L.A. Times staff writer, Evan Halper, wrote an article last week that he entitled, California tax proposals target beer-loving, pornography-watching yacht owners. Aside from the sheer genius of the headline, the article opts for just the facts, ma’am. I can appreciate Halper’s journalistic integrity, given that his piece does not appear on the Opinion page, but I’m throwing my integrity to the wind because the moment is just too rich to pass up.
Basically, Democratic lawmakers in California are proposing new ways to generate revenue, including new taxes on six-packs, pornography downloads, strip club patrons and luxury, polluting, gas-guzzling modes of transportation. Interestingly, the family value lovin’ Republican lawmakers sit in fierce opposition to these ideas. The Republicans are not suggesting that any of these activities promote peace and goodwill, they are just insisting that taxes are baaaaad, no matter what. Seems there is an absolute truth that supersedes other lesser truths and we call it “the greater good.”
I am not interested in a party debate (we can do that later, let’s just survive the primaries), and I am not crediting the Democrats with being champions of morality, they are just trying to raise more cash for kids and city schools (or at least that’s their story). I have no interest in legislating morality either. Doing right comes from being right, not the other way around. Be holy, not Do holy. (1 Peter 1:16)
I’m far more interested in the seeming hierarchy of truth, about how we choose every day. White lies to spare feelings, disposable plastic water bottles and interrogation by torture, all bring peace, convenience and safety to our lives. It’s all for the greater good. Any thoughts about this?
Frankly, I was outraged by the Republicans’ hypocrisy, until I read further in the article and learned that the Democrats wanted to tax iTunes downloads, too. Screw educating underprivileged city kids, I need my music.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
The Absolute Truth About Taxes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
took me a few reads to fully understand this one but i think i finally got it... you write I’m far more interested in the seeming hierarchy of truth, about how we choose every day.
So throwing a caterered party for 150 guests without currently earning an income for a little while is actually my choice and i cannot blame Bush, McCain, Obamma or Clinton for it ??????? : - )
ps... i still blame them for the price of gas..... hmmmmppphhhh
militia 207
My two cents: I might suggest that being and doing are mutually reaffirming. Verse 15 in 1 Peter clarifies "be holy yourselves in all your conduct [...]," which I take to mean my behavior, or "doing." In other words, let my actions reflect the relational attitude of my heart toward God.
Perhaps then, not only do we do what we do because of who we are, but also, at the same time, we are who we are because of what we do. C. S. Lewis has referred to this choice-making dialectic as one of "becoming" holy--a process or journey of eternal magnitude.
Presumably, most people in positions of power (lawmakers, military, our cable guy) would like the rest of us to believe that they operate from the "greater good" ethical framework ("the good of the many outweighs the good of the few"), although it's more likely that they typically work from "Kant's Categorical Imperative" which hinges on one personal, defining maxim or rule of conduct (i.e. "taxes are baaaaad"). But both of these ethical perspectives contradict the Judeo-Christian ethic and The Golden Rule ("loving God absolutely" and "doing unto others . . .").
Are those first two ethical frameworks necessary for political effectiveness? And, if so, how then would a politician who might seek to "be holy" under the Judeo-Christian ethical code navigate through "the greater good" and "categorical imperative" ethical waters in which most elected officials seem forced to swim? Is that tension a part of the process of "becoming" more like Him? And does that tension apply not only to those in high places of power, but also to all of us in our microcosmic "ponds and streams" when we are faced with similar choices for or against "the greater good"?
Dear deer,
I can agree that the two are "mutually affirming" but I cannot go so far as to say equally affirming. Yes, our actions will reflect our hearts (or should reflect our hearts) but our actions will never change our hearts. My conclusions about legislating morality are a reflection of this absolute truth :). The evangelical pendulum has swung too far and it is easy to forget that God offers the world so much more than a behavior modification program.
And, as you mentioned, it is not just politicians and cable guys that use the greater good ruse, but you and I make choices everyday based on comfort and culture that prove that we too narrowly define "loving God absolutely" and "doing unto others." I mean, what if Jesus really meant the things He said? As Kierkegaard wrote, "Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the Living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone in the New Testament." Oh, the ways WE contradict the Golden Rule! Part of the process? Let's hope.
As to your observations about tension, I couldn't agree more. I suspect that's why I'm asking the questions, and your post was a wonderful and intelligent contribution to our collective thinking. THANK YOU. I hope the conversations will continue.
Wendy
These are meaningful reflections. I think your solid observation is important––that, although our hearts and our actions mutually reinforce each other, they are not equal, especially initially because of gifts like prevenient grace and God's loving initiative to save us from ourselves, both of which begin the process with an effect on our hearts.
I also think, however, that in saying "our actions will never change our hearts," the word "never" may be too strong a choice. Once we receive His gift and our journey of transformation with Him has begun, life experience seems to reveal that the absolute truth is not found in how God chooses to transform us (from 'inside out' or, occasionally, from the 'outside in'!), but rather is found in God himself as the only One who has the authority and power to transform truly.
As for political applications, I'm guessing we'll see very little of the Golden Rule played out along the campaign trail between now and November. :v)
Thanks for your kind words and for your engaging, cogent, and very funny blog. A great discussion!
Post a Comment