I can't help but think you failed to understand the point of the decision. A Corporation IS a "person." That is what "corpus" means.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Abomination of Usury and Interest, and the Slavery of Debt
- Thread starter christiang
- Start date
Again you seem to fail to understand the point. Abortion is not "fine." But it is LEGAL since Roe v Wade.
See the difference?
I was pointing out the fallacy in the original argument that corporations are people. I don't accept the Citizens United decision even though the Supreme Court passed on it. The Court has made mistakes in the past and made one in that case. Please try to better understand what's being posted.
Last edited:
Actually, I should rephrase my statement. Corporations are people because the Citizens United case said they are. Abortion is legal nationally because Roe vs. Wade said it is, correct? But you said "Corporations ARE people because the Supreme Court says they are." That's different. That is the same thing as saying abortions ARE acceptable because the Supreme Court says they are.
Last edited:
Most of Jesus' disciples left after hearing that, what figure of speech would have offended them so badly?
Because even chapter prior same folks who left accepted:
23so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
. 46“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.
25“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26“For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; 27and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. 28“Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,29and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.
It is not a fallacy. Corporations are fictitious people. That is historic, established, codified law. And those historic, established, codified laws have been upheld as Constitutional by SCOTUS.
I doubt that will cause them to lose sleep. It is the law of the land. If you choose to disobey the law do so at your own risk.
Perhaps. But it is still the law of the land. And allow me to ask: on what basis do you offer the opinion that SCOTUS was wrong? How much do you know about Corporation Law? Are you aware of the federal and state statutes governing such Corporations? Are you familiar with earlier SCOTUS decisions upholding the main issue of Citizens United? Are you aware of the doctrine of stare decisis?
Of the two of us I am the one who has the greater understanding. That is proven by your statements which display total ignorance of the subject under discussion.
No, Citizens United did not rule that Corporations are people. That is historic, establish, codified law. SCOTUS upheld those laws and the case law decisions regarding them.
Yes. It is now legal. I believe it is wrong morally, but not legally. And I will obey the law and not kill an abortionist using the excuse I was defending the life of the unborn child. For me to do that would be not only illegal, but immoral.
See the difference?
Calv1
Active Member
Agreed
GordonWayneWatts
Member
OK, I usually don't post anymore, simply because I'm super busy, but this is a valid topic -- and I want to weigh in, but there is a slight disagreement on protocol, which will impede communication if it is not fixed.
The moderator brings up a good point, namely that we should post our comments here for all to see. But, if there was *one* thing I learned in college, it was this: Under Occam's Razor, when writing any professional paper, if you can cite your reference, that is preferable for brevity & simplicity, as opposed to actually typing out the entire reference in said paper. So, ChristianG has a point, but "balance" and moderation must be exercised, so a brief description, sufficient to enlighten & educate those who don't have the bandwidth in their Internet connections to click the link should be posted here (as moderator, Ann, asks). [And, I will add: even with my fast Internet connection, typing this is REAL slow, for whatever reason (maybe your message board?), so I support Ann's request (but think references to cite your sources are needed too).]
Two side notes: First, ChristianG, you list your faith as Jewish, but your name implies a follower of Jesus as Messiah? Are you a Messianic Jew? (Just curious.)
Secondly, I'm the "real" Gordon Wayne Watts, whose court brief as next friend of Terri Schiavo almost won -- all by myself (excepting that Jesus helped me), losing 4-3 in the Fla Supreme Court, because I used Jesus' food/water arguments in Matt 25:31-46, not Jeb Bush's weaker 'feeding tube' arguments, which is why I did better than him - and even better than Terri's blood family. This is relevant[**] because I must cite to a subsequent court action, where I take the legal skills Jesus gave me into a court case about this EXACT illegal usury, and (as you might expect) typing out my whole court brief would be impractical. (Thus, I hope Ann is ok with me citing my sources.) PROOF:
[**] It's also good because I'm pro-life as you might expect, and also: we're mostly all pro-life here, so I'm pro-life - you're pro-life, and we're on the same team. (Not hating anti-lifer's, but I'm just pointing out the obvious.)
Sources:
[1] In Re: GORDON WAYNE WATTS (as next friend of THERESA MARIE 'TERRI' SCHIAVO), No. SC03-2420 (Fla. Feb.23, 2005), denied 4-3 on rehearing. (Watts got 42.7% of his panel)http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/dispositions/2005/2/03-2420reh.pdf
[2] In Re: JEB BUSH, GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA, ET AL. v. MICHAEL SCHIAVO, GUARDIAN: THERESA SCHIAVO, No. SC04-925 (Fla. Oct.21, 2004), denied 7-0 on rehearing. (Bush got 0.0% of his panel before the same court)http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/dispositions/2004/10/04-925reh.pdf
[3] Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo ex rel. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 2005 WL 648897 (11th Cir. Mar.23, 2005), denied 2-1 on appeal. (Terri Schiavo's own blood family only got 33.3% of their panel on the Federal Appeals level)http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/200511556.pdf
later version of cited brief: http://gordonwaynewatts.com/TerriSupremeCourt.pdf or http://gordonwatts.com/TerriSupremeCourt.pdf
"A Polk Perspective: Fix our bankrupt policy on student debt," By Gordon Wayne Watts, Guest columnist, The Ledger, August 04, 2016: A Polk Perspective: Fix our bankrupt policy on student debt Cache: http://gordonwaynewatts.com/TheLedger-print-version-WATTS-GuestColumn-Thr04Aug2016.html Source: http://www.TheLedger.com/article/20160804/COLUMNISTS03/160809884/1382/edit?p=all&tc=pgall
"Is the Mark Tetzlaff Case Over at the Supreme Court? Maybe Not., Posted by: Gordon Wayne Watts (Guest Post) (Debt Articles, Student Loan Bankruptcy Discharge), GetOutOfDebt.org, March 23, 2016: Is the Mark Tetzlaff Case Over at the Supreme Court? Maybe Not. Citing: http://gordonwaynewatts.com/FannyDeregulation/Tetzlaff-case/DOCKET-15-485_Tetzlaff-v-ECMC.html
PS: I am unable to upload a PDF copy of my court brief, so I guess a reference (or you just taking my word) will *have* to do. Update... it looks like it might have logged me out as I "timed out," and re-logging-back-in might have let me upload my court brief - let's see,,,?...
Gordon Wayne Watts
Lakeland, Fla., U.S.A., earth
(between Tampa & Orlando)
Last edited:
GordonWayneWatts
Member
Interest and Usury are not the same thing. Usury is "excessive" (read: oppressive) interest.
GordonWayneWatts
Member
OK, the train is going off track - I'll try & fix that:
With all due respect, you are clearly implying that education is only possible with loans, This is simply not true: Back before Liberals in Congress forced taxpayer-backed student loans down our throat, college was FREE (or, very close to it). -- PROOF: “Was college once free in United States, as Bernie Sanders says?,” PolitiFact, RATED “Mostly True” - By Amy Sherman on Tuesday, February 9th, 2016 at 4:00 p.m.http://www.PolitiFact.com/florida/statements/2016/feb/09/bernie-s/was-college-once-free-united-states-and-it-oversea
My point? First off, presence of loan subsidies violates the "Bill Bennett Hypothesis" (Google this, so-named after Dr. Bill Bennett, former Sec. of Education under Pres. Ronald Reagan). When colleges know students have deep pocket-loan-monies available, they price gouge students. The "Bennett Hypothesis" says that subsidies result in cost increases. History has proven him correct.
Secondly, the lack of bankruptcy and other standard consumer protections encourage colleges to engage in predatory lending. (Think of bankruptcy as an 'Economic 2nd Amendment,' a means borrowers have of defending against predatory lending. Or, think of it as a 'Conservative' Free Market check/balance against predatory lending. Do *not* think of bankruptcy as a 'Liberal' Free Handout, any more than you would think of your 'gun rights' as 'Liberal': Bankruptcy does not guarantee *any* free handout, only the possibility of one, should the person have legitimate need for bankruptcy. Lastly, bankruptcy is not guaranteed in the Constitution, but IF it exists, it MUST be uniform, that is, the same for the college student as for the rich exec, and that it is not: PROOF: Art. I Sec. 8, Cl. 4 of the US Constitution: Google the Constitution - it will do good for your soul. The Uniform Bankruptcy Clause was put in there even ahead of power to make war, etc., so it is VERY important:
"The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States." Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution [I will add: look closely at this clause: Congress has the power to write BK law, but ONLY if it's uniform: The Constitution clearly meant only for BK law to be uniform, or else it would have clarified and specified otherwise here.]
PS: See my prior post, and look at the arguments I make in my lawsuit: They are these, but there are more reasons why I am right that can't fit in this post.
Last edited:
GordonWayneWatts
Member
TCassidy said: ↑
So you are against Christians owning their own homes? How about cars? Education? Are you against all of it?
ChristianG, you are correct, but Education is often obtained by use of loans, and usually, the borrowing done is with Usury, that is, excessive interest. AND, know, realise, and understand one thing: I think your initial implication was correct.
So, I am supporting your implied position as one of honour and Truth.
So you are against Christians owning their own homes? How about cars? Education? Are you against all of it?
ChristianG, you are correct, but Education is often obtained by use of loans, and usually, the borrowing done is with Usury, that is, excessive interest. AND, know, realise, and understand one thing: I think your initial implication was correct.
So, I am supporting your implied position as one of honour and Truth.
GordonWayneWatts
Member
Obviously, some borrowing is necessary in some cases, and God is not against borrowing (see the Bible verses in both my court brief, in my prior post, and in ChristianG's initial post link), but the use of VERY EXCESSIVELY HIGH interest (e.g., Usury) is what is prohibited. Moreover, college was once FREE (or very close to it) as I proved & documented earlier. And, this was possible because Liberals had not (as yet) forcibly made taxpayers foot the bill for (very unnecessary) college loans. (If college was the best in the world in the US back then and yet FREE or very close to it, obviously, loans were not necessary!) This hurt taxpayers (who were on the hook for this unnecessary expenditure) and college students (whose tuition costs RO$E greatly due to the Bennett Hypothesis being realised, as explained in my prior post.)
You ask how you pay for a huge house without borrowing? I do admit a little borrowing is needed here, but we did not need 'borrowing' in the past for college, simply because we were a more honest society back then (you could leave your house unlocked at night, etc.). Now, tho, we are dishonest, since the presence of taxpayer-backed loans (both for housing and education) have tempted sellers to price-gouge buyers (and in many cases where they have a monopoly on the market), and thus higher prices (read: SIN) result).
GordonWayneWatts
Member
You are correct: Actually, I write, separately, to the other people in this conversation, to say that, yes, ChristianG appears to interpret correctly, here. And, as proof of that claim...
In fact, in my own research, both the Jewish, Christian, and even Muslim canon Scriptures say that Usury (that is, excessive and oppressive interest) is clearly forbidden. This is in both Old Testament passages (accepted by Jew and Christian alike), New Testament Christian canon Scripture, as well as numerous passages in the Koran aka Q'uran (accepted by Muslims, who follow Islam).
In the court brief I filed (and posted in my prior comment), I cite to all 3 major religions as proof that this practice of Usury violates both one's religious beliefs as well as common ly accepted values in society. (And, I give a not-too-subtle reminder to the Justices that angering God might not be a good idea!)
Last edited:
GordonWayneWatts
Member
OK, I defended you on that point earlier (while partially agreeing with moderator, Ann, that you should summarise your arguments in forum, here). But, while I like your link, in your initial post, MY court brief (linked in my subsequent post) seems to have all (or at least many/most) of your Scripture passages, but also stuff you leave out. Since I was writing for The Court, I had to "get it right" on my 1st try, so you can be assured that my court brief (and also the column I wrote) is quite complete and compelling. (And, you may republish my court brief, as it's covered by Fair Use, and also it's not copyrighted; it's a court brief, after all.)
GordonWayneWatts
Member
CORRECT -- Usury is merely excessive interest. Oppressively high, that is.
Matthew 25:27 - Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and [then] at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
GordonWayneWatts
Member
This passage seems to contradict my theory that usury is bad; however, it is canon Scripture, so it is perforce necessarily correct. I don't get stronger or smarter by hearing my own voice repeated back to me. In this regard, you've made a positive contribution to this thread; thank you, Mad Dog.
GordonWayneWatts
Member
OK, after checking, it seems that Ellicot's commentary suggests that 'Usury' as translated here is not necessarily what we think: "Usury.—Better, interest; the word not necessarily implying, as usury does now, anything illegal or exorbitant." Barne's notes seems to agree: "With usury - With interest, increase, or gain. The word "usury," in our language, has a bad signification, meaning unlawful or exorbitant interest. This was contrary to the law, Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:36. The original means "gain," increase, or lawful interest." Matthew 25:27 Commentaries: Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest.
But, is this correct? Let's look at the actual original Greek: "τόκῳ," which is Strong's # G5110, is better translated as 'interest,' not 'usury': Matthew 25 Interlinear Bible and Strong's Greek: 5110. τόκος (tokos) -- a bringing forth, birth, fig. interest, usury and http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat25.pdf and Tokos - New Testament Greek Lexicon - King James Version
Both Messianic Jews (who we would expect to know Hebrew Old Testament Law, which sets the context for this) as well as literal Bible translation (written by Greek scholars) agree that it is interest, not oppressive usury here: Mt 25:27 AMP;ESV;CJB;NASB;OJB - Then you ought to have put my money - Bible Gateway
But thanks for bringing up; Detective Sherlock Homes would be proud of our detective work! As Sherlock Holmes was fond of saying, “Eliminate all other [untrue] factors, and the one which remains must be the truth”
Faulty logic. Legality and morality are not the same thing.
I would rephrase that as "Legality and morality are not necessarily the same thing