notions of Law or Precedent, and even less for the opinions of Atheists and Agnostics. The Only force capable of pushing back the Meme of Islam is the Meme of Christianity, and Europe has done it's dead level best at marginalizing and destroying it's own religious beliefs. In other words, Europe is disarmed in a fight over religious belief.

Hence, the outcome is irrevocably a Muslim future for Europe. You cannot fight a belief with a non belief.

[KitemanSA]

My recollection is that "Usury" is excessive interests. If I remember correctly, it is any interest rate in excess of 10%. i.e. "loan sharking."

That is the current distinction. But the KJ Bible uses the term "usury" throughout the ir Bible while the New International Version uses "interest".
And the only interest rate I recall was 1 percent. But was that 1% of constant value grickles or a flat 1%?

[djolds1]

Both parties are utopian - "conservatives" the Lockean 18th/19th century gradualist version, "liberals" the Rousseau/Robespierre/Lenin 19th/20th century "change NOW" variety.

Utopianism cannot last forever. The human animal is inherently conservative in that it does not like change.

You've left out Edmund Burke and the Burkean Philosophy which is far more pertinent to Conservative ideology and it is NOT Utopian.

Fair point, tho I would include Burke in Locke's school of thought. As to utopianism, Western philosophy has been utopian back to Joachim of Fiore. Burke & the American version of the Enlightenment are just as utopian as Rousseau and the French version, just much less unstable over the short term. In the long term the gradualist version gets to the same end point as the unstable radical version.

Neither is Adam Smith's economic philosophy upon which the modern Capitalistic mind set is based. (Adam Smith and Edmund Burke were contemporaries and friends. Their thinking is complementary not adversarial.)

Smith was a political economist, not an "economist." The academy's attempt to separate the two in the late 19th century was foolishness.

]1) Commands to conquest and subjugation of the nonbeliever are built into the structure of Islamic scripture;

2) Islamic scripture is held to be the direct word of God, and so not open to "interpretation" in the Judeo-Christian sense. See the theology of al-Ghazali and contrast that with the theology of Augustine. IOW Der Panzerpope got it right in his Regensberg Lecture in 2006;

3) IOW your hoped for moderates are the sacrilegious and apostate, not the mild to moderate to fervent believers;

4) It is the more educated and cosmopolitan Muslims from the Middle East that tend to make it to the American side of the Atlantic. The lesser educated end up in Europe;

5) Demographic composition can be a boon for the US, but also a risk. Revolutionary cadre always comes out of the petit bourgeoisie. Muhammad Atta for instance was a university engineering student, not dirt poor;

6) Demographically, the unassimilated generally poorer Muslim immigrants in Europe are coalescing into a unified neo-tribe focused on the mosques funded by Wahhabi Islam.

Six decades of open war, not one. The beginning dates to the collapse of the European Empires and the recognition by Muslims that their several centuries-long losing streak may be over. Israel is an excuse and a remaining offense to their egos, not a cause.

The mainstream of Christianity is "God is love." The mainstream of Islam is "Dar al Harb vs Dar al Islam." Compare and Contrast.

The rest of this you got absolutely right, and said it better than I probably could have. A Year ago I read a wonderful essay regarding the Islamization of Europe. The Salient points were that the ever larger growing Muslim population will have little respect for European notions of Law or Precedent, and even less for the opinions of Atheists and Agnostics. The Only force capable of pushing back the Meme of Islam is the Meme of Christianity, and Europe has done it's dead level best at marginalizing and destroying it's own religious beliefs. In other words, Europe is disarmed in a fight over religious belief.

Hence, the outcome is irrevocably a Muslim future for Europe. You cannot fight a belief with a non belief.

See here. I don't know if Europe is dead, but it will need a Second Religiousness to rally.

[rjaypeters]

My recollection is that "Usury" is excessive interests. If I remember correctly, it is any interest rate in excess of 10%. i.e. "loan sharking."

Well, 10% was the Lord's portion which everyone must pay, so I wonder what modern confiscatory tax levels look like to the Lord.

Other than zero (subject to the qualifications previously mentioned), I have never seen a maximum interest rate applied in the Bible and I read the whole thing last year.

The most amusement I get out of this thread is how no one has responded to the years of Jubilee. There are at least two easy lines of attack against the modern implementation of the years of Jubilee, I'm sort of disappointed none of them or others have been attempted. Perhaps none of you are interested...

So, you triumphant Capitalists beware. Capitalism may be extremely efficient, at some things, but don't expect your Communism/Socialism v. Capitalism dichotomy is the only game in town.

The Philospher asks: "How much is enough?"

[Betruger]

Utopianism cannot last forever. The human animal is inherently conservative in that it does not like change.

Only in so far as you might mean it strictly with respect to unrealistic (utopianist) levels of change.. iow change for the sake of change.

Otherwise, if "conservative" implies right wing, I have to say that's wrong. Change is inevitable. Change is what engineering was made for. To enable people to incessantly learn, with e.g. a permanent state of mind that looks like the Problem>Solution>Problem[...] loop. As more literary minded people've said: an accomplished man learns how to thrive outside his comfort zone. Change is to man's intellect what bumps in the road are to good chassis design. The better the latter, the better your performance; the Better Life is.

As I see it, extremist policy only survives because milder policies that often enough include compromises fail to succeed in some clear black and white way. So the public sees promise in strategies/tactics that simply chop right thru with "extreme" uncompromising methods. Simplism.
IMO one of the real root problems is public conviction that ideology trumps engineering-like approach as problem solving method. Party lines before comprehensive factual assessment.

[Diogenes]

My recollection is that "Usury" is excessive interests. If I remember correctly, it is any interest rate in excess of 10%. i.e. "loan sharking."

Well, 10% was the Lord's portion which everyone must pay, so I wonder what modern confiscatory tax levels look like to the Lord.

Other than zero (subject to the qualifications previously mentioned), I have never seen a maximum interest rate applied in the Bible and I read the whole thing last year.

My recollection of the 10% number came from being told it by my then Pastor some 30 years ago. I was advised that he had been to divinity school and had studied texts in Ancient Greek and Latin as well as Aramaic. My pastor was also Jewish, (Brother Weisel) and was familiar with the customary interpretation of the term "Usury."

Beyond that, I cannot say. This understanding made sense to me when he explained it, and if it is wrong, then I will have to wait for someone else to demonstrate it to be so.

The most amusement I get out of this thread is how no one has responded to the years of Jubilee. There are at least two easy lines of attack against the modern implementation of the years of Jubilee, I'm sort of disappointed none of them or others have been attempted. Perhaps none of you are interested...

For myself, I will have to admit i've never heard of your "years of Jubilee." I certainly don't recall reading of it in the bible, but as the book tends to put me to sleep, I shouldn't be surprised if I missed it somewhere in the text.

Regardless, I see no merit in the idea, and it is about as far fetched from contemporary thinking as anything else you could have come up with. In other words, the idea is too ridiculous to grant it any credibility. I, (and I suspect others, plead ignorance and apathy.

So, you triumphant Capitalists beware. Capitalism may be extremely efficient, at some things, but don't expect your Communism/Socialism v. Capitalism dichotomy is the only game in town.

The Philospher asks: "How much is enough?"

Capitalism works by freedom, Socialism works by coercion. Since coercion is a constant effort by those who would rule us, we need only be concerned with attempts to use it upon us. If that creates the natural dichotomy between socialism and capitalism than that is a convenient way of recognizing the difference between the two.

[KitemanSA]

Other than zero (subject to the qualifications previously mentioned), I have never seen a maximum interest rate applied in the Bible and I read the whole thing last year.

Nehemiah 5:11 (New International Version, ©2010)
11 Give back to them immediately their fields, vineyards, olive groves and houses, and also the interest you are charging them—one percent of the money, grain, new wine and olive oil.”

Seems 1% is "interest".

[KitemanSA]

But if you "pawn" your stuff to the Levites for tithes and want it back later, you have to pay 20%. As always, the rules don't seem to apply to the priests!

[mdeminico]

Left wing extremism (socialism) is just as bad as right-wing extremism (fascism).

Fascism isn't right-wing extremism. Fascism is a cousin to socialism. It simply says "You can own it, but we're going to tell you what to do with it."

For example: You have to pay your workers X amount per hour. You have to hire X amount of women/minorities. If your workers strike, you cannot hire "scab" workers in their place. You cannot sell incandescent light bulbs...

Nobody over here wants to admit that there are extremist Christians and extremist Jews, as well. What is the difference between blowing up an abortion clinic here in the states for God, and blowing up a sidewalk cafe in Baghdad full of people who believe differently than you, again for God?

The difference is, extremist Muslims can point to specific commands that apply to them *today*, given to them in the Koran, that tell them to go out and murder those people on the sidewalk cafe in Baghdad because they don't believe as you do.

Jewish, and especially Christian extremists can NOT point to anywhere in the Bible where there are ongoing commands to murder someone for disagreeing with you or your religion. There are historical examples of the Jewish people being ordered to do so, but those were specific to one time and one place in history, not ongoing commands.

[rjaypeters]

re: Years of Jubilee

Regardless, I see no merit in the idea, and it is about as far fetched from contemporary thinking as anything else you could have come up with. In other words, the idea is too ridiculous to grant it any credibility. I, (and I suspect others, plead ignorance and apathy.

1. It's not my idea.
2. Are you saying since the idea of years of Jubilee is far from contemporary thinking it is ridiculous? And you style yourself after an ancient philospher.

Consider. The years of Jubilee didn't require giving everything back. Only certain things: land and manumiting slaves, etc. IIRC. Even with years of Jubilee, there is room for individual accomplishment, recognition and accumulation. Wouldn't that be enough for even the greediest Capitalist? Well, I suppose not...

Everyone who responded about interest rates in the Bible: Thanks for the corrections. Even though I read it last year, I can't remember everything I read.