This post is not about “the Buffet rule,” but it is. That is to say, the proposal itself is obviously fairly complex and I think does deserve consideration (but Annenberg has found that this argument is fundamentally flawed in that “— on average — high-income taxpayers pay higher rates than those in the middle, or at the bottom for that matter”). What this post is about is rhetoric and morality.

The Democrats such as Barbara Mikulski argue that this is about paying  ”your fair share.”

“I support the Buffett Rule because I do believe in fundamental fairness. That if you live in the United States of America, that you benefit from the United States of America, both its national security and its public institutions, that you need to pay your fair share.

“This is what America is all about: fairness and that we’re all in it together.”

by Chuck Asay - Not sure I agree with or even get at what he is saying here, but given the theme I thought it was worth adding.

I do believe that in America we hold to a fundamental myth about fairness and I think that ought to be our goal. The challenge is in defining what is “fair” and my “share.” There is no doubt that everyone in America (regardless of citizenship or taxation level) benefits from our national security, road systems, and so on. Someone like Warren Buffet is not very likely to be putting much strain on the system nor benefitting from the various government programs. He could take his social security and theoretically could not carry health insurance and simply use the safety nets available to him. If he is like the wealthy people I have known¹ when it comes to health care for them and their family, they do not rely upon government programs. The wealthy get the best healthcare they can find. I cannot afford to do that nor can the vast majority of Americans.

Now we can argue whether that ought to be the case on moral grounds, but my point here is that we cannot say that the überwealthy are not paying “their share.” They tend to take far less from the system and yet their 20% is FAR greater than my 30%. Should a person’s “share” be determined by how much they actually use?

In almost all other contexts that is what we would expect. Let’s say that we go out to dinner at the SBL conference. There are 10 of us and everyone keeps their meal to about $25. I, on the other hand, order the prime rib with garlic mashed potatoes and green beans, followed by a Boston cream pie. My portion comes to $56. I argue that we should simply split the total bill 10 ways, after all there were 10 of us. Would you think that was fair? I doubt it. Or, to follow the Mikulski logic, since one of the other 10 people is actually a CEO and makes more than all the other of us at the table, his “fair share” would be to pay for much more than his $25, say $200 of the total bill since, after all, he earns so much more than the rest of us. Is that “fair”? It is certainly not a “share” in the usual sense of the term.

A moral, even biblical, argument

My complaint is with the rhetoric of “fair share.” That isn’t really what Mikulski, Buffett, and Obama are arguing even though that is what they are saying. Yes, Warren’s secretary is paying at a rate of 30% and Mitt is paying only 16%, but his 16% is a LOT more in actual dollars. Of course that 16% or even 30% is likely be far less of an impact on Warren’s secretary than even 15% would be to her. (Although my guess is that Warren Buffett’s  They are appealing to our sense of “fairness” but they are really making a moral argument. This is actually a biblical argument.

From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.that says, in effect, to whom much has been given much is expected. — Luke 12:48

The context of that passage is actually quite challenging to those who have been entrusted with “much.” The slave (and in the context the slave is the religious leaders while the master is God) who has been put in charge of the household, i.e., given much responsibility and corresponding benefits such as money and position, is expected to take his position seriously and fulfill his master’s wishes by taking care of the household and treating the other slaves well. If he does not…

45 But if that slave says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and if he begins to beat the other slaves, men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk,  46 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and put him with the unfaithful.  47 That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating.

This is the fundamental assumption then, that those who earn more ought to pay more.² It isn’t really about it being a “fair share” since the wealthy often use a far smaller “share” of the government services than the middle-income or truly impoverished. This is, in fact, a moral position that says “since you have been fortunate enough to earn/receive a LOT of money you ought to help those who have NOT been able to earn/receive a lot of money.” I think that most Americans would agree with this sentiment. The Republican-Democratic divide arises over how that help ought to be implemented: through the government or private charity.

The sticking points are what taxes should support and the implementation of taxation.³ If we really want to try and get at a “fair share” approach then a flat tax seems reasonable. In such proposals everyone should simply pay a set percentage, say oh, let’s pick 9%, of their income. Mitt Romney’s 9% is going to be a LOT more than my 9%. That would then be “fair” since it is proportional to earnings, even if it is still not proportional to usage. Of course for someone earning $20k that 9% would be a BIG hit and so we have a progressive tax structure. Again, it is an attempt to get at a “fair” system.

Of course none of that gets at the moral question. Should Mitt give more since he makes so much more? His church expects a full 10% and the Christian church(es) expects the same of their congregants.

No one said it would be easy, but it politics you can always count on it being made far more complex through the use of rhetoric.

 

1. That is one aspect of being a dean that is so very curious. I know and am in regular contact with a number of people who earn a million dollars or more, often much more, a year.
2. Of course, don’t forget that Annenberg report I linked to earlier.
3. Did you know that Abraham Lincoln was the one who first instituted an income tax? The Supreme Court later ruled it unconstitutional but Congress then enacted the system we now know. Also, Lincoln died on April 15, 1865. April 15 is, of course, Tax Day….

Rather than stick to the core message so well articulated in the cartoon to the right, this leaderless revolution has sprawled into lists of ridiculous demands to such an extent that now Stephen Colbert (a supporter of the original movement) is even poking fun at it. The movement seems to be spinning out of control and becoming the second chance for hippie high school seniors and college freshmen like the “elected spokespeople,” Justin Wedes and “Ketchup,” who appear to be bent on making up for the fact they weren’t elected Student Body President. Or to put it as my wife put it, the current wave of OWS protesters:

…are identifying themselves as the “99%”, but are not demanding that the “1%” end world hunger. They are asking for their college tuition to be paid. They are asking for their credit card debt to be forgiven. They are asking for privileges that only the world’s wealthiest 1% enjoy, and they want it for free.

By making demands of “free college education” (elite schools of course, not state schools), “open borders migration (anyone can travel anywhere to work and live),” and “Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all (Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books”),” the OWS movement leaves itself open to ridicule and charges of naïveté, disorganization, idealism lacking practicality, and insensitivity to those who are trulysuffering around the world.

 

Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

The article goes on to point out two examples where scholars pointed to social difficulties or challenges (women in higher ed and single mother homes in African American communities) and then were labelled pariahs by the academic world because their analysis did not fit with the dogma of the day. Their positions have since been largely vindicated and, more importantly from the perspective of those concerned with making positive change in the world, valuable time was lost in terms of helping others because the warnings of these scholars were ignored.

The challenge for the academy is, of course, to provide a forum for all thoughts and ideas. Every doctrine and dogma ought to be open to challenge, even this assertion.

I hope you will read the whole article and discuss it on your blog, here in the comments, or simply with those around you.

Location:Oxford,United Kingdom

 

Within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.

The term “blood libel” has very specific meaning, referring to the medieval accusation against Jews that they used Gentile blood (particularly of children) in mixing matzah for Passover. This libel was used to generate rage and anger against the Jews resulting in violent and deadly attacks. Many have thus criticized Palin for using this term that is “so fraught with pain in Jewish history.”

So why this post? Because Alan Dershowitz, not known as a defender of the Second Amendment (but of the First) nor of Palin, has come out defending Palin’s use of “blood libel” in sociolinguistic terms. Yes, it has an historical meaning, but that meaning has changed, particularly in the US.

The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People, its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.

I still find Palin’s use of the term problematic and I think the rhetoric on both sides abominable (I’m looking at you too Mr. Olbermann). That is why I read news now (thank you iPad for making that so much more convenient on the road) so that I do not have to listen to the invective and mindless spin that comes incessantly from all sides.

In that vein, you should definitely listen/read this excellent two-part piece on “objectivity” in the media by David Folkenflik at NPR.

So my linguistically inclined friends, judgment on actual political views aside, is “blood libel” a specific, historic term or does it now have a “broader metaphorical” meaning?

UPDATE: WashPo has a fairly good summary in their “Fact Checker” of the issue and links to those running down how often the term is used in political discourse across the political divide.

 

Photo by: Google Earth

The Jerusalem Post (in a section that is in this instance oddly titled “Iranian Threat”) reports that Google Earth images reveal that the Iran Air headquarters has a Star of David on its roof. The building was built prior to the revolution by Israeli engineers and the Jewish symbol has gone unnoticed for over 30 years. Putting images on roofs in hopes that Google Earth will capture it is a recent phenomenon so clearly these engineers were indulging in a private amusement by including the Star on the building that is in Teheran’s Revolution Square.

So if you were to make a statement by putting an image on your roof for Google Earth and the world to see what would you put up there?

 

A civil rights complaint has been filed against a woman in Grand Rapids, Mich., who posted an advertisement at her church last July seeking a Christian roommate.

The ad “expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths,” according to the complaint filed by the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan.

“It’s a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement,” Executive Director Nancy Haynes told Fox News. “There are no exemptions to that.”

Haynes said the unnamed 31-year-old woman’s case was turned over to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights. Depending on the outcome of the case, she said, the woman could face several hundreds of dollars in fines and “fair housing training so it doesn’t happen again.”

 

U.S. Atheists Reportedly Using Hair Dryers to ‘De-Baptize’

American atheists lined up to be “de-baptized” in a ritual using a hair dryer, according to a report Friday on U.S. late-night news program “Nightline.”

Leading atheist Edwin Kagin blasted his fellow non-believers with the hair dryer to symbolically dry up the holy water sprinkled on their heads in days past. The styling tool was emblazoned with a label reading “Reason and Truth.”

Kagin believes parents are wrong to baptize their children before they are able to make their own choices, even slamming some religious eduction as “child abuse.” He said the blast of hot air was a way for adults to undo what their parents had done.

This, of course, follows along Richard Dawkins’ argument that people raising their children within their own faith is a kind of abuse. There is a certain logic to it, where is the choice in that child’s faith? Is not raising a child to be a Muslim or a Christian nothing more than indoctrination? Many would see that as a positive approach to child rearing. But the question of choice and free will opens up other theological debates, some of which we are wrestling with anew in a household with a child very much making up their own mind about certain matters. We have alluded to this debate already…

 

Today SBL members (and no doubt AAR members, but I dropped that membership a few years ago…) received a letter announcing that the old order shall be reestablished! I am glad to see this happen and I think it is necessary for AAR to survive. I think it will also go a fair way to resolving some of the concerns that folks like Hendel have had. It appears the letter is not yet up on their site, so I will quote it in full below. It also includes the listing of our future conference venues, so keep this handy schedule…to hand!

June 28, 2010 Dear Member, We are pleased to announce that on June 10, 2010, the Society of Biblical Literature and American Academy of Religion signed a Letter of Intent that outlines an agreement to hold concurrent Annual Meetings beginning in San Francisco in the fall of 2011. These meetings will Occur in the same city—though the venue will change from year to year; Occur at the same time—the weekend before the US Thanksgiving holiday; Feature a single, jointly managed Publishers/Software/Book Exhibit; Feature a single, jointly managed Employment Center; Feature distinct and separate AAR and SBL programs planned with open communication between the organizations; Encourage the organizations’ members to attend each other’s programs and events at no additional cost; Allow the organizations to pursue their unique, if sometimes overlapping, missions; Enhance cooperation, not competition, between the organizations. The advertising for these conventions will use the city name, the year, and will identify the SBL and AAR as hosts. For example, the first of these meetings will be known as “Annual Meetings 2011 San Francisco, hosted by the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature.” This name will appear on the registration gateway, on signage at the meetings, on promotional materials, and on other common elements. A Conventions Management Committee, consisting of the Executive Directors and staff members from each organization, is developing operating policies and procedures that expand on the considerable detail that already exists in the Letter of Intent. Each year the Committee will review the most recent meetings with an eye toward making improvements in subsequent gatherings. Nine concurrent meetings are being planned for 2011 through 2019. Beginning in 2013 the organizations will begin operating on a seven-year planning horizon that includes a mechanism by which the organizations can, on an annual basis, extend the seven-year agreement for an additional year. Dates and venues of the first three concurrent Annual Meetings are as follows: November 19-22, 2011 San Francisco November 17-20, 2012 Chicago November 23-26, 2013 Baltimore We believe that concurrent meetings will serve the interests of our members, will help to advance the many disciplines and areas of study we represent, and will maintain and advance the critical inquiry that characterizes the work of our societies. We invite you to join us in building this exciting new future. Cordially, Jack Fitzmier Kent Richards American Academy of Religion Society of Biblical Literature

 

First, the liberal ideal of caring for those around you is not only a good one, it’s Biblical. We are called on by Christ to love our neighbors. And Christ didn’t draw any neighborhood boundaries, either. On the other hand, we are faced with an ever-enlarging government that, despite all the best intentions and heartfelt goodwill, never seems to deliver on the “big promises.”

My conclusion? Liberalism doesn’t scale–and it wasn’t ever intended to. For us to love our neighbor we must be in contact with our neighbors. We can care best for those we touch. I suspect this was designed into our nature.

I am not sure I agree…completely, but in practice I think he may be right. Read it all.

 

You all know my penchant for comics and politics so it is no surprise that when it all comes together, comics, politics, and religion, I just have to bring it to your attention. Cagle at MSNBC.com has the usual round up of political cartoons on the Nativity (and everything else). So here are a few with my commentary included. Please see the Cagle site for more on each artist and their work.

So let’s start with a fairly political statement first.

I think we cannot escape the fact that so many have referred to President Obama as “the Messiah” and that this must be behind the bailout reference here. That being said, it doesn’t take much for us to view this theologically and recognize that Jesus does indeed offer a kind of “bailout,” the sort that only he can provide.

Next, we find our annual “homeless” theme.

This always irritates me and I am not completely sure why. As scholars we all have our doubts about exactly how and where Jesus was born but the accounts do not in any way suggest that Jesus’ family lacked a home. When we head down to my folks’ place in Maryland and stay in a hotel are we “homeless”? No, I don’t think so.

Still, we certainly must remember to be charitable to those who are without and there are more then ever, even in our own hometowns.

Money is always an issue, how we spend it and on what. The nation’s current fiscal crisis gave rise to many cartoons this year (and last). I like this one for its simplicity and poignancy.

And finally, building on the theme of money (and I will grant, lacking a bit in the area of originality) but getting to the heart of the matter, I like this comics by Wells.

A final footnote: the Caption Contest will continue! Check in on Thursday for the next installment. I am quite pleased with my selection. (Now to do some work!)