Islam is the cause.What is current in the UK is Austerity. Which leaves the poor to suffer so the wealthy can remain fat.I assume Islam will correct this eventually.
ATB
One big problem with Islam is its emphasis on statism. In the U.S. there has been a long standing tradition of separation of religion from the state. On the sabbath, traditionally people think about their faith. On the other days of the week, they get back to practical matters. Intermixing these two frames of mind leads to disputes between those that try to insert religion into everyday affairs and those who oppose that.
This is your reasoning, not mine, and it makes no sense at all.
Thomas Sowellâs book, Black Rednecks and White liberals, explains how white âcrackerâ culture contributed to the lack of success among low-class white rednecks and how blacks in the south were kind of woven into that culture, and the effects of that still existing today.
This is indeed a terriffic thesis documented with thousands of references, suggesting that the âcultureâ in the South is responsible for the ghetto culture, not âracismâ alone. The reasons are due to how the Britains lived in the outskirts of England(the lawless regions) before moving into the antebellum South, carrying their anarchic, chaotic culture with them. He also details how slaves lived under the rule of their masters, and how the black culture actually had their own elite/mulatto/light skinned class that continually discriminated against the dark skinned, uneducated blacks that were woven into the cracker culture from the onset. He also compares the northern blacks to the southern blacks, showing how the northern blacks were much more educated because the ânorthâ had 4x more schools than the south, scored higher on tests, had a higher graduation rate, etc.
To say that Racism didnât exist prior to the migration is going to be a hard one to prove. There are any number of reasons why one culture does not except another. Competition for jobs being one of the great ones. We canât appolagize enough for slavery any more than Sowell can excape the image heâs created for himself. If I remember the book correctly he thought the use of low water crossings as opposed to building bridges was a sign of lazyness in southerners. Today of course we know better than that.
I donât know. But my inability to completely understand the mechanism of poverty does not mean that the alternative being proposed here (that lack of initiative or other character flaws) are exclusively to blame.
It is always dangerous to presume to understand the mind of God. God created man without wings, while He did give wings to birds. By your reasoning, it would be wrong to try to invent airplanes to fly because we would be contradicting the will of God. The book of Job is a good example of well-meaning people trying to explain why bad things happened to poor Job, but being very very wrong.
If God wanted to create equality, why did he create two types, male and female?
This is not necessarily true.
We are having a similiar problem today.
I agree. But you are the one who brought up âGodâs gracesâ
No. We were talking about âGodâs Gracesâ. Not the will of God.
This is where Godâs Graces come in. They are gifts from God. Like opportunities. Grace can be refused or overlooked. Opportunities are there for all (like Godâs Grace) it is up to us to recognize them, accept them and be thankful for them.
I am glad you understand the difference. Therefore you can understand how it can be by Godâs grace that some of us are blessed by enormous wealth, and others are not so blessed and in poverty, yet it could still be Godâs will that those with the enormous wealth share that wealth with those in poverty, and not assume that all those in poverty are there because they failed to take advantage of opportunities, as justification for not helping them.
What do you suppose happens to the excess money not needed to live on? It does not sit in underground vaults. Instead it is put to work for society. Much of it is used to provide for the means of production. If there was no means of production, we would all be dirt farmers eking out a living by scratching the earth. The means of production enables people to make things that people want and need. If all the excess money were simply transferred to the poor for immediate consumption, it would disappear. So would the means of production.
That is a straw man. I have not made the case that lack of initiative or character flaws are exclusively to blame. However, they are contributing factors certainly. Why the need to construct false arguments?
Do you think people that have âenormous wealthâ just keep it in a vault somewhere and laugh gleefully at poor people while they swim in it?
This argument is a practical one. It is based on some peopleâs best judgement on how to achieve the ultimate goal, which is apparently âa self-sustaining means of productionâ. So letâs re-write the parable of the good Samaritan as follows:
The highest paid CEO in 8 American companies âearnâ over 1000 times as much as the median of the rest of their employees - not the lowest paid employee, but the median income of all the rest. Now are you going to try to argue that these CEOâs actually work 1000 times as hard as the other employees? That is impossible. I doubt if anyone can even work 4 times as hard as a 9-5 secretary. So donât use âworked hardâ to justify that much wealth, because it just cannot be done. OK, you may say ââŚbut those CEOâs work smarterâ. Fair enough. So how did they get so smart? Was it by a choice they made that was open to everyone? I think not. Some people are blessed with more intelligence of the right sort that is in great demand. But that is not anything they earned exclusively through their good character. That is largely a gift from God too.
Itâs not about how hard you work, itâs about the value you bring to the company. Apparently the shareholders of those companies believe that the CEO brings enough value to the company to justify that wage. Do you think you could do the job of a CEO?