Respose to Obama's statement in Turkey

[bobzinger]

Just one of the reasons I think we're in trouble!

[markusmaximus]

This issue of whether the US is or is not a Christian nation is a sensitive issue, so I’ll try to tread lightly. I’ll preface my statements by stating up front that I am no way impugning anyone’s beliefs. This is not meant to be an argument for or against any or all religions. If I offend anyone, it is not meant so.

This is a complex issue and requires more than a yes or no answer. To answer the question requires understanding of context. Are we discussing Christianity as a representative theology or the foundation of this nation’s formation? Whether the US is a Christian nation depends entirely on which perspective you take.

If you argue that the US is a Christian nation based on population trends, with 78% of the population professing Christianity (51% Protestant and 24% Catholics) then indeed your argument has merit. There is no debate on that point. Yet 22% of Americans are not Christians, so an argument could be made that the US is not a Christian nation based solely on the lack of unified theocracy.

Yet when others speak of the US as a Christian nation, I suspect they are referring to the founding documents and intentions of our framers. In this context the question becomes more complicated. In the video, Representative Forbes referenced many examples of his belief that the US is a Christian nation, among which are the Declaration of Independence, Treaty of Paris and the Supreme Court ruling in the Holy Trinity case. Let’s examine those more closely.

First, the Declaration of Independence lists a “creator” without identifying any particular characteristic or deity nature of the creator. Our founders were careful not to promote any particular ideology. The “creator”, so argued, could be a supreme being such as God, Allah, Vishnu or other such deities. The “creator” could be a phenomenon such as the Big Bang or the natural selection of evolution. One could even posit, although not here, that the “creator” is a flying spaghetti monster. Point is that the Declaration of Independence in no way identifies our nation as a Christian nation.

The First Amendment to the Constitution furthers this notion with the Establishment Clause. The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. And with all due respect to “in the year of our Lord 1787…”, such statements were commonplace in those days when denoting dates. They were simply keeping with tradition.

Our founding fathers knew perfectly well why the Puritans left Europe in 1608 and, after a 12 year layover in Holland, landed in Plymouth Bay in 1620. The Puritans, later to be called Pilgrims, were in search for freedom from religion as much as freedom of religion. Devout Christians indeed, they grew tired of the autocratic ways of the Church of England, which regularly influenced governance in England. Our founders made a point to craft documents that did not reference any particular religion and assured that there remained a distinct boundary between government and religion.

Rep Forbes mentioned the Treaty of Paris of 1783. Indeed it does begin with the “… most holy and undivided trinity” statement. I’m no scholar of such matters, but I suspect the authors of this peace accord wanted to find common ground with “His Britanic Majesty”. With the Church of England still in prominence, this was a way to assuage hurt feelings while asserting our independence. Purely politics. Case in point; Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli signed in 1796 states “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…” and was signed by President John Adams (curiously mentioned by Forbes). Scholars have seen this as political posturing merely to get all parties to agree to the treaty terms.

[On a similar note, Mr Forbes mentioned 13 presidents by name who supported Judeo-Christian principles. These men were merely promoting their own beliefs. After all, how many presidents can you name who were not Christian or Catholic?]

Forbes discussed the Supreme Court ruling Holy Trinity Church vs US and argued for the ruling as evidence of the US as a Christian nation. Indeed, the unanimous decision written by Justice Brewer went to great lengths to argue the point. But this ruling has come under great criticism and is generally regarded as judicial posturing. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia denounced the Holy Trinity decision as the "prototypical case" in which a judge follow[s] the intent of the legislature rather than the text of the statute and stated the ruling was “nothing but an invitation to judicial lawmaking." In 1983, Justice Brenan wrote in Lynch v. Donnelly that “By insisting that such a distinctively sectarian message is merely an unobjectionable part of our 'religious heritage,' the Court takes a long step backwards to the days when Justice Brewer could arrogantly declare for the Court that 'this is a Christian nation.' Those days, I had thought, were forever put behind us ...." The Holy Trinity case was not about the Christianity of the US and only peripherally about religion. The court was merely posturing to allow foreign-born ministers entry into this country.

Finally, “In God We Trust” was approved as the national motto by Congress in 1956.

So in this context, not based on popular beliefs, but on founding principles, it is easily argued that the United States is not a Christian nation. While I respect those with differing views, I fail to see how Obama’s statement is a troubling sign. He was merely expressing our founding principles. But if Obama wanted to be more politically correct, he should have said that we are not just a Christian nation.

*Apologies for the verbosity*

[bobzinger]

You say..."First, the Declaration of Independence lists a “creator” without identifying any particular characteristic or deity nature of the creator. Our founders were careful not to promote any particular ideology. The “creator”, so argued, could be a supreme being such as God, Allah, Vishnu or other such deities. The “creator” could be a phenomenon such as the Big Bang or the natural selection of evolution. One could even posit, although not here, that the “creator” is a flying spaghetti monster. Point is that the Declaration of Independence in no way identifies our nation as a Christian nation."

I'm certainly not as eloquent as you Markus, but as far as I know...none of the framers of the Declaration of Independence were muslim, hindu, or atheist, etc. There was no theory of evolution or a big bang at that time. To say that they weren't referring to a Judeo-Christian Creator, in my opinion, is a huge stretch.

[NRiderUSA]

Great thing about America versus China, Russia, N.Korea, Iran, Iraq.... oh hell that list is endless... it would be easier to list the countries that do allow freedom than the endless list of countries that don’t... everyone is entitled to their views and opinions without fear of being killed or imprisoned for them. (given of course the exceptions to homophobic, bigoted, racist, right wing religious zealous, blockadist, extremist conservatives of course)

All my life I thought being born an American was like winning the lottery in life, so unlike Michelle Obama, I have always been proud to be an American and although its not perfect and bad decisions have been made throughout our history, I have still yet to find the reasons to not be proud of what we as a nation stand for and have done on the side of good for the entire world throughout our history as a nation.

Looking through the 20/20 clarity of hind sight most liberals seems to be gifted with and the power words used in rationalizations like "yet" "but" and "if" it is easy to say we should have or could have done something differently or better but as is the case in most peoples personal lives, something’s come at you with a "have to make a decision now" so the luxury of waiting to see how it turns out to make the "perfect" choice in most cases does not exist.

So I agree with bobzinger and a lot of other Americans view that the foundation of our house is being chipped away, the technicality that we have never been 100% Christian does not take away from the foundation of our belief system in one of a creator, without that we would not have the freedoms given to us by that creator we could not have shared those freedoms with everyone else of every religion... so even though its its only one itty bitty piece being attacked at a time and although it doesn’t hurt much while its happening, one chip at a time it will eventually destroy the foundation.

Which I believe is the intent.

Oh yeah about the "in god we trust".... research all the facts:

The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

[markusmaximus]

Originally Posted by bobzinger

I'm certainly not as eloquent as you Markus, but as far as I know...none of the framers of the Declaration of Independence were muslim, hindu, or atheist, etc. There was no theory of evolution or a big bang at that time. To say that they weren't referring to a Judeo-Christian Creator, in my opinion, is a huge stretch.

Bobzinger,
You are correct in implying our fore-fathers knew nothing of Big Bang or evolution. Those were to illustrate contemporary arguments. But I stand that firm that the word "creator" was by design to intentionally avoid endorsement or establishment of any ideology. And no, it's not a stretch to argue that they were not referring to a Judeo-Christian creator. I can provide sourc references if you like.

John Adams: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"

Thomas Jefferson: "I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." and "The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."

James Madison: "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

Ethan Allen: "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." and "... denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian."

Benjamin Franklin: "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble."

Thomas Paine: "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."

And finally...

George Washington never declared himself a Christian in any of his correspondence. Washington championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion.

[markusmaximus]

Originally Posted by NriderUSA

Looking through the 20/20 clarity of hind sight most liberals seems to be gifted with and the power words used in rationalizations like "yet" "but" and "if" it is easy to say we should have or could have done something differently or better but as is the case in most peoples personal lives, something’s come at you with a "have to make a decision now" so the luxury of waiting to see how it turns out to make the "perfect" choice in most cases does not exist.

Oh I believe that 20/20 hindsight is human nature, ascribed to liberals, conservatives and moderated alike. We all exercise that gift.

Originally Posted by NriderUSA

So I agree with bobzinger and a lot of other Americans view that the foundation of our house is being chipped away, the technicality that we have never been 100% Christian does not take away from the foundation of our belief system in one of a creator, without that we would not have the freedoms given to us by that creator we could not have shared those freedoms with everyone else of every religion... so even though its its only one itty bitty piece being attacked at a time and although it doesn’t hurt much while its happening, one chip at a time it will eventually destroy the foundation.

Which I believe is the intent.

I'm still not sure how Obama's comments represent "... the foundation of our house is being chipped away". You make it sound as if liberals have an insidious plan to tear the moral fabric of society and any discourse about the role of religion is a society as an affront on all personal beliefs. This is simply not true.

I can't speak for all liberals, but on the whole liberals are pacifists who believe that religion is a very private matter. The fact that religion is even brought up during political campaigns or in the context of governance is very frustrating. Liberals don't want to change personal beliefs, liberals just want it stopped being crammed down our throats.

If you want to discuss the "chipping away of our foundation", look no further than right-wing extremists, homophobes, zealots and others you mentioned who use fear-mongering and violence to advance a personal agenda. Just think of the countless lives lost in the course of fighting wars based on religious differences. That is what is destroying our species.

Originally Posted by NriderUSA

The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

You are correct Nrider. Thanks for clarifying. But it does not take away from my tacit point being that the motto "In God We Trust" was established well after this country was formed and is not a valid argument for proclaiming the US as a Judeo-Christian nation.

My final point... I have provided facts and reason as to how and why the US may not considered a Judeo-Christian nation and rebutted Congressman Forbes' arguments. Ostensibly, a few perhaps many of you "feel" that we are a Judeo-Christian nation, but I'm waiting for concrete evidence in support thereof.

[NRiderUSA]

We can banter this forever..... Thomas Jefferson also said:

Thomas Jefferson’s phrase in 1802 must be understood in light of what he said in his “Second Inaugural Address,” in 1805:

“In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.”

Christian people are free to influence legislation that is in keeping with the moral principles of Christianity, and Christian parents are duty bound to see to it that their children are educated in light of Christian principles and morality. A godless educational system is a dreadful curse to American society, the very idea of which would have been abjured by the founders of our nation.

Your missing the point... which makes the conversation pointless.

[markusmaximus]

Originally Posted by NriderUSA

We can banter this forever..... Thomas Jefferson also said:

Thomas Jefferson’s phrase in 1802 must be understood in light of what he said in his “Second Inaugural Address,” in 1805:

“In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.”

Christian people are free to influence legislation that is in keeping with the moral principles of Christianity, and Christian parents are duty bound to see to it that their children are educated in light of Christian principles and morality. A godless educational system is a dreadful curse to American society, the very idea of which would have been abjured by the founders of our nation.

Your missing the point... which makes the conversation pointless.

Make no mistake. I get your point clearly. I just don't agree with it.

So much for separation of church and state by your reasoning.

[ponch]

What an argument... I will say that the constitution prohibits an official religion. Taken in it's context, at the time in England, you had to be a member of the church of england in order to hold certain positions in government, colleges and other institutions. Consider it the religious litmus test that was legal. We didn't want to perpetuate that same system which created inequality based on what one believed.

I think it is a poor argument to use our founding father's statements as to religion as a way to justify our own beliefs in a religion. Sure most people in this country are christian and have been so. In many ways this is a positive thing, but when a politicians leads a nation or participates in it the processes there of, I think there needs to be a bit of dispassionateness in terms of one's religion and how one does there job.

I believe the fear with islam is based on some fact. Many countries in the middle east and that part of the world have a litmus test as it were with what religion people are. Even in this day and age people are held to legal account because they change their religion from islam to something else. Look up jizya, pahlavi, and dhimmi. These systems are totally incompatible with any democracy where freedom comes first.

On the other hand, for instance, in Austria, there is a 1% compulsory church tax. If you are catholic, the church can sue you if you do not pay it. If you refuse, basically you are excommunicated and cannot receive the sacraments. Members of the Church of Denmark (Denmark has the highest tax rate in the world at 56% income tax, which would be like working until July 23 for the government) pay a church tax that amounts to about 1%. Finland also exercises a church tax that varies from 1-2.25%.

For me, government should not have any official religion, shouldn't tax people for it, and as far as public schools go, the teachers should not endorse any religion in particular. If a student or students want to pray in school as individuals, I have no truck with that. If a student wants to mention Jesus or god in a valedictorian address, I have no truck with that too. As individuals, we have to right to our beliefs and this should be supported. The sticky wicket comes with organizations and the power they usually strive for. I think that is what Thomas Jefferson was afraid of.

In regards to Obama, I think above all, he probably believes in some form of statism. Isn't this a religion as well? Of course it is. He has been honest, and as a progressive, he says he wants to change everything, how we do it, what we believe, etc... Take it from his wife: "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism, that you put down your division, that you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones, that you push yourselves to be better, and that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed..." (Speech in February 2008).

His arrogance is unbounded and I do not believe he respects what anyone believes that which disagrees with him. He's an elitist. Talk about getting a new system of government shoved down our throats...

Thomas Jefferson said it best with regards to freedom. "Jefferson believed that each individual has "certain inalienable rights." That is, these rights exist with or without government; man cannot create, take, or give them away."

And words to live by:

"rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

"And the limit of an individual's rightful liberty is not what law says it is but is simply a matter of stopping short of prohibiting other individuals from having the same liberty. A proper government, for Jefferson, is one that not only prohibits individuals in society from infringing on the liberty of other individuals, but also restrains itself from diminishing individual liberty."

Obama is not about that at all...

[markusmaximus]

I think Ponch has articulated much of what I was saying about government and religion.

But to say that Obama is not about a government "restraining itself from diminishing individual liberty" is a stretch. I believe that Obama believes in equitable liberty, or free will. Unrestrained concentration of wealth in the hands of few diminishes liberty for the "have-nots" and thus negates equitable liberty. In this context, government must be the equalizer, the referee if you will. To than end, Obama is serving out the mandate of 53% of Americans.

No question Obama is ushering in a new form of government. And frankly it is about time. Obama may very well be an elitist (trips to local burger joints not-with-standing), and perhaps it comes with the job. I don't think he is from what I read and hear (I think many people are intimidated by his intellect), but frankly I don't care provided he can get the job done.

[ponch]

I just don't understand how the government redistributing wealth equates with justice and liberty. For your statement to be correct, I'd have to believe that we live in a very constrained zero sum system and that it is ethically ok to take something from one person and give it to another unearned. I would also have to believe that acquiring wealth is a bad thing and that unwanted burdens are a good thing. I am not a neocon by a long shot, and if I had to define my political beliefs they would be part objectivist and part classic liberal a la Thomas Jefferson. I just don't think what Obama is doing is good for individual liberties or this country in the long run. Yes he is going to change things, but it remains to be seen if it is for the better.

Originally Posted by Markus Maximus

I think Ponch has articulated much of what I was saying about government and religion.

But to say that Obama is not about a government "restraining itself from diminishing individual liberty" is a stretch. I believe that Obama believes in equitable liberty, or free will. Unrestrained concentration of wealth in the hands of few diminishes liberty for the "have-nots" and thus negates equitable liberty. In this context, government must be the equalizer, the referee if you will. To than end, Obama is serving out the mandate of 53% of Americans.

No question Obama is ushering in a new form of government. And frankly it is about time. Obama may very well be an elitist (trips to local burger joints not-with-standing), and perhaps it comes with the job. I don't think he is from what I read and hear (I think many people are intimidated by his intellect), but frankly I don't care provided he can get the job done.

Originally Posted by Markus Maximus

I think Ponch has articulated much of what I was saying about government and religion.

But to say that Obama is not about a government "restraining itself from diminishing individual liberty" is a stretch. I believe that Obama believes in equitable liberty, or free will. Unrestrained concentration of wealth in the hands of few diminishes liberty for the "have-nots" and thus negates equitable liberty. In this context, government must be the equalizer, the referee if you will. To than end, Obama is serving out the mandate of 53% of Americans.

No question Obama is ushering in a new form of government. And frankly it is about time. Obama may very well be an elitist (trips to local burger joints not-with-standing), and perhaps it comes with the job. I don't think he is from what I read and hear (I think many people are intimidated by his intellect), but frankly I don't care provided he can get the job done.

An unrestrained concentration of wealth? The majority of this country is middle class. Where is the concentration? There certainly isn't an overabundance of poor in this country compared to many others. It certainly isn't divided into rich and poor (at least not yet) but it will be.

You also mention the "have not's". I think you have realize that our country was founded on the fact that you could be anything you wanted as long as you didn't sit on your ass and wait for someone to give it to you. This is where "progressive" thinking will always fail. It sounds great that rich people will give to less rich people and everyone will be happy, but this is why other gov't's like communism will ultimately fail. People aren't perfect, someone will always want more than their share. Capitalism and Democracy are the only systems that allow for man's flaws.

Markus we are a country that is willing to be ruled for now. Much like the Roman's gave up their liberty. Someday, when everyone is tired of being "equal" there will be another change. For now, people would rather have the gov. take care of all their needs so they can go back to texting, myspace, twitter, American Idol, and every other reality show.

I really see why Obama is well liked, I actually like him. I hate his policies and ideas. I can't stand the way the Democratic party has become the greepeace, wolf relocating, birkenstock wearing, tree hugging, elitist party that it is. It used to represent the common man. I hate the way the Republican party has aligned itself so severly with the Christian Right and the abortion issue.

Our country is a shadow of it's former greatness. While the quotes you listed show our founding father's question of religion in politics, I think you always have to take into account their political climate, not ours. We come from a country that is steeped in Christian influence. Our money states it, our pledge of allegence talks about being "under God" (not Allah or the big bang or any other "faith"). It is in our oathes that our public servants and military, jurors, judges and courts, swear to. To pretend that any other faith has had as much influence on our country is like looking at the 498 peices of evidence pointing to O.J. Simpson's guilt, and then believing he is not guilty because Mark Fuhriman may have been a racisist. Your being duped by the shell game.

[ponch]

yridehd:
I agree with much of what you say, and while I agree that christian principles played an important role, I wouldn't want our government used as a vehicle to christianize any more than I would want Sharia law or the taliban. Arguments with have and have nots and the shrinking middle class are straw man arguments used to manipulate people into constituency groups just as are security and some social issues. I don't want to get into essay righting here, but if you like you can read my thoughts here: http://tinyurl.com/lenavn

Originally Posted by yridehd

An unrestrained concentration of wealth? The majority of this country is middle class. Where is the concentration? There certainly isn't an overabundance of poor in this country compared to many others. It certainly isn't divided into rich and poor (at least not yet) but it will be.

You also mention the "have not's". I think you have realize that our country was founded on the fact that you could be anything you wanted as long as you didn't sit on your ass and wait for someone to give it to you. This is where "progressive" thinking will always fail. It sounds great that rich people will give to less rich people and everyone will be happy, but this is why other gov't's like communism will ultimately fail. People aren't perfect, someone will always want more than their share. Capitalism and Democracy are the only systems that allow for man's flaws.

Markus we are a country that is willing to be ruled for now. Much like the Roman's gave up their liberty. Someday, when everyone is tired of being "equal" there will be another change. For now, people would rather have the gov. take care of all their needs so they can go back to texting, myspace, twitter, American Idol, and every other reality show.

I really see why Obama is well liked, I actually like him. I hate his policies and ideas. I can't stand the way the Democratic party has become the greepeace, wolf relocating, birkenstock wearing, tree hugging, elitist party that it is. It used to represent the common man. I hate the way the Republican party has aligned itself so severly with the Christian Right and the abortion issue.

Our country is a shadow of it's former greatness. While the quotes you listed show our founding father's question of religion in politics, I think you always have to take into account their political climate, not ours. We come from a country that is steeped in Christian influence. Our money states it, our pledge of allegence talks about being "under God" (not Allah or the big bang or any other "faith"). It is in our oathes that our public servants and military, jurors, judges and courts, swear to. To pretend that any other faith has had as much influence on our country is like looking at the 498 peices of evidence pointing to O.J. Simpson's guilt, and then believing he is not guilty because Mark Fuhriman may have been a racisist. Your being duped by the shell game.

[ponch]

Greg:
On one hand we have people who participate in magical thinking. THey must believe that wealth somehow falls out of the sky and you just happened to be lucky enough for it to fall on.
Then enter the progressive socialist populist politician that use the straw man argument that the middle class is shrinking, people are losing jobs, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. They blame you and people like you because through some magical process you are wealthy therefore didn't really earn it, and besides, you probably took it from them to begin with. Of course such progressives will say there is some sort of social contract that we all must fulfill which includes taking care of our brethren who have less and other unwanted burdens that reward fecklessness. While there is no shame in being poor, there is wanting to remain poor. So the mantra goes, to each according to his need, from each according to his ability.
If a man uses resources to his disposal to create a product he can sell in the market place for what it can demand, then he has created something of value through his labor, his ideas and intelligence. That is the essence of what I call small c capitalism. In the world of the magical thinker, everyone's labor, ideas etc are equivalent. That's why socialist/communist systems usually produce crap.

Sorry to rant...

Originally Posted by glwilson

Sharing the wealth?

So... if I work really hard and for long hours over 30 years -- living modestly -- driving used cars, wearing older clothes instead of buying new, living in a small house, saving my money, doing without vacations, and so on while I build MY business (with which was paid for with my own money, blood, sweat and sacrifice)... now that I make over $250,000 I am being asked to SHARE MY MONEY with individuals that are too damn lazy to do what I have done for 30 years.

This is exactly the position I am in and I don't like it.

Please... someone (Markus?) tell me where are MY rights and liberties?

Giving money to the NON-DOER'S so they can continue to do little is wrong.

[markusmaximus]

The top 1 percent in the US earned 21.8 percent of all reported income in 2005, more than double their share of income in 1980. The top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

It's been well documented that with money comes power and with power comes liberties not afforded to those without money. Cornelius Vanderbilt one wrote that he did not want to give away the wealth he did not need because "... you give away the control." If you equate power with liberty, as I do, then you cannot argue that the rich have more liberties than the rest.

That's not magical thinking. That's not believing money falls from the sky. That is a system that values squeezing the low and middle class. We've seem what happens when such a system of deregulation heavily slanted toward laissez-faire capitalism goes unchecked... ultimately the rich still get richer (read AIG bonuses) while the middle class lose their jobs. It's a clear and present danger when leading execs are so out of touch with reality that they make decisions without regard to the vast number of peoples they effect.

I'm not advocating pure communism here so stop throwing that crap around. I don't want to see hard-working, talented individuals have to give up a significant portion of their wealth to able-bodied slackers. So stop the extremism please.

If you're one of the "haves", you probably don't want the system to change. I don't blame you. But if you're one of the vast majority of Americans getting squeezed, then why would you not want a system that's more fair? You don't want money just handed to you, but you want to system that keeps corner office occupants accountable. I don't know about you, but I'm still outraged that CEOs can literally bounce from board room to board room with golden parachutes while leaving the company in shambles.

How is that fair gentlemen? I work my *ss off every day and consider myself a valuable contributor to society. Yet I like many of you am one pink slip away from financial ruins. Explain how these fortune 500 execs proportionately contribute to society? Do they really work that much harder than me and contribute that much more to society to deserve the ever-growing disparity in wage? I think not.

So, to bring this around full circle, those execs have far greater influence over the political process than I do. They have far more power to influence change than me. Thus they have a greater share of liberties that come with wealth than I will ever experience. And don't give me the "one man, one vote" rebuttal.

Just to show I'm not a bitter, I don't really care if some people have more "stuff" than me (excluding Nomad accessories, of course). I really don't care that they have more money. I just want a system where 1) they cannot have greater influence over the political process, 2) their income does not grow disproportionate to their worker incomes, and 3) they are held accountable for decisions that negatively impact their workforce or society in general (and I'm not talking about running a Ponzi scheme).

So ponch, Greg, and others, are you really satisfied with this system? Do you really believe the system really fulfills our declarative right to liberty? If so, you're probably one of the "haves", in which case good for you, or you're seriously misguided. If not, what do you propose doing about it?

“I realized about 10 years ago that my wealth has to go back to society. A fortune, the size of which is hard to imagine, is best not passed on to one's children. It's not constructive for them.” Bill gates.