You have to love the deeply ironic – and arrogant – positions that some people take up, when they think they’re being clever. David Thiessen of Theology Archaeology responded to this post of mine, and also ‘addressed’ what Jill Dennison had to say in her excellent post. I shall quote his text in purple, and Jill’s in green.
One of the drawbacks to the invention of the internet is that it opened up the world to the opinions and not-so-intelligent thoughts of the uneducated. The world is now inundated with subjective thoughts from people who think they are right in their own eyes.
Oh yes indeed David, some people do indeed insist they are right, even after they are demonstrably wrong. Do not think I have forgotten our conversation on discrimination and employer’s rights, all those years ago, nor your claim I am transgender (not that it would matter if I were, but I never claimed to be). Nor have I forgotten our more recent ‘discussion’ around the Church and taxation, nor our conversation on faith healing, nor our debates on gun deaths and gun control. I recall our conversations on abortion too (where David removed fact-driven links, what a surprise). I am struggling to think of anyone who does as good a job as David Thiessen does of distorting facts. He is a master at taking subjective thoughts, and considering them to be fact, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Perhaps David should heed his own advice, and reconsider his ignorant arguments? Will he remove the beams from his eyes? I doubt it…
Take for example, his major splitting of hairs. Here, he is responding to the question of whether or not the USA is a democracy, which wasn’t actually the point being raised, but leave it to David to be obtuse and awkward. I was exploring the question of whether the USA is now a plutocracy, which David would know, if he had bothered to properly read my post, and Jill’s. Context is key, yet David often seems determined to ignore context.
One example is this question:
Is the USA, as it currently stands, truly a democracy? (MM)
This question has been asked a myriad of times over the past few years and every time it is asked, those that are educated and know the correct answer get frustrated at seeing it pop up over and over again.
The answer is that America is NOT a democracy.
America is a republic and not a pure democracy. The contemporary efforts to weaken our republican customs and institutions in the name of greater equality thus run against the efforts by America’s Founders to defend our country from the potential excesses of democratic majorities. (Source)
The Washington Post backs this up with the following words:
The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy. (Source)
Emphasis mine. One of David’s own sources makes it clear, in the very text he quotes, that the USA is a form of democracy! This is off-topic (which as I alluded to, David would know if he read my post properly, and took into account context), but it is hilarious that he would contradict himself with his own quotation! You might also want to read this site, which breaks down why describing the USA as both a republic and a democracy is perfectly valid.
Next, David goes off on a rant – for a Christian, he sure seems opposed to people who protest against inequalities in our world. I thought Jesus preached about generosity and kindness and sharing? Or did he charge people for the bread and fish in John 6:1-14? It seems that would be very in keeping with David’s true philosophy…
People do get confused between the two forms of government. That is just one facet of the problem with the free access to the internet we enjoy. Other people write about their personal concepts like it is the gold standard and everyone else should capitulate to their way of doing things:
Everything … literally everything … in the United States is a business. Healthcare is a business. Prescription drugs are a business. Education is a business. These things are all venues of profit for the already-wealthy, carefully guarded by members of Congress who are beholden to those with the money. This, my friends, is capitalism run amok. Today’s Congress is afraid to take a single step forward for the people without consulting with the owners of the fossil fuel, pharmaceutical, technology industries and others. Environmental regulations? Not if they’re going to cut into the profits of corporate America! Affordable or universal healthcare? You’re kidding, right? Affordable insulin and other life-saving medications? Not a chance. Free college? Who do you think you are? (Source).
Basically, that author’s words demand that America and other democratic nations become socialist and make everything free for all people. This is done regardless of the many examples that show that socialism does not work.
Basically, her article is one big whine because things are not done her way. We see this a lot over the internet. Someone doesn’t like the way things are done, so they whine, cry, and try to hold their breath until they turn blue.
Jill (who David also refuses to name) does not demand anything. She is pointing out that money and profit matter considerably more than the values David claims to believe in. Would Jesus charge for healthcare? Or would he give away life-saving insulin? Would he want to see people priced out of education because his bank balance mattered more? Pointing out these gross inequalities in our society is not whining, David Thiessen. People have every right to be angry with a system that permits huge wastefulness, poverty, and homelessness, when those problems could be resolved. It is also greatly ironic for you to complain David, given your demands that everyone do things your way.
These types of people also do not understand how things work. For example the following quote:
Why do you think the federal minimum wage rate of $7.25 has not been increased since 2009? (Ibid)
The minimum wage is not supposed to be a career wage. it is a starting point for employees who then learn how to make themselves valuable and move on to better-paying jobs. However, these types of people want to skip that process and be paid a living wage all the time without putting any effort into improving themselves and making them worthy of their employment.
Is David Thiessen aware that the wages of CEOs and executives have continued to climb, and corporate profits have rapidly risen, yet the minimum wage has remained virtually static? People are working hard, for a pittance, and that is not right or just. It is not right that people who work long hours should have to choose between heating, eating, or medication, yet that is the world that David Thiessen, a supposedly good, pious Christian, seems to prefer.
MM said in a post that “Not for the first time, Jill Dennison has written an excellent post,” No she has not as she is trampling on the rights of those who disagree with her and want to see the country go in a direction other than being destroyed.
Her focus is on superficial issues that will change with the wind when that time arrives. The only way to get get a government that is fair, equal,(not equity), just, honest, is to elect those men that are true Christians.
They understand that they need to govern in a way that pleases God and helps all the people in the nation. You are not going to get any solutions to the problems that plague all nations be electing more secular people.
Spare the pointless sermon David. You clearly don’t believe in half the values you claim to uphold, and there’s no way a Christian government would be fair to everyone. We all know it would roll back women’s rights, damage the LGBT community, and there’s no telling what would happen to the rest of society. There’s absolutely no logic in claiming Jill wants to trample the rights of others, but when was logic David Thiessen’s strong suite? Does he really believe a society that puts profit ahead of people is as good as we can manage, and is that what the Bible teaches? Methinks he needs to go back and read it again. He can start with Luke 16:10–15.
2
0
20
I have a quibble regarding the minimum wage. Nowhere in the Constitution, does it enumerate a power for the federal government to set the value of labor between two consenting parties (employer & employee).
Perhaps not, but a fair wage for hard work seems to be beneficial, unless you’re a multi-millionaire or billionaire that wants to spend $44 billion on vanity projects. I have to also ask, does something have to be in the Constitution for it to be considered just and fair?
The powers of our government are bound and restricted by the Constitution. Now, I’m practice……that has been increasingly ignored, especially over the past few decades. Just and fair, are subjective metrics and do not serve the Citizenry well. The federal government has not have the power to set the value of labor (though we’ve allowed them to ignore the Constitution), but the states can do this. That’s where this debate belongs.
Out of interest, what if states take no action to ensure that people are paid a reasonable wage? I don’t consider it subjective to offer weak pay, when CEOs are claiming considerable salaries and huge bonuses. There’s enough to go around my friend, what is lacking is the will. Should Bezos be spending billions on launching himself into space, when there are people working for Amazon who live paycheque to paycheque?
The relationship between employee and employer are contractual based on the agreed terms. Government should not have veto power in that relationship. It would be unjust.
If a state takes no action, then as it should be, the market decides the value of labor. With the drive towards vastly increasing the (illegitimate) federal minimum wage, many businesses are moving to kiosks and other money saving methods, retaining less employees.
And again, ‘reasonable’ is an opinion-based metric. It means whatever you want it to mean….and my definition will likely differ.
I don’t really care what Bezos does with his money. I’d like the government to not care what I do with mine.
Then, I guess we come at this from a vastly different perspective my friend, which is probably a reflection of where we literally are.
I for one am concerned that businesses are quite happy to rip off their employees. If they feel they can get away with it, they will. There are too many people who live on the breadline, which in a country as rich as the United States (and for that matter, here in the UK too), strikes me as decidedly unjust. I believe stuff like ‘market forces’ and inflation are merely excuses, created by those with money, to hoard money. One need only look at how much richer the likes of Musk, Besos etc got during a time of pandemics and cost of living problems, and we are meant to accept their arguments that wages cannot increase? I don’t buy it. Greed is the motive, and everything else is an excuse.
I for one don’t believe that market forces are an excuse. We’ve had market economies for centuries. These things aren’t new ideas. And the very last thing I desire is a centralized, State dominated economy. We’ve seen how well that has worked out in the past.
I also don’t oppose CEO’s making as much money as their Board allows.
Greed is always a motive, in almost every aspect of life. So are poor life choices that end up with more than a few in that breadline.
I’m concerned about employers who treat their workers poorly, just as I’m concerned about companies that rip off consumers.
But I will always defer to the market over the State.
Then we definitely sit on opposite sides of the equation here, but such is life.
If you interpret the Constitution strictly, then many things that we rely on today cannot exist. The Constitution is a living, breathing document that was fully intended to grow with the times, and it was NEVER intended to address every single issue that might arise. In 235 years, the nation has grown, times have changed, and the federal minimum wage has been around since 1938. Wealthy corporations would use slave labour if it were legal for them to do so, thus is is essential to have a fair, living wage that applies to every job. Get it?
Oh I’m so sorry….it appears that you don’t “get it”. States have the power to set a minimum wage. The federal government does not. The Constitution can absolutely grow with the times……it’s called an Amendment.
I ‘get it’ just fine, sir. I have a M.A. in Political Science and am working toward a Ph.D. in International Relations, so contrary to your beliefs, you are not talking to a charwoman. Yes, the federal government DOES have the power to set and adjust a federal minimum wage, as they have done for years.
Oh they’ve definitely done so, but where is it enumerated?
THANK YOU, Ben! I saw Derrick’s post about mine last night, though I didn’t know who he was at the time. I decided to be the better person and not leave a comment, though in retrospect, there is no place to comment on his post. But his denigration of me and my views was, I felt, unfair and it did disturb me. He claimed I am uneducated, while I would bet I have attained a higher level of education than he has, and he basically indicated that I am too stupid to understand how government works. His accusations about me wanting everything my way and whining to get it … were unfair and untruthful. So, when I saw your rebuttal here, I was pleased … felt that this Derrick fellow is not indicative of how the majority of people view things. In my book, he is a religious fanatic and I have no time for him and his ilk. Thanks again, Ben … you’re a great guy!
Good rejoiner
I wanted to reply to Derrick directly, but his blog does not appear to have a place where you can leave comments.
What a shame I have a 1,400 word reply waiting.
(I also have a very un-cooperative section of WP I ‘live’ in)
If you want to post it here, you’re very welcome.
Thank you Ben…Apologies for the length:
This was intended as a response to a blogger ‘theologyarcheology’ but I found (after writing this) he does not have a comments. What a shame.
Ben has kindly allowed me space, bear in mind this is addressed to that blogger and not Ben
“Whereas I agree with your opening comments on the opening two sentences of your post 1st December 2022, it is with a certain irony I do so. We must all accept when we step onto this stage. For as we are taught in Matthew 7:2
“Judge not that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again” (I do love the style and poetry of that English.) Salutary words indeed.
One of the issues we must all consider when quoting any part of both Old and New Testaments of the books of the Bible, is that we can be certain there will be another extract to counter our own quote. Thus, by wholly relying on selective quotes we run the risk of being seen in the same place as the Pharisees with whom Our Lord had several encounters:
Matthew 23:28, KJV: “Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.”
And there is the final matter. The original words were spoken in the local language, written down, in the case of the New Testament in likely Greek, thence into Latin, thence eventually into an English, and revised. At each stage there will be someone’s addition, misinterpretation of the translation and so one. Thus, the written is not the final say. Meditation and reflection upon those words in context of the times and in relation to other sections of a book or books of both Old and New Testaments are essential to receive the full message of Our Lord; lest we fall into listening to only to Humanity.
We should always be careful when invoking the words of Our Lord.
Anyway, let us move onto to ‘safer’ ground, the flawed and unhappy world of Humanity with its manifold shortcomings and foibles.
Moving on, into the question of Democracy. A very troublesome concept to pin down, as there are many versions. It is interesting that you post up ‘the answer is that America is NOT a democracy’ in a manner which suggests this does not concern you. Would this mean you are at odds with say The Republican Liberty Caucus? This organisation would seem to be very concerned on the matter. There again it could be argued are people getting Democracy and Liberty confused? The question here is ‘What is Democracy’? At its basics Democracy can be said to be the right for everyone to voice their opinion, and then accept the Majority opinion. Something which would seem to be sadly lacking in sections of the Republican Wing of the American System.
Having raised these complexities I would like to ask you a simple question. Are you in favour of the right of the Majority to have its say? And for their will to be the binding matter?
Now we come to the matter of Socialism. And being a socialist I have to advise you, in referring back to the previous item, ie Democracy, you seems to have made the error you accuse others of. You have failed to understand the concepts. Something in fact quite common in the USA, which I accept. Although this knee-jerk use of the term as an insult or accusation is something which does cause a wry smile as it does display a weak point in the accuser
Now like Democracy there are sundered versions of Socialism. To keep the matter simple there are some common factors to the various ideas. These being.
A free and efficient system of Education.
A free system and effective of Health Care services
A welfare system to support the vulnerable, elderly, incapacitated and those who have become temporarily unemployed.
A full staffed and effective system of emergency care services.
A Comprehensive and effective system of Law, Justice and Corrective Imprisonment.
These would be the responsibility of the government, for funding and operation, with a view for investment in the present and future of the nation.
Of course each system should be responsive to the views of the public, should they feel there are failures.
Funding of course in part comes from taxation, thus there is a compact between Public, Services and Government.
Each person understanding their contribution will benefit themselves as well as others, and thus building community.
To declare that someone is suggesting something along these paths this is a big whine, is a rather tawdry line of arguing. And adding that ‘someone doesn’t like the way things are done’ is probably not the best line of argument at a time when many not on the liberal / Democrat side of politics are still complaining about the results of several elections in the USA. It does suggest the Republican Party should stop complaining about the election result of 2020. Do you agree?
With regard to a ‘Minimum wage’ it is advisable to remember the old song ‘Walk a mile in my shoes’. Unless you have three miles home in the pouring rain because you can’t afford bus fare, carrying three bags of shopping with plastic bags around your socks because you shoes leak, and the shoes money has to go to your child’s foot wear. Until you have forgone a breakfast so your child can eat. Unless you have been there and counselled others in a compassionate manner how to get out of that fix. Unless you have been working full-time on two or three jobs and still lose your home. You do not have are any right to comment on what is a constitutes a Wage.
Another aspect which must be considered both in relation to the Minimum Wage and also Welfare would in the teachings of Our Lord.
When we look at the depth of the message given to us in Matt 19:24 “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” We have a warning that to holding onto wealth may compromise your chance of entering the Kingdom. Reinforced by Jesus’ advice to the rich young man, again in Matthew, 19 “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” . Now we are not sure of exactly the words Our Lord used, but the message is clear enough
Thus an Employer or an Government is in the place of the Wealthy, while the worker in need of a National Minimum Wage is in the place of the Poor.
A similar matter in education. To argue that it is up to the parent or person to ensure there can be a full and comprehensive education is a poor investment for the future of the nation, the inference being that only those fortunate to have wealth which they came by have the right to this education thus denying the full potential of the nation. This is not a good argument to give to Our Lord.
Another aspect which is disappointing is to suggest a person who is arguing a case for equality of opportunity is ‘trampling’. The idea of independence of thought and will is one thing, but to embrace the idea that to assist others through community effort, bearing in mind a community can range from a neighbourhood unto a nation suggests that the weak and the disadvantaged must give way to the fortunate. Fortunate not necessarily in terms of capital but circumstances. Circumstances it should be borne in mind as actually transitory. We need only consider the case of the rich man and the beggar at his door, how their fortunes changed.
The history of the USA differs from that of other regions of the world, in that independence of the individual and a lighter hand of government has been nurtured over the centuries and in general has been how the USA has evolved, it should be borne in mind that indulgence of these approaches to the disadvantage of substantial parts of the society will lead to a corrosion. You in the USA are but a young nation, not three hundred years old, we who have a thousand years of history to teach us would warn you to be careful of assumptions.
Your history is but a small measure.
I would conclude by suggesting if you wish to voice your opinions then you should arrange your blogging site so that folk can leave replies.”
Great comment. Whether or not Derrick will heed it… well, I have my doubts.
Thank you for the kind words and the space Ben.
Sorry that the whole thing was bunched up.
I originally wrote in on a Word Doc (I would never trust WP with a draft that long- tried once, very bad words were used when the crash came). Then Copied and Pasted it. Which on my ‘send’ space seemed organised correctly….
But WP……
Anyway if he doesn’y heed or reply….Not my problem. The response to his response is in the public domain. Up to him now.
Thanks again
You’re very welcome.
Well said, Sir Roger!!! BRAVO!!! And thank you. Apparently, this Derrick person is somewhat of a coward, since he doesn’t allow comments or rebuttal to his highly bigoted views. But, I learned something new about him tonight. Check this out: https://brucegerencser.net/2022/08/derrick-thomas-theissen-outraged-over-allegations-i-have-made-against-him/
Thank you Jill….
Jus’ doin’ mah job m’am. He don’t mess with my folk.
Gee. The guy ‘has form’. Hold up somewhere outside of the USA, shooting off tirades only those who oppose him read.
No wonder he was such an easy target.
Unless he cares to visit either of my blogs, I’m done with him.
Ah well…
Back to work…
Thank you, Ben!