Hot Livin’, Slow Movin’
Thanks to my friend Laura D. for asking me to perpetuate this game of tag, which I understand has been in continuous play since ancient times:
1. Grab the book nearest you, turn to page 18 and find line 4. The Roots of American Order by Russell Kirk: “…Hebrews and the Jews in adequate perspective, however, it is…”
2. Stretch out your left arm as far as you can. What can you touch? My son Benjamin, lying next to me on the bed as as we all sit in my and Steve’s room, decompressing at the end of the day. It’s a popular gathering place.
3. What is the last thing you watched on TV? We don’t have network, cable, or satellite TV, so it’s been a LONG time since I saw anything on TV, and I’m too old to remember what it was. Ask me what the last DVD was that I watched.
4. Without looking, guess what time it is. 9:45 p.m.
5. Now look at the clock. What is the actual time? 9:24 p.m.
6. With the exception of the computer, what can you hear? My daughter playing “Danny Boy” on the piano, little boys in my bathtub, the air conditioner running, a clock ticking, Ben asking me questions while I try to type. It’s unusually quiet.
7. When did you last step outside? What were you doing? I just spent the last several hours outside, at our friend’s 55th birthday party, next to his pond. There were mosquitoes, but the lovely company made up for it.
8. Before you started this survey, what did you look at? Laura’s blog, to get the tag game, and my site to check for comments.
9. What are you wearing? A brown jewel-neck t-shirt and a black/brown/ivory batik skirt, my gold Huguenot cross necklace, bare feet.
10. Did you dream last night? Yes, but I almost never remember what I dream. Usually I think I’m dreaming about Baby Braveheart kicking me, then I find out it wasn’t a dream as he often ends up in our bed in the middle of the night.
11. When did you last laugh? All afternoon and evening. We laugh a lot.
12. What is on the walls of the room you are in? A Monet print called “The Reader,” a picture of me and Steve white water rafting, several other family pictures, a cross stitch I did many years ago about Proverbs 31, a mop doll which looks like a bride, a picture with a famous TR quote about “It is not the critic who counts…” and a large video screen.
13. Seen anything weird lately? Several of my children riding a zip line across a pond (ask Gracie why she’s limping) and my husband playing with a fire hose today.
14. What do you think of this quiz? It’s saved my blog…my melted brain cells are very appreciative.
15. What is the last film you saw? I wondered when you’d ask: “Batman Begins.”
16. If you became a multi-millionaire overnight, what would you buy? A place for a private library in our community, and I’d pay off our property and start a family bank to help our descendants to start businesses and buy property.
17. Tell me something about you that I don’t know. I’ve been baring my soul (well, parts of it) for five years on this blog. Is there anything you don’t know? How about, my 25th wedding anniversary is a week away.
18. If you could change one thing about the world, regardless of guilt and politics, what would you do? Hoo-boy, this is where I get in trouble, and that starts with “T” and that rhymes with “P” and that stands for “pool.” I’d like to jump in a pool right now. Some may tell me to jump in a river for this one: I would remove women’s suffrage, and I might even consider making voting rights tied to property ownership.
19. Do you like to dance? Yep, Civil War style dancing, and in my room with my children.
20. George Bush: increased the size of the federal government more than any president before him.
21. Imagine your first child is a girl. Nice try…on this blog we call her Gracie.
22. Imagine your first child is a boy. What do you call him? We still call him Hans.
23. Would you ever consider living abroad? If God made it clear that’s where He wanted me, I would live anywhere, but I am hoping He wants me to stay right here. It’s a nice place.
24. What would you want God to say to you when you reach the pearly gate? “Now I can tell you…all your children and grandchildren will be joining you before you know it.”
25. 3 people who must also do this quiz in their blog: I don’t like to put anyone on the spot, so I’ll just tag Doug Phillips, R.C. Sproul, Jr., and George Grant. 
June 26th, 2006 at 2:31 am
I would definitely tie voting rights to property ownership! But the voter must be able to read. And I’m not sure I’d throw women (the baby) out with the bath water! They taught a lot of brothers to read
June 26th, 2006 at 5:18 am
Happy soon-to-be anniversary, Carmon!
Mary Susan
June 26th, 2006 at 5:47 am
Dana, women were allowed to vote before suffrage. They just had to own property and be the head of their household (no father or husband). I think this is a perfectly sensible rule and would be glad to let me husband vote for our household.
On the other hand, I disagree with the property idea… With the current state of the country there are certainly many fine, upstanding men who do not own property, while the vast majority of property “owners” don’t really own their land – ask the bank, if they don’t pay the mortgage who owns it??? I’d also remind you that many fine Christian men in the past have been unable to read.
While the bible clearly teaches that men are the head of their households and therefore are to make decisions for that household, I am aware of no scriptural teaching that states either of these latter two possesion as qualification for political and/or household leadership.
June 26th, 2006 at 5:47 am
Why women’s suffrage? Why property ownership? I agree too many people have the vote, but why would you limit it those ways? My husband and I talk about this often. We used to think property ownership was the way to go, but now we’re not so sure that it’s a useful delineation in this kind of culture.
June 26th, 2006 at 5:48 am
Oh, what did you think about Batman Begins?
June 26th, 2006 at 7:20 am
Happy anniversary Carmon and Steve. What will you be doing? We are spending our 25th anniversary to tour some wineries in Washington. Any kindred spirits living in the Yakima, Walla Walla area?
I am also strongly in favor of English Only ballots.
June 26th, 2006 at 7:33 am
Susan, I cannot understand why you would go looking for friends and wine in Yakima and Walla Walla. Come to the Sawtooths with your friends, we will provide a pup tent and cot for you and Steve with mints and wine at your bedside nightly. There is a flush toilet within walking distance and a shower within 5 miles. Now what more could a girl ask for on her anniversary? Smores, you say? Yes, we can provide those as well. Maybe Carmon and Steve will take your spot with us, since you and Steve do not know how to have such fun:)
June 26th, 2006 at 9:28 am
Okay, I must admit that the answer to #17 surprised me (Happy anniversary to you both!) because I thought we’d find out something like… your spices are alphabetized from Z to A, or you have a special fondness for purple paisley, or you sometimes crave pickled eggs, etc.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:41 am
Laura, I actually do have a fondness for purple paisley. I have a length of fabric made out of it and some fringe that I need to sew into a shawl to wear in Coloma!
Faith, I think that Susan and Steve are missing out by not going with you to the Sawtooths. We once took a trip there and stayed at the Lodge in Stanley. It was one of the least expensive and most lovely hotels we visited on our trip. I wish we had stayed longer. If we didn’t have plans already, we would be tempted to join you.
Susan, I will never forget sharing our anniversaries together with you in Virginia. We are going to wine country, too, but in Napa, where my beloved is taking me in a hot air balloon. We will also be going to Monterey, staying at a B&B called the Jabberwock. He has planned it all. I am looking forward to seeing you next month!
Beth, I enjoyed the movie but I am afraid I don’t have much philosophical deconstruction to give right now. I think it has some good themes about the problems with revenge and about the worth of people, even when their lives are unhappy. There are some “thematic elements” in the movie which might bother some people, and I am very careful about recommending movies to others as people’s standards vary so much about what’s okay to watch.
About woman’s suffrage…I think it’s a matter of covenantal thinking and headship. If women are biblically to be under the headship of husbands and fathers, then those men are to represent the household when it comes to voting. Pieter was a judge at a polling place in a recent election here, and he told of several couples that came in who were registered for different political parties and ostensibly cancelled out each other’s votes. I think Nickey has a point about women who are heads of households for various reasons, but Deborah’s exception notwithstanding, men are to be the elders sitting in the gates, guiding public affairs; yet we find Christian women today having no compunctions about running for political offices and seeking leadership as “ministers” of governmental affairs. I’m obviously not against women having opinions or giving godly wisdom and counsel in certain spheres, but I believe that the feminization of both the church and the political realm is related to the increased involvement of women through voting and policy decision making. As for property ownership: I think thta the welfare state has become such a problem because of the ability of people to vote themselves largesse; property owners are often much more rooted and less likely to vote for politicians who advocate the theft of their property, thus creating a much more stable economy and society. Others have written extensively on this, but that’s my controversial position in a nutshell.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
“I think thta the welfare state has become such a problem because of the ability of people to vote themselves largesse; property owners are often much more rooted and less likely to vote for politicians who advocate the theft of their property, thus creating a much more stable economy and society.”
Carmon, such a position would leave countless of well qualified men from participating in the voting process and causes the government to esteem one class of men and women over another class, which is clearly unbiblical.
June 26th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
au contraire, madam…..
*such a position would leave countless of well qualified men from participating*
Perhaps these men would be motivated to buy property and exhibit more active interest in protecting that property from usurpation by the politicians. It is not difficult to purchase property in the US, especially if we didnt allow the Federal government to own so much.
As long as we are creating our own rules for the privilege of voting, I recommend that no one who receives a check from the government, ie welfare, social security, disability, be allowed to vote because the receipt of these funds would create a conflict of interest.
June 26th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
I find this discussion very interesting. Dana, what of the elderly who recieve social security payments and government employees? Should they not be able to vote? It’s true that it’s not difficult to purchase property in the U.S., but it is difficult to afford it, especially in certain regions. Would a mortgage count as property ownership?
And as a more general question to everyone, if you don’t support women’s suffrage, do you abstain from voting (if you are a woman)?
June 26th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
I completely agree with both removing women’s suffrage and coupling voting rights with property ownership. I am always hesitant to admit my views on the suffrage movement, but I strongly feel that our nation made a grievous error when we allowed women many of the same “rights” as men. First off, I think that voting should be a family affair with the wife putting in her input, but the man ultimately deciding on which candidate he votes for. I think women are too emotional and often vote for the “bleeding heart liberal” cause because it feels right to them. When I tell folks my view on this they always ask if I vote. Yes, I do because my husband wants me to.
About voting rights tied to property ownership, I think this is a great point I haven’t thought much about. I also liked the comment about not letting welfare recipients vote. I grew up in the central valley of California and was often dismayed at the sheer number of welfare recipients who were always for the Dems because they knew they would be allowed more years of laziness if they got the right guy in there. Not that I vote party lines and think it’s only the Dems that are liberal and give out way too many handouts, I don’t. I just know that there are jobs available to those who want to work, even if it’s working in the fields picking fruit, etc., but many choose not to because of the welfare perks they get. If voting was tied to owning property then more people would value home ownership and would more seriously consider the politicians, school levies, etc. they are voting for.
Sorry if my thoughts are jumbled, we just got back from vacation and I’m so tired! I just wanted to chime in on this one!
~Karen
June 26th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
“Perhaps these men would be motivated to buy property and exhibit more active interest in protecting that property from usurpation by the politicians. It is not difficult to purchase property in the US, especially if we didnt allow the Federal government to own so much.
As long as we are creating our own rules for the privilege of voting, I recommend that no one who receives a check from the government, ie welfare, social security, disability, be allowed to vote because the receipt of these funds would create a conflict of interest.”
I am NOT creating my own rules for the priviledge of voting. I believe the bible speaks VERY clearly about the issue of covenantal headship of the father/husband over his family and that men, not women are to be governing the country. The bible NO WHERE (as far as I know and no one has corrected me so far) speaks of men owning property as a requirement for leadership in the ecclesiatical, family, or federal goverments!!!
As for the idea of it being “easy” to own property in America… This is completely untrue! Most “property” in America is owned by banks, wherein the “owners” pay a mortgage every month and are in very deep debt to said bank. The bible speaks clearly about the dangers of debt and the fact that God has not providenced that many of us have money to pay for land outright, leaves many with the choice between financing said land and going in to debt and/or choosing not to purchase land. Some of us have made the choice to remain out of debt, rather than to have a piece of property and enslave ourselves to the bank. Why is a man who can not afford land or who has chosen not to go into debt in order to obtain land unmotivated and unqualified for leadership in the federal government???
June 26th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Okay then, so as an alternative to the owning of land (for those who don’t want to “enslave” themselves to a bank), is there something additional that could be put into place as a requirement for voting that would carry the same clout and demand the same responsibility while also inspiring men to take a more active interest in governmental policies, etc.? Any other ideas for how to weed out those leeching off the government? (Genuine questions, here, I’m not just being smart-alecky.) Nickey, as you know, there are many things the Bible doesn’t speak directly about. It doesn’t mean certain ideas aren’t good, just and wise.
June 26th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
“Nickey, as you know, there are many things the Bible doesn’t speak directly about. It doesn’t mean certain ideas aren’t good, just and wise.”
Where is the wisdom in refusing a whole class of people the ability to participate in the government because they do not meet your unbiblical requirements???
The bible may not speak directly on voting but it is sufficient for every area of life and it does speak on the requirements of those in leadership positions – why don’t you start there?, and owning land is not one of them. The bible also states very clearly that esteeming one class of men over another is sinful.
June 26th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
I hear you, Nickey. I’m pregnant and tired and my brain is already on overdrive about a million other things, so I should have refrained from commenting because I’m really not looking for a fight. I was genuinely interested in answers to the questions I asked because I’d like to learn.
Goodnight and God bless.
June 26th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Leave it me to stir up a hornet’s nest with a simple game of tag
.
We were out tonight with dinner with friends so no time to reply at length on this. Maybe tomorrow. But Nickey, I believe it’s simplistic to say that the Bible says we are not to esteem one class of men over another. Yes, this is true regarding how we are to treat one another under the law of God (i.e., when applying justice) and in the relationships we have with one another within the church (i.e., not treating the rich better than the poor), but there are many distinctions we are allowed to make in a society which are perfectly lawful.
If voting was tied to property ownership, then I believe that the economy would experience some significant positive changes, esp. if the welfare state was curtailed, making it possible for many more people to be able to own property, and maybe even do so without mortgages if the tremendous tax burden was relieved. I am not an economist, and I do not play one on TV (ditto for being a theologian), but in the Bible there is not even a precedent for voting. So to say it’s wrong or sinful to place restrictions on who can vote, is a bit of a stretch. If I can add more tomorrow, I will.
June 26th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Since so many of you will be up earlier than I in the morning, here’s an article which makes some of the points I’m trying to get across. Here’s a snippet:
June 26th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Leah, I do not abstain from voting, but my husband and I discuss every issue and candidate, and we vote identically on election day. We have never disagreed…if we did, and I had a moral objection to voting a certain way (if I believed to do so would compromise my convictions, such as voting for a candidate who was pro-abortion), then I would abstain, but I wouldn’t vote against my husband’s vote.
June 27th, 2006 at 4:15 am
Hi there. Me again, after a good night’s rest. Nickey, I just wanted to emphasize that I really wasn’t trying to be challenging or contentious. I found the dialogue interesting and while I tend to agree with Carmon’s and Dana’s viewpoint I felt you had some valid concerns. I’m not very good at framing questions so perhaps that’s where I went wrong. I wasn’t looking for a “Go read your Bible” answer as much as I was asking for specific ideas on how the same could be accomplished without land ownership. Again, I wasn’t appointing myself to teach as much as I was seeking to learn. Have a good day with your young ones, Nickey. : )
June 27th, 2006 at 4:17 am
Oh, and purple paisley would be beautiful! : )
June 27th, 2006 at 5:47 am
Okay, this is an interesting discussion. I will have to tell my brother about it and get his opinion. He is a rancher, and has often lamented about the fact that government imposes such huge taxes on property, but the landowner doesn’t really have a say in how it’s used, or even get to question why they are taxed so heavily. If you have 1200 acres of rangeland, it might sound like a lot, but when you’re taxed heavily, most of your profits go to taxes. yes, I will definitely have to ask him his opinion on this idea, could make for some interesting discussion. :>)
Oh, and I love purple myself, but really find paisly to be ghastly! (sorry Carmon)
We had our 25th anniversary last month. Welcome to the club of people with “sticktoitiveness”!
June 27th, 2006 at 6:21 am
“So to say it’s wrong or sinful to place restrictions on who can vote, is a bit of a stretch.”
I did not say this. I simply pointed out the restricting it based on property ownership was in essence esteeming one class of men over another – those who can afford land vs. those who can not. It may very well be that under another economy many more men would be land owners. (As a Postmill – I certainly have to believe that a time is coming when this will indeed be true!) Does that change the fact that God has not providenced that all men be land owners? He has neither provided for that nor commanded that. He has given requirements for the role of leadership in the form of federal goverment and I believe we should start *there* and not with our own rules. The scriptures are sufficient for *every* area of life, are they not? That they do not speak on the issue of voting does not mean they are silent and that we are free to make up our own rules, according to our own wisdom.
Had the rich man obeyed Christ to sell off all his property, he would have been disqualified from voting according to you. Why???
Ruthanne, sorry if I came accross badly. I was actually looking for an article on the leadership requirements from a biblical perspective and could not find it. (I should not have been up so late but had the pregnancy yucks!) It was on Visionforum.org at one time and they were pointing out that many of the requirements for federal leadership are similar to those for ecclesiastical leadership. I certainly don’t believe there should be *no* requirements for voting. As I pointed out earlier, I don’t believe women under the headship of a father/husband have any business voting. (I do because my husband commands me too.) For that matter I don’t believe young men still under the headship of their fathers have any business voting. I believe a biblically sound government would actually be much more restrictive than no women/only land owners, but I do NOT believe that men who are otherwise qualified for the position of leadership in the city gates should be disqualified because they do not own land.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:51 am
Okay, for those ladies out there who are a size 10, do not think purple paisley is ghastly
and are okay with sleeveless dresses, here is a stunning one waiting for you on eBay! 
http://cgi.ebay.com/R-K-ORGINALS-WOMENS-PURPLE-BLUE-PAISLEY-DRESS-SZ-10_W0QQitemZ330000949522QQihZ014QQcategoryZ63861QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
June 27th, 2006 at 7:32 am
I like paisley, and have a microfiber cleaning cloth for my glasses that is purple paisley. Every time I take it out to use it, I think of you, Carmon, which is why I am delighted that you really do have a fondness for purple paisley!
As for voting, in the recent primaries here in Alabama my father asked my mother to vote for one ticket and he voted another one – the idea was that Mom’s vote would be for the state level candidates and Dad’s would be for the county level. Steve asked me to do the same, so we did. I’m sure it looked odd to the poll workers!
June 27th, 2006 at 7:38 am
Carmon,
You’ll like my purple (or rather, eggplant) dining room!
June 27th, 2006 at 7:40 am
I’m curious about your opinion on voting in churches. My church doesn’t do anything so worldly as pit two candidates against each other, but tonight my husband and I are going to a meeting to give an up or down vote on a new youth pastor that they are considering hiring.
The young man and his wife seem nice, but they “aren’t ready for kids yet” and she will be working also. (I’m not sure if the job is secular or not.) Quite frankly, these views are the norm in the church, so I don’t know if I can hope for better. We are lucky the search team picked someone who believes in six-day creation, because I’m sure it was not a priority for them.
It was through this church that I came to Christ and there are many good things about it. Recently my husband and I became Sunday School Superintendants so we are in a position to improve our teaching by getting less squishy curricula, which we plan to do if we have to write it ourselves. For my part, I am slowly trying to spread what God has been teaching me about birth control, and especially what I have learned about hormonal birth control, but the pastor disagrees with many of my conclusions. Although I have so far met with openness, respect, and thankfulness when discussing my research on homonal birth control, how it works, and the conspiracy to hide how it works, I am afraid of reaching out to those who most need to hear it. I feel like the wrong person to work for change because I am so young and have no children of my own. Absolutely everyone is older than me (I’m 23), and I often feel afraid and intrusive. I’ve been a Christian only four or five years and did not grow up in a Christian home.
I am torn between abstaining because of the birth control issue and jumping at the chance to have someone with a more conservative view on creation, an issue which is important to my husband especially. I don’t think that the leadership would be willing to hire someone as conservative as I would prefer, and they could easily hire someone even more liberal….
June 27th, 2006 at 9:00 am
Sorry…couldnt resist posting this quote from Dr Kirk. Looking forward to your future points…
Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.
Dana in GA
June 27th, 2006 at 10:19 am
JJLC, the qualifications for those in the position of leadership in the church are spelled out in Titus and Timothy. If this person does not meet those qualifications, then you must vote no. Don’t allow your worries over who may take his place allow you to be persuaded to vote for someone who is not qualified for the position. We are to fear God, not man. That said, I believe you need to obey your husbands desire on this matter.
As a side note, Nancy Campbells book “Be Fruitful and Multiply” is an excellant book on the subject of birth control. If you feel uncomfortable discussing the issue with others directly, you could recommend the book and/or give it as a gift.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Phew! I can’t believe I read the whole thing! Very interesting conversation, ladies! I will refrain from adding my ignorance to it, though.
June 27th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Oh, and I forgot to say Happy 25th Anniversary, Carmon and Steve! We’ll be there ourselves, Lord willing, at the end of next year.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
I see that Dana does not live in California! If she did she might be singing another voting tune. To buy a home in our area today is $400,000 and that is for only 1,500 square feet! We have a normal sized yard, a two car garage, 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms for seven people. Yes, we rent and yes we vote.
“Perhaps these men would be motivated to buy property and exhibit more active interest in protecting that property from usurpation by the politicians.†This statement, perhaps not meant so, but is most certainly offensive, and I don’t think it can be supported biblically, Dana. According to a mortgage site I visited, at 6% for a 30 year term, we would pay $2,398.20 per month for a house payment ALONE. This does not include anything else. That is $28,776 per year in house payments. My husband supports his family and I work for a small paycheck every month from home and pay for all of our homeschool curriculum because we do not school via the state. We pay our own water, electricity, gas, phone, you get it. It would be a miracle if we ever buy a house yet we are Christians, actively seek to live our faith, and are members of our local Presbyterian church. Yet in your eyes we should not vote because we have no property to usurp? How is that even logical?
Please be careful what you wish for—those of us who would stand with you to vote in a godly president or congressmen who could change the face of this nation, your state as well as my own, may be “only†renters.
Kate
June 27th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
I arrived at this site through a disapproving link, and as with many cross-cultural discussions, the context here is so foreign to me as to be nigh-incomprehensible. Rather than flame disapprovingly and leave, though, I have a serious question about your intersections with pluralistic modern American society: I notice from the photo above and from a quick search of your blog, that at least one and maybe two of your children want to join the Air Force. How do you reconcile your belief that only men and property owners are to have the franchise with your childrens’ participation in an organization where more and more women have the legal authority to command your sons? If a large number of your commentators here echo the idea that only property-owning men should vote, and that in a household the husbands should dicate the wife’s vote, how do you reconcile that with the fact that women make up an increasing percentage of the officer corps? Perhaps there’s some deference to some female officers because mothers have authority even if fathers have greater authority (I’m just trying to anticipate the reasoning), but female officers are becoming commanders and clearly will exercise great authority over your sons’ lives … authority for many matters which can’t or won’t be overridden by the next higher level, even if the next higher officer is a male.
It’s also troubling that you advocate property owning as a proxy for being committed to a community and thus deserving of a vote … when for many members of the military, property ownership is unrealistic because they must live in dorms or family housing, because they may be stationed overseas, or because they move every two-to-three years (which begs the question, to which community should they become invested? Their last one or their next one? Should the fact that they own property in a base community three moves back mean they’re entitled to vote there while hard-working but non-property owners from that area are denied that right?).
I’m missing so much of the context that I have no desire to engage across the cultural gulf; I am really curious, however, about whether you think your sons share your beliefs, and if they do, how you think that will affect their military experiences.
June 27th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Hi, Kate! We do live in California, and we have been renters and we have been owners. One reason I brought this idea up (an idea which our founding fathers also held) is not because I want to disenfranchise you, but I truly believe that what would happen is that if voting was tied to property ownership, the welfare state would shrink dramatically, tax burdens would lessen, and property values would return to reasonable levels, making it possible for many more people to own property. Also, I would like to point out that there are many ways to be involved politically and influence government besides voting, some perhaps even more effective.
I also encourage you to read _The Tightwad Gazette_ by Amy Dacyzyn for her story of how they managed to buy and pay off a house with very little income (though not in CA), and the website for Laine’s Letters (in my sidebar) to read about how Laine and her husband did the same thing (in southern CA).
I should also point out that I am quite skeptical of the ability for any voters to truly effect change in the current political climate. I hate to be so cynical, but I believe the system is rigged to give us “choices” which are really no choices at all. I’m in good company, though, as the inimitible Mr. Chesterton thought the same thing in his day, though he put it much more cogently:
And God bless you for not taking $$$ from the state to teach your children! Hang in there!
June 27th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Dear Dissenter,
Wow, you have been busy digging around! I really think I need to take up ballet and purchase some pointe shoes as this one has kept me on my toes.
As of this date, my son Pieter is no longer going into the Air Force. I don’t know that any of my sons will be serving in the military, though at times some have expressed interest that way. If you dig around more, you may discern that we have mixed feelings about that. Our sons, however, understand how to live in a world where we do not agree with the status quo but we treat others with respect and relate to those in authority in the proper manner. Thus, while we may not agree with women as military leaders, if we are in a situation where we have no choice, we will do what is necessary and proper to treat that person according to their rank or position. We will also pray for wisdom about how to effect change when we are able to do so.
Your question about property-ownership in the military is a good one. As we all discuss and dissect my utopian plans for society, I guess my solution might be to make a special allowance for those who sacrifice by serving their country, giving them a special privilege for that service, similar to the privileges enjoyed in the Old Testament by the Levitical priests who were “disenfranchised” from owning the land but received special perks for their special service.
Welcome to our side of the gulf…you are welcome to stay if you continue to be so polite
.
June 27th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
I saw the shirt in the photo that seems to have the Air Force symbol on the back, and I simply searched within your search bar … perhaps if I’d dug further, I would have found out that Pieter is not going into the Air Force.
I have been on the Internet long enough to know that usually people don’t change each other’s minds, and it’s not worth my–or your–time here to try and explicate my secular-humanist-liberal-atheist worldview to “prove” I’m correct and you’re not. Your worldview is grounded in a very different set of assumptions, and I think we do unfortunately exist in parallel American realities–what I see as progress, you see as decay, and so forth. The ultimate question is how these different visions of America will interact and affect each other in the years to come, and which will have a greater role in shaping our shared society. We can live in our enclaves and choose to surround ourselves with like-minded people, but in the end we’re both part of a shared polity. Your political actions and votes will affect me, as mine will affect you, just as in a globalized economy, trade with China or war in Iraq will affect quotidian details like whether I can afford gas or you can buy a home. I wish the political battles could be solved without acrimony and the demonization of the other side, but in the end one must stand one’s ground. “Here I stand; I can do no other.” I thank you for your consideration of my specific question, however, and appreciate your thoughtful answer.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:52 am
Dana, I am not in the least bit interested in discussing this matter from a wordly wisdom point of view. If you have any scriptural backing for your position, let me know.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:08 am
It seems you’re proposing a state wherein perhaps two-thirds of all Americans – including some disabled people by dint of their requiring government funds to survive – are disenfranchised. The rest are graciously permitted to vote because they meet some arbitrary list of characteristics – and, not surprisingly, those characteristics would make them more likely to support a government that represents the interests of (presumably) white, young, middle class individuals such as yourselves.
I’m positive that if women were more apt to vote Republican or libertarian, most of you here wouldn’t have a problem with universal suffrage. In fact, you’d be among its fiercest defenders, since your willingness to vote in lock step with your husbands would essentially give each of those men two ballots.
But since lower income women, and particularly mothers, won’t vote against their interest in a social safety net, you’d use the Bible to justify disenfranchising them. After all, if you and your friends lose the vote, that won’t affect you adversely: you’ll still get the kind of country you want – and you can even sit around with your like-minded companions and cultivate the fiction your nation is a Republic based on democratic principles.
I have nothing against you personally, but I really don’t like your views. I think what bothers me most is the exclusionary nature of them – the sense they’re based on having a privileged and secure social position.
But the government doesn’t exist for its own gain; it exists solely to serve the people. It is a public trust owned by the people. It is not a conflict of interest if, for example, someone on a disability pension votes for the candidate who supports a dollar hike for pensioners; any more than it’s a conflict of interest if a wealthy man votes for the candidate who proposes significant tax reductions for people in his income bracket.
I’m assuming you realize all your lives, and mine, could change in an instant. We could find ourselves physically disabled. We could find ourselves mentally ill. We could find ourselves impoverished. We could find ourselves on welfare. And, as a result of any one of these situations, we could also find ourselves crushed by the very stone we started a-rolling (Proverbs 26:27).
If that happens, we could be without any voice in government at all, and with no recourse for genuine injustice against us.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Carmon:
Thank you for your response. I was not, actually, writing to contradict you, but to address Dana’s comment (although I know you are *thinking* about this area as your post states). I know you live here too. :+) However, your husband’s income is, I believe, substantially higher than mine and you got into the housing market much earlier in this area when land was relatively inexpensive. (Please correct me if I am wrong. :+) It is simply not feasible for us and quite honestly, I don’t see a scriptural mandate that it be so. We are only visitors here and this is not our home.
Yes, I would love to have land and would love to pass that to our children, but God is also soveriegn in our lives and that has not happened. Up until recently it has been very difficult to make ends meet and the last concern I had was purchasing a house! God has blessed my fine intelligent husband with a job that is worthy of him and with it came more income, praise God, but it still is unlikely, baring some inheritance I don’t know about coming to us anytime soon, that we will ever be able to get into the housing market. I am content with what we have been given as it has been much. God is good to us.
You are, of course and always, entitled to your own opinion, and I appreciate your response on much of what you write, but I don’t really see scriptural mandate that only those who own property vote. It behooves us to only make laws, church or societal, that reflect God’s expressed truth. If you could show me that the Bible was clearly advocating only property owners voting then that is another story.
In America, you are right that voting alone does not *generally* produce wide changes or affect much, but sometimes it does. Though that was not what was really at issue here. It was purely who had that right to do so. My disagreement comes when I am told that purely because I have no property I would have no concern about the way the our officials are voting. That makes absolutely NO sense to me. As a Christian I have to be concerned!
Proverbs 29:2
When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when a wicked man rules, people groan.
If the righteous who have no property don’t get involved then how can I say I am being obedient? In our nation it is up to the people to elect righteous rulers, enact righteous laws, etc. What happens when the righteous renters stay home? You property owners might be groaning even more than you are now.
Warmly,
Kate
June 28th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
I, too, came to this from a dissenting blog. I find your reasons rational within your belief system however, I do not share them. I believe it is my right AND my privilege to vote and am raising my daughters to believe the same. I respect your bravery to state your beliefs knowing that many people may tell you to jump someplace.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Like Respectful Dissent, I got here from a disapproving link, and for the same reasons I’m not going to argue with you. I have a question, though, about an argument that’s being made in this discussion that I haven’t seen anywhere else. I’m not sure I understand it, and I respectfully ask you to explain it so that I know what you mean. You state that if the vote were restricted as you’d like, “the welfare state would shrink dramatically, tax burdens would lessen, and property values would return to reasonable levels, making it possible for many more people to own property.” I understand that you feel that a government chosen by male property owners would cut welfare and that cutting welfare would decrease taxes. But after that I can’t follow. Assuming for the sake of argument that taxes were cut by 10% or so (the amount of the federal budget that goes to welfare/education/medical assistance/unemployment/other similar programs), how would that lower property values? I emphasize that I’m not arguing with you, just trying to understand a claim I’m not familiar with.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
“We could find ourselves on welfare.”
I could? You mean Joe, my subconscious, could just wander down to the welfare office (or wherever it is you go) to sign me up for a monthly check at any moment? I’m a little lost as to how I could *find* myself receiving a monthly, unearned check without apparently any attempt to claim that “free money.”
I, for one, won’t ever “find” myself on welfare because there’s absolutely no good reason for it. There’s thousands of semi-skilled or unskilled jobs out there that, while not always the most appealing, will put food on the table and a roof over your head. If I lost my job (and happened to be living on my own), it would take only a couple of days for me to find another one. It might pay less, but it’d be a job. If I were physically disabled and unable to work, I have family, friends, and a church who would all combine to make welfare checks unnecessary.
“Assuming for the sake of argument that taxes were cut by 10% or so (the amount of the federal budget that goes to welfare/education/medical assistance/unemployment/other similar programs), how would that lower property values?”
It costs $35,000 in fees alone to build a house in my county, which is as much as some people pay for the undeveloped parcels they plan to build on. Confining the vote to property owners would certainly result in a reduction in the regulations and permits that add up to that $35,000, thus making it easier for people to build houses. So while property values wouldn’t necessarily be lower, the cost of building on property (which, undeveloped, can be attained fairly cheaply) would be lower.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
I find this whole argument disturbing. It isn’t simply the assumption that people on welfare (code words for people who aren’t white) are
not deserving of rights. Or that there are jobs for everyone (why don’t you ask someone who was refused job after job becasue
they were the wrong color or religion). I’m glad to hear you wouldn’t go on welfare; I’m disheartened to think that you think that it is “free money”. Frankly, I’m happier paying for welfare than for chemical weapons.
June 28th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
“I could? You mean Joe, my subconscious, could just wander down to the welfare office (or wherever it is you go) to sign me up for a monthly check at any moment?â€
Yes, even *you* could end up needing public assistance someday, unless being a conservative gives you the awesome power to avoid all calamity.
“I’m a little lost as to how I could *find* myself receiving a monthly, unearned check without apparently any attempt to claim that “free money.’â€
I work as an employment counselor who specializes in finding jobs for people with serious disabilities. Of the blind, for example, 70% are unemployed nationally. Of the severely mentally ill, it’s 90%. And don’t even get me started on the deaf-blind or quadriplegics. In addition, many of my clients are semi-literate, half are over 50, some were institutionalized for years, and most are non-white.
A few of my clients are ex-labourers – you know, from that semi-and-unskilled wonderland of yours – who burned themselves out; ruining their backs, knees, and arms for minimum wage in unsafe conditions. Asbestos poisoning. Mercury poisoning. Lead poisoning. I’ve seen it.
I manage to find about 80% of my clients jobs. Of those, 70% are employed after three months. 65% are employed after six months. When they came to me, they’re on social assistance.
But you would deny these people a certain amount of publicly guaranteed financial security because you don’t think *you’ll* ever need it. That isn’t the line you use to spread the Gospel, is it?
“I, for one, won’t ever ‘find’ myself on welfare because there’s absolutely no good reason for it. There’s thousands of semi-skilled or unskilled jobs out there that, while not always the most appealing, will put food on the table and a roof over your head.â€
Sorry, but minimum wage ‘round these parts is barely enough to keep the rent paid. And, unless you have an unusually strong constitution, you’ll “find” yourself punted from the unskilled workforce around age 45 – oh and, if what I’ve seen is any indication, you’ll probably have arthritis by then too.
“If I lost my job (and happened to be living on my own), it would take only a couple of days for me to find another one.â€
Good for you, Pieter, but not everyone is a healthy young man with a decent education. Instead of thanking God for your good fortune, however, you castigate others for their lack of it.
I’d hate to be you when *that* bill comes due.
“It might pay less, but it’d be a job. If I were physically disabled and unable to work, I have family, friends, and a church who would all combine to make welfare checks unnecessary.â€
Hmmm yes. Family and friends. One of my clients, after becoming mentally ill, was made a ward of her older sister. That relative broke my client’s legs with a baseball bat, stole all her stuff, and drained her bank account before leaving her in government care.
I didn’t see any Christians stepping up to help her out. No church offered to help meet her needs, either spiritual or physical.
Say, where *were* you guys, anyway?
I find it ironic you believe human nature is essentially evil, thus necessitating a Savior to sacrifice himself for the sake of our relationship with God, and yet you also trust that this same innate nature will cause people to lovingly provide for the poor and disabled.
I don’t agree with long-term or multi-generational welfare, but I would never be so naïve as to think that removing the social safety net will somehow result in *better* social conditions.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
“Or that there are jobs for everyone (why don’t you ask someone who was refused job after job becasue they were the wrong color or religion).”
I would, except at most of the jobs I’ve worked there have been a preponderance of minorities. I don’t generally insist people tell me what religion they choose, so I couldn’t say how many of them have been refused a job on the basis of religion, but I do know that when I was supposed to go into the Air Force, I ran into atheists, agnostics, and a Buddhist, all of whom were hired easily. Considering none of my employers have ever asked *me* what my religion is, I doubt many of them have refused to hire someone of the “wrong” religion if for no other reason than that they didn’t know the religions of their potential hires.
“Frankly, I’m happier paying for welfare than for chemical weapons.”
I’d prefer to pay for neither.
“Sorry, but minimum wage ‘round these parts is barely enough to keep the rent paid.”
I’ve never worked for minimum wage, and it’s completely unnecessary for anyone to do so. Minimum wage is $6.75 in my area – the local McDonald’s pays $10/hr. That may not make you rich, but if you’re smart about where you buy food (WinCo, Food4Less) and how you live (with a roommate or two) and how much you work (two jobs, if necessary), then it’s enough for a person to get by. And a job at McDonald’s hardly requires you be exceptionally healthy, smart, or well-educated.
But we’re on rabbit trails here.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Alyzza, I’m truly sorry for the people you are trying to help, and I do not condone turning a blind eye to their problems. I believe it IS the fault of the church that such situations are so pervasive, and I believe that it is only the church that can properly provide the compassion necessary to truly help such people. The government has been in the compassion business for a long time now, and it has not improved the overall picture. Aside from the issues with taking resources from some by force to provide for the needs of others, civil government is not capable of meeting the needs—which includes addressing the deeper spiritual as well as physical struggles—of suffering people. In fact, by co-opting that which the church has either resigned or neglected, I believe that community has further been eroded and that suffering will only increase as so many truly have nowhere to go.
There are ministries and churches, however, which are doing great and sacrificial things for suffering people, here and abroad. And Pieter can tell you stories from personal experience that not everyone who is in some of the situations you describe truly wants to be helped, as he at one time employed many people who lived in homeless shelters.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
CARMEN: “Alyzza, I’m truly sorry for the people you are trying to help, and I do not condone turning a blind eye to their problems. I believe it IS the fault of the church that such situations are so pervasive, and I believe that it is only the church that can properly provide the compassion necessary to truly help such people.â€
I agree that the church is – or at least should be – capable of providing abundant compassion. I’m a pessimist, however, and believe the majority of people wouldn’t give a thing – not to widows or orphans or anyone else – of their own volition.
They must fear God or the state, or both, before they’ll part with wealth; they care more for the things of this world than they do for their fellow human beings. Such is man in his fallen state.
“The government has been in the compassion business for a long time now, and it has not improved the overall picture.â€
That’s true. But I don’t know that the overall picture will ever improve. Whether they be agents of church or state, those in the helping profession must be content to aid one person at a time.
“Aside from the issues with taking resources from some by force to provide for the needs of others, civil government is not capable of meeting the needs—which includes addressing the deeper spiritual as well as physical struggles—of suffering people. In fact, by co-opting that which the church has either resigned or neglected, I believe that community has further been eroded and that suffering will only increase as so many truly have nowhere to go.â€
The government is a public trust that exists for one reason: to serve common interest for the good.
As far as I’m concerned, it is the government’s job to ensure people are meeting their obligations, and also to protect freedoms and provide for basic needs.
Those who use public roads and sanitation, or who call the police when there’s a crime (etc.), are taking from the common purse. They’ve agreed, by using those services, to pay into that purse as they’re able.
“There are ministries and churches, however, which are doing great and sacrificial things for suffering people, here and abroad.â€
That’s true.
“And Pieter can tell you stories from personal experience that not everyone who is in some of the situations you describe truly wants to be helped, as he at one time employed many people who lived in homeless shelters.â€
Oh I know lazy people exist and that they abuse “the system†to the detriment of everyone else. Of course I’ve also encountered people who’ve suffered in poverty so long that they’ve lost the drive necessary to get a job. (Here are a couple of examples: http://3kitties.livejournal.com/ and http://thehomelessguy.blogspot.com/).
It takes awhile to kick-start them, but their lethargy tends to disappear once they’ve gained some confidence. And getting a job is only half the battle; they also need the social and vocational skills to keep it.
All the people I’ve ever met live in well-defined social strata: some of them occupy an upper layer that contains education and privilege. For them, all things are possible. Others are in another layer where they come from working-class parents who emotionally (if not financially) support them in pursuing higher education (etc.).
But then there are invisible people – those who were borne into prostitution or drugs or other kinds of crime; or those who have no legal name; or those who were abused by parents who were themselves the children of abusers. Such broken people are burdened by the lion’s share of derision, if they’re acknowledged at all.
They *need*, more than anyone else, to have a voice in the public discourse. They need every opportunity we can give them to offer input on social policy. They absolutely, every one of them, should be encouraged to learn about politics and participate through voting.
They need to be treated like citizens before they can be expected to act like citizens. Society can not be allowed to forget about them, and that would happen if they were stripped of the franchise.
If I had to put my finger on it, this, I think, would be the reason why I found your ideas about voting rights to be so…well…wrongheaded. It is, to me, the most fundamental right next to speech and conscience.
PIETER: “I’ve never worked for minimum wage, and it’s completely unnecessary for anyone to do so.â€
Anyone?
“Minimum wage is $6.75 in my area – the local McDonald’s pays $10/hr. That may not make you rich, but if you’re smart about where you buy food (WinCo, Food4Less) and how you live (with a roommate or two) and how much you work (two jobs, if necessary), then it’s enough for a person to get by.â€
That’s true. I don’t think there’s any excuse for someone with a healthy body and sound mind to be living on social assistance. But it doesn’t follow that the whole program should be abolished because unscrupulous people chose to abuse it – and, getting back on topic, it certainly doesn’t follow that people should be denied the vote because they live on a fixed income.
“And a job at McDonald’s hardly requires you be exceptionally healthy, smart, or well-educated.â€
Nope, but it does require that you be sufficiently fast to keep up with orders. Most of my clients are incapable of working at Mickey D’s because, while they could master the job duties, they would never develop the necessary speed.
“But we’re on rabbit trails here.â€
As to the original topic, you’d have to pry the ballot from my cold, dead fingers. I may spoil my ballot every election in protest of the crappy options but, unlike so many of my peers, I always go to the polls. There’s no point in my arguing this matter, then, since there’s no way you’d ever convince me – not in a million years.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:11 am
I do not assume that because things don’t happen to me they don’t happen to anyone else. Nor do I assume that because the minimum wage in one state is above the federal minimum it is the same everywhere.
I’m glad to hear that you see plenty of minorities at the places where you work. I wonder how many of them were “overqualified” (i.e. educated) and how many of them were in managerial positions?
June 29th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Pieter Friedrich wrote:
“’Assuming for the sake of argument that taxes were cut by 10% or so (the amount of the federal budget that goes to welfare/education/medical assistance/unemployment/other similar programs), how would that lower property values?’
“It costs $35,000 in fees alone to build a house in my county, which is as much as some people pay for the undeveloped parcels they plan to build on. Confining the vote to property owners would certainly result in a reduction in the regulations and permits that add up to that $35,000, thus making it easier for people to build houses. So while property values wouldn’t necessarily be lower, the cost of building on property (which, undeveloped, can be attained fairly cheaply) would be lower.”
OK, then, I misunderstood. I thought that our hostess’s claim that “the welfare state would shrink dramatically, tax burdens would lessen, and property values would return to reasonable levels, making it possible for many more people to own property†was suggesting a chain of causality. Evidently there’s no causal relationship being claimed. Thanks for clarifying.