The US is not a democracy, and the difference is important
 

The following is a little disjointed, but hopefully I'll make my point.


The Founding Fathers knew that communism and socialism were really bad ideas, and why any form of absolute power was always bad. Most people wouldn't say it so harshly, but people are assholes. Me, you, everybody, we want what we want, and damn everyone else. Communism only works if people get into it voluntarily, and even then there are problems.

The US is a republic, not a democracy, and the difference is of paramount importance. Some say it's a democratic republic, but this dangerous nonsense that needs to be challenged. In a "pure" democracy(I think a pure democracy should be the only definition of a democracy, and people should hate the idea) mob rule is the, um, rule. You can just vote what you want and bring the country down in the process, probably unintentionally. In a republic, it's a nation of written law, the law means what it says and says what it means. If a law is vague or contradicts another part, that aspect of the law is void, so it exists but shouldn't be respected as law until it's modified to deal with it's problems. Case law is not, and should never be, the answer in a republic. We appoint our lawmakers to make the laws, not the judges, the judges responsibility is to read and apply, not interpret, the law. Ultimately, they should act kind of like accountants, not really making decisions, but just doing what they're supposed to do. I believe the reason this country is such a clusterfuck is that judges are being respected as lawmakers, something that exists, but doesn't have any laws to support it.

A perfect example of the harm being done is the situation with the IRS. You can be put in jail for not paying income tax, but Title 26(the title of Income tax Federal law) tells a radically different story than what the IRS says is true. To be honest, most American citizens have never actually owed income tax, and any American citizen that has never worked for the federal government does not owe even one cent of American social security tax. When a business you are employed at removes social security tax from your paycheck without your consent, they are unknowingly stealing from you, and giving it to the government.

You say, but Jason, you have no proof of this, you're just spouting nonsense. But the proof is in the law. People say the 16th Amendment justifies the removing of taxes from the paycheck, but in literal fact it didn't add, change or abolish any of the laws that came before it. The 16th Amendment is stated in an intentionally confusing way so that people think the explanation they're given is the correct one, that it allows the federal government to tax American citizens. It does no such thing, it is simply a restatement of the laws that exist with some points left out in order to confuse people. It states that the federal government can directly tax income, but our general concept of income is different from the definition of income used by The Internal Revenue Code. We tend to think of a paycheck as income, but that definition does not agree with the codes definition, which was removed, with no reason given decades ago.(I want to say 1986, but please don't assume this is reliable statement) The proper definition of income is profit, where you make money from someone else's work, so stocks and bonds could be considered profit, and if you owned a business, that could be considered profit. But the Internal Revenue Code takes it a couple steps further. You only owe income tax on foreign earned money, and even then only above a certain amount.

You say, Jason, you're a moron, people go to jail for not paying income tax, and you would be right that people go to jail. But the imprisonment is illegal and is an abuse of an American citizens rights.

So what am I asking you to do? I am asking you to Google for more information. There is an organization called The Save A Patriot Fellowship, at [url]http://save-a-patriot.org[/url] maybe without the dashes. I have a file I ripped from their audio cassette tapes from 1991 onto my hard drive that I would like to put online as a torrent, though I've forgotten how. Ultimately, I'm hoping I can get permission to obtain more files that I can post online, possibly converted for easier consumption. Ultimately, the law isn't patented, so at least that aspect is free, but it helps to have a guide when you're exploring these things, and regular law school tends to give a distorted view of tax law, and probably a few other things. Ultimately, the law is the law, and comprehending it isn't hard, but simply tedious. Give me your average ten year old, except with a good attention span and a desire to learn the law, and they could probably learn everything they need to know about tax law given time and the right materials.

The website encourages people to stop paying the illegal taxes, but there's always the possibility of going to jail. Whether it's an illegal abuse of power or not, jail is no fun. But the Bible says you can't hide a lamp under a bush and expect it to be effective, you've got to arrange it prominently to light up the whole room. So I'm asking you to be like me and be that annoying boor who loudly states his opinion about everything, unless of course you have a superior method, lol. So do what your accountant tells you and try to avoid letting him find out you secretly hate him. Meanwhile, spread the truth and maybe we can shame the judges into returning us to the country that we're supposed to be.

I've left lots of stuff out that I'll probably need to add to continue the discussion, but I'll add them as needed.

I may have also made a misstatement about the 16th Amendment, I'm not sure if it actually mentions the word income, I'll have to look that up. Because of American high schools, most Americans have a disjointed view of the 16th Amendment, assuming direct taxation refers to citizens even though there's nothing in the 16th Amendment that could even refer to a human being. People say, but that's simply assumed, and it is assumed, but only by people who've been lied to.

[QUOTE=jasong;372840]
The Founding Fathers knew that communism and socialism were really bad ideas, and why any form of absolute power was always bad.[/QUOTE]

I was not aware that either communism or socialism existed, either as ideas or as actual political systems before the 1800's. I hope you can enlighten us as to the instances that Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries were so concerned about. Certainly they were alarmed about the abuses of the monarchical forms of government, which was a motivation for limiting our presidents to be elected for four-year terms. Socialism in the sense of property being shared has been around for millennia and was practiced by Pythagoreans and many early Christians, among others, but I am assuming that you are talking about the sense in which Marx described it. Please elaborate.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_tax#U.S._constitutional_law_sense[/url]

[QUOTE=philmoore;372842]I was not aware that either communism or socialism existed, either as ideas or as actual political systems before the 1800's. .[/QUOTE]

They didn't. In typical ignorant religious right fashion, jasong makes
up facts to suit his imagination.

[QUOTE]I may have also made a misstatement about the 16th Amendment, I'm not sure if it actually mentions the word income, [B]I'll have to look that up.[/B][/QUOTE]

:huh: So why didn't you? axn found it quickly enough, I reckon.

[QUOTE]jasong makes up facts to suit his imagination. [/QUOTE]

"Income tax is a scam" is actually a fairly common notion in some circles. These ramblings are hardly original.

Original support for the 16th amendment was based on the concept that rich people did not pay their fair share under the direct tax system. Tell me if rich people pay a fair share today?

Corporations were also supposed to be taxed as "entities". With a global economy and offshoring of profits, do entities like GE pay a fair share of taxes? FYI, GE paid $0 of U.S. taxes for the last several years.

I shouldn't be posting in this thread, because I don't understand it.

What's all this "global economy and offshoring of profits"? Why not tax an entity (person, company, corporation, etc.) on the "profits" they make in your country, with no transferring goods into or out of or within the country from other parts of your entity except at current market values, and with all import duties paid, and no transferring cash at all? No refunds for loss making, no deferring to next or future years, no offsetting against another entity in the corporation, ....

See, I told you I'm ignorant on this subject.

[QUOTE=BudgieJane;372860]I shouldn't be posting in this thread, because I don't understand it.

<snip>

See, I told you I'm ignorant on this subject.[/QUOTE]

Don't worry too much about it BJ, neither does the OP.


Those who don't [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=17179&highlight=16th+amendment"]remember the forum[/URL] are destined [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=337121&highlight=16th+amendment#post337121"]to repeat it[/URL], and [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=372860#post372860"]repeat it[/URL]...

As a Christian, I am sure that you are familiar with Mark 12:17. Jesus himself advocated the payment of taxes by the citizenry.

As for the legality of US income tax, I am sure that Willie Nelson would love to clear things up for you over a beer or two. You will also note in various IRS materials that the arguments that you make above are not in any way novel, and in fact have special frivolity penalties attached to them, lest a taxpayer try to hide behind them.

By the way, what do you make of sales tax, property tax, school tax, car tax, excise tax, alcohol and tobacco tax, luxury tax, estate tax, etc.? Personally, I think that it is disgusting that Americans never own their homes, even if they pay their mortgages in full (try skipping a real estate tax payment and see what happens!). Ditto for estate taxes, where >=50% of someone's (previously taxed!) legacy can be seized by the government rather than being rightfully passed on to the heirs.

The problem that I see with this issue is not the tax as much as how the government treats the money and the taxpayers. I have no trouble with the public all kicking in to build and maintain infrastructure that we all need in order to be a first-world nation (for instance, I agree with many state Departments of Transportation that a significant fuel tax increase is needed to maintain our sprawling yet crumbling highway network). What is wrong is pure waste - the $100,000 GSA "meetings" in Vegas, millions of dollars in grant money for nebulous research (what happens if a monkey is made to jog 12 miles a day?), or even billions for never-ending quagmire military offenses in nations that aren't interested in our presence, even under the guise of "protection" or "peacekeeping".

Unfortunately, as anyone who has ever witnessed a business trip or an insurance claim can attest, splurging and waste are endemic any time someone else, especially a faceless entity (e.g. a corporation or government) is footing the bill from seemingly infinite funds. That is why my suggestion to anyone (including my own parents who just shouted $4,300+ to Uncle Sam last month) is to take advantage of as many legal means as possible to lower your taxes (investments, businesses, mortgage interest, etc. - a second home works wonders as a tax deduction). But at the end of it all, when you have a number - how much you get to keep - just think of that as your salary, and think of the tax money over and above that as money paid to the government on your behalf by your employer. For example, if you make $60,000 per year, but have a $15,000 tax liability, your salary is really $45,000. You're never going to see that $15,000, and your employer has already paid it, so just forget it. Of course, if your salary seems unreasonably low at this point, then it's time to have the infamous "how about a raise?" talk with the boss. But then keep in mind that every raise he gives you means that he has to give a corresponding raise to the government! In the end, I truly believe that is about the most sane way to think about taxes. Otherwise, yes, every $900 hammer purchased by the Pentagon, or every $100,000 junket in Air Force One, is going to blow your mind.

Just render unto Caesar (or Washington) what is Caesar's (or Washington's) and be done.

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;372865]As a Christian, I [/QUOTE]
So far, so good. You are a Christian. (So was that fellow who started the mutiny on the Bounty, but that's another story.)

[QUOTE]am sure that you are familiar with Mark 12:17.
[/QUOTE]
No. Why should I be?

[QUOTE]Jesus himself
[/QUOTE]
Rumour has it that he didn't exist. You're not confusing him with that naughty boy, Brian, by any chance? Someone made a film about his life. You should go and see it. See if you can figure out the difference between the Judaean People's Front and the People's Front of Judaea.

[QUOTE] advocated the payment of taxes by the citizenry.

As for the legality of US income tax, I am sure that Willie Nelson would love to clear things up for you over a beer or two. You will also note in various IRS materials that the arguments that you make above are not in any way novel, and in fact have special frivolity penalties attached to them, lest a taxpayer try to hide behind them.

By the way, what do you make of sales tax, property tax, school tax, car tax, excise tax, alcohol and tobacco tax, luxury tax, estate tax, etc.? Personally, I think that it is disgusting that Americans never own their homes, even if they pay their mortgages in full (try skipping a real estate tax payment and see what happens!). Ditto for estate taxes, where >=50% of someone's (previously taxed!) legacy can be seized by the government rather than being rightfully passed on to the heirs.
[/QUOTE]
If you have got a problem with this get yourself and a few like-minded friends elected into Congress and do something about it. If you don't, then you haven't.

[QUOTE]
The problem that I see with this issue is not the tax as much as how the government treats the money and the taxpayers. I have no trouble with the public all kicking in to build and maintain infrastructure that we all need in order to be a first-world nation (for instance, I agree with many state Departments of Transportation that a significant fuel tax increase is needed to maintain our sprawling yet crumbling highway network). What is wrong is pure waste - the $100,000 GSA "meetings" in Vegas, millions of dollars in grant money for nebulous research (what happens if a monkey is made to jog 12 miles a day?), or even billions for never-ending quagmire military offenses in nations that aren't interested in our presence, even under the guise of "protection" or "peacekeeping".

Unfortunately, as anyone who has ever witnessed a business trip or an insurance claim can attest, splurging and waste are endemic any time someone else, especially a faceless entity (e.g. a corporation or government) is footing the bill from seemingly infinite funds. That is why my suggestion to anyone (including my own parents who just shouted $4,300+ to Uncle Sam last month) is to take advantage of as many legal means as possible to lower your taxes (investments, businesses, mortgage interest, etc. - a second home works wonders as a tax deduction). But at the end of it all, when you have a number - how much you get to keep - just think of that as your salary, and think of the tax money over and above that as money paid to the government on your behalf by your employer. For example, if you make $60,000 per year, but have a $15,000 tax liability, your salary is really $45,000. You're never going to see that $15,000, and your employer has already paid it, so just forget it. Of course, if your salary seems unreasonably low at this point, then it's time to have the infamous "how about a raise?" talk with the boss. But then keep in mind that every raise he gives you means that he has to give a corresponding raise to the government! In the end, I truly believe that is about the most sane way to think about taxes. Otherwise, yes, every $900 hammer purchased by the Pentagon, or every $100,000 junket in Air Force One, is going to blow your mind.

Just render unto Caesar (or Washington) what is Caesar's (or Washington's) and be done.[/QUOTE]

Ah, I see it now. You are in the wrong country. You need to emigrate to somewhere where taxes are lower. Have you thought of Dubai, or Switzerland, or maybe Russia, or Eritrea, ...?

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;372859]FYI, GE paid $0 of U.S. taxes for the last several years.[/QUOTE]

I have thought about this and have come to the conclusion that while it makes an impressive sound bite, it is not entirely sensible. GE does have US operations, in which they employ US workers and make US-based purchases. All of these actions are taxable in one (more likely many) way or another. So in some sense, GE does end up paying into the US tax system. A related question: What would the effect be on the US economy if GE ceased all operations and employment in the US?

As for the expatriation of corporate cash overseas, this is a loophole that is commonly used by all large corporations. Apple is going to issue a bond to facilitate a stock buyback in the coming months. On the surface, this is ludicrous. Apple has $150 Billion (with a B!) in cash. But if they repatriate that money to the US, they face a huge tax bill. Now, I am an Apple shareholder (all 3 shares). Frankly, I'd rather have a piece of that $150 Billion in my pocket (where, by the way, lo and behold, it will be taxed!) than in Uncle Sam's pocket.

So perhaps the best way around this is "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". Become a shareholder. Then every sneaky, underhanded corporate move to dodge taxes is actually a gift. Another example: Fed up with hearing about ExxonMobil's obscene profits while we pay almost $4 per gallon at the pump, I bought some ExxonMobil shares. Now when oil jumps in price, I smile and think of fatter dividends.

AT&T pays a 5%+ annual dividend if your cell phone bill has you down...:smile: The banks will be paying a big fat goose egg for years to come.

[QUOTE=chappy;372862]Don't worry too much about it BJ, neither does the OP.


Those who don't [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=17179&highlight=16th+amendment"]remember the forum[/URL] are destined [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=337121&highlight=16th+amendment#post337121"]to repeat it[/URL], and [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=372860#post372860"]repeat it[/URL]...[/QUOTE]

Incidentally, what's a written constitution? In the UK we don't have one, just an unwritten constitution, so we don't have amendments to the constitution to get our knickers in a twist and our forums never-endingly recursive (or recursively never-ending) over.

I think I'll shut up now, and go and study some octonions. Surely there's a way of doing ...

The following is copy/pasted from something I wrote in the Lounge, I haven't read this thread in weeks.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I recently got a message from Xyzzy checking on me, so I'm guessing some people were concerned about my sudden disappearance. I'm touched by the concern, but I'm totally fine. And if anyone really feels the need to check on me, I'm on Google+ through Youtube, with the name Jason Goatcher. There's only one other Jason Goatcher on the planet that I know of, and he's in the UK, I'm in the US. I haven't specifically posted to Google+ in forever, so you'll be reading mostly inane comments about gaming videos that I watch on Youtube.

The reason I left is that, while I understand I'm a grown man and should be able to take criticism, sometimes I take it more personally than other times depending on the topic. I'm sure many of you understand that sometimes autistic people, mildly autistic in my case, tend to obsess over stuff, and in my case one of my old obsessions is income tax law or, more specifically, case law. I'm only posting in the Lounge so people who are concerned about me see this, any opinions about the law beyond this post will go in the Soap Box.

When I originally posted in the Soap Box, the response was swift and rather aggressive. The posts I read didn't try to reason with me, they just told me I'm bad wrong. I understand that people view the world differently from me, and I'm very rigid with the way I approach things. I believe this rigidity is not only good, but necessary, when it comes to the laws in any country. I don't have an opinion about the particulars of any law in the US, but when we call ourselves a republic(a nation of written law) but let judges reinterpret laws with no law specifically allowing this that I'm aware of, it feels very wrong to me. It should be up to the jury(for individual cases) and our representatives for the laws in general. I understand that there are concepts people use when explaining judges making laws, but I don't believe there's an actual law on the book explicitly stating that a case's ruling should be allowed to apply to people that weren't included in the case in the first place.(due process is the concept I'm thinking of with my reasoning) This is 100% of my problem with US law. I mostly refer to Title 26, Federal Income Tax when I get in these discussions, but untimately what I just stated about judges is 100% of why I'm disturbed about the legal system in the US.

I'll post a copy of this in the other thread if I can find it. I suppose my long absence is a good thing since my emotions about that other thread lowered my IQ quite a bit.

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;372865]As a Christian, I am sure that you are familiar with Mark 12:17. Jesus himself advocated the payment of taxes by the citizenry.[/quote]
Matthew 17:24-27. Mark 12:17 is misunderstood by many, Jesus meant give ALL the gold to Caesar and share you're actually useful wealth with your Christian brethren. I know a lot of people claim capitalism is the most awesome thing in the world, but the only reason it's the best idea is because people are corrupt and greedy. It's like with the prisoner's dilemma, when people are expected to be selfish, determining the proper response can become complex.

Sorry if this has been covered already, haven't read this thread in a while.

[quote]As for the legality of US income tax, I am sure that Willie Nelson would love to clear things up for you over a beer or two. You will also note in various IRS materials that the arguments that you make above are not in any way novel, and in fact have special frivolity penalties attached to them, lest a taxpayer try to hide behind them.[/quote]
This is immoral and illegal despite the fact that the IRS does, indeed, do this.

[quote]By the way, what do you make of sales tax, property tax, school tax, car tax, excise tax, alcohol and tobacco tax, luxury tax, estate tax, etc.? Personally, I think that it is disgusting that Americans never own their homes, even if they pay their mortgages in full (try skipping a real estate tax payment and see what happens!). Ditto for estate taxes, where >=50% of someone's (previously taxed!) legacy can be seized by the government rather than being rightfully passed on to the heirs.[/quote]
Those taxes are okay because they're based on privileges, if you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the goods.

I 100% agree with everything after this. Just because I disapprove of something doesn't mean I'm not going to "follow along." I believe the pertinent Bible verse for me is the one about not being able to hide a city on a hill or a candle under a bush. When immoral acts are made public, it shames the people who committed them, so my intention with these threads is to convince people something is very wrong and to change things with their votes and their public condemnation of these acts.

[quote]The problem that I see with this issue is not the tax as much as how the government treats the money and the taxpayers. I have no trouble with the public all kicking in to build and maintain infrastructure that we all need in order to be a first-world nation (for instance, I agree with many state Departments of Transportation that a significant fuel tax increase is needed to maintain our sprawling yet crumbling highway network). What is wrong is pure waste - the $100,000 GSA "meetings" in Vegas, millions of dollars in grant money for nebulous research (what happens if a monkey is made to jog 12 miles a day?), or even billions for never-ending quagmire military offenses in nations that aren't interested in our presence, even under the guise of "protection" or "peacekeeping".

Unfortunately, as anyone who has ever witnessed a business trip or an insurance claim can attest, splurging and waste are endemic any time someone else, especially a faceless entity (e.g. a corporation or government) is footing the bill from seemingly infinite funds. That is why my suggestion to anyone (including my own parents who just shouted $4,300+ to Uncle Sam last month) is to take advantage of as many legal means as possible to lower your taxes (investments, businesses, mortgage interest, etc. - a second home works wonders as a tax deduction). But at the end of it all, when you have a number - how much you get to keep - just think of that as your salary, and think of the tax money over and above that as money paid to the government on your behalf by your employer. For example, if you make $60,000 per year, but have a $15,000 tax liability, your salary is really $45,000. You're never going to see that $15,000, and your employer has already paid it, so just forget it. Of course, if your salary seems unreasonably low at this point, then it's time to have the infamous "how about a raise?" talk with the boss. But then keep in mind that every raise he gives you means that he has to give a corresponding raise to the government! In the end, I truly believe that is about the most sane way to think about taxes. Otherwise, yes, every $900 hammer purchased by the Pentagon, or every $100,000 junket in Air Force One, is going to blow your mind.

Just render unto Caesar (or Washington) what is Caesar's (or Washington's) and be done.[/QUOTE]

In the interesting trivia department, the interpretation of the "render unto Caesar" bible quote is missing a significant amount of information.

Remember the "money changers" in the temple? Jesus overturned their tables and whipped them out of the temple grounds. There was an important reason they were there. The temple offering could not - by tradition - accept foreign currency. Since the Jewish people were ruled by Romans and since Roman coinage was the prevalent coinage of the empire and since taxes had to be paid in Roman coins, the Jews set up a trade system. The money changers swapped Roman coins for Jewish temple coins. The priests brought the temple coins out and swapped them with the money changers so they could purchase materials needed to support the temple. It was a closed loop, Roman money in, Jewish money swapped twice, and Roman money used in the economy.

Now think of "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" and you will see that Jesus was delivering a message with a double meaning. The Jews he spoke to clearly understood that Roman money could not be given to God via the temple and vice versa, the Romans would not accept Jewish money to pay taxes.

:goodposting: That is a very interesting fleshing out of a well known story. Thanks!

[QUOTE=jasong;376424]Mark 12:17 is misunderstood by many, Jesus meant give ALL the gold to Caesar and share you're actually useful wealth with your Christian brethren.[/QUOTE]It is not that. The simple answer is very profound in its implication.

First let's examine the situation behind the answer.
Here is the passage in a modern version:[quote]The Pharisees got together with Herod's followers. Then they sent some men to trick Jesus into saying something wrong. They went to him and said, "Teacher, we know that you are honest. You treat everyone with the same respect, no matter who they are. And you teach the truth about what God wants people to do. Tell us, should we pay taxes to the Emperor or not?" Jesus knew what they were up to, and he said, "Why are you trying to test me? Show me a coin!" They brought him a silver coin, and he asked, "Whose picture and name are on it?" "The Emperor's," they answered. Then Jesus told them, "Give the Emperor what belongs to him and give God what belongs to God." The men were amazed at Jesus. (Mar 12:13-17 CEV)[/quote]He was being asked a "gotcha" question, like "Do you still beat your wife?"
If he answered "Yes", the Pharisees would have had a cause to accuse him (they believed in withholding from the Romans their taxes and that it was a religious duty to resist them at all costs in everything.)
If he answered "No", then the Herodians could report him to the government.
This was just one of many questions that he was asked trying to discredit him in the eyes of the people or get him in trouble with the authorities.

His answer was perfect, the coin was indeed the tribute money and had the name and picture of a Cæsar. This would then give a proper justification for a Pharisee to get rid of it. But, the second half is even more dramatic. Taking the clue from "Whose picture and name are on it?", one should look at how that corresponds to "what belongs to God."
Looking back at the then existing Jewish scriptures one can find the following:
"God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them." (Gen 1:27 NET)
"And they made the plate of the holy crown of pure gold, and wrote upon it a writing, like the engravings of a signet, HOLY TO THE LORD." (Exo 39:30 RV)
"every one that is called by my name, and whom I have created for my glory; I have formed him; yea, I have made him." (Isa 43:7 RV)
"But if ye turn unto me, and keep my commandments, and do them; though there were of you cast out unto the uttermost part of the heaven, yet will I gather them from thence, and will bring them unto the place that I have chosen to set my name there." (Neh 1:9 KJV)
"And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them." (Num 6:27 KJV)
Man has the image of God upon him. The Jewish people had the name of God upon them (the reference in Exodus is about the priest who wore the name of God upon his forehead). This is the correspondence to the coin. Man was supposed to give himself, fully to God.

So in addition to answering the direct question, Jesus turned their question back upon them and was questioning if they were giving proper 'tribute' to God.


A further about taxation and the relationship of the christian believer to the government:
[quote]Let every soul be subject to offices of authority that rank higher, for there is no office of authority if not by God, and the offices of authority that are by God, are those that have been instituted. So that he who resists the office of authority has opposed the ordinance of God, and those who have opposed will receive condemnation to themselves. For rulers are not a source of fear to the good works, but to the evil. And do thou desire not to fear the office of authority? Do what is good, and thou will have praise from it. For he is a helper of God to thee for what is good. But if thou do what is evil, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is a helper of God, vengeful for wrath to the man who commits evil. Therefore there is a need to be subordinate, not only because of the wrath, but also because of the conscience. For because of this ye also fulfill taxes, for they are servants of God being devoted to this same thing. Render therefore to all, the things due: tax to the man of tax, tribute to the man of tribute, fear to the man of fear, esteem to the man of esteem. (Rom 13:1-7 ACV)[/quote]

Anne Lamott famously said, “You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."

A corollary to that in Biblical Studies (indeed in any religious text studies) is, "You can safely assume you don't know what you are talking about when a Bible verse is 'commonly misunderstood,' but actually means something very specific that supports your own already preconceived world view."

How could render unto Caesar mean anything other than "in the worldly things submit to the government placed above you" in light of Romans 13:1 (Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God) and Titus 3:1 (Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed)?

Of course this all leads into why I'm a Christ-mythicist. There's almost no chance that anything like this render verse was said by the same guy who said sell your cloak and buy a sword. And watching the theological and textual leaps and bounds Christians of various stripes jump to to make those (and so many other dichotomies) work together is amusing for a time, but ultimately fruitless.

Gandhi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." But, in reality there's not reason to believe we know anything about the person who came to be called Christ, or even if there was a single person and not an amalgamation of various radicals of the time.

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;376888]In the interesting trivia department, <...>[/QUOTE]

:tu:, :very: :goodposting: :fusion: :power: !

(edit: didn't want to make it look like that, hehe, but the post was indeed very good and well documented!)

Chappy brought out the nuance that "render unto God" was a not so subtle slap telling the Jews they were not fulfilling their obligation. Most people miss that.

Not to take this thread too far off topic, but if you want to study a really interesting part of the bible, read the parable of the prodigal son carefully. Was it about the prodigal son? The Father? Or the son who stayed home?