1. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    93539
    03 Feb '13 20:46
    one of my favorite songs has the lyric -

    'the sin of property, we do disdain, no man has the right to buy and sell the land for private gain'.

    as an atheist home owner it often plays on my conscience, i pretty much agree with the lyric and am therefore being a giant hypocrite.

    the song is based on a english 1600's christian movement called the 'diggers'. it got me wondering if this feeling is shared with christians. it makes sense to me that if god gave the earth to all men then it should be for everybody and private ownership is the opposite of this.

    im guessing most of the american neo-con-christians will disagree (rj). interested to know what the rest of you think theists and non-theists included.

    (be warned, ive got my serious debate face on)
  2. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    03 Feb '13 21:383 edits
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    one of my favorite songs has the lyric -

    'the sin of property, we do disdain, no man has the right to buy and sell the land for private gain'.

    as an atheist home owner it often plays on my conscience, i pretty much agree with the lyric and am therefore being a giant hypocrite.

    the song is based on a english 1600's christian movement called th think theists and non-theists included.

    (be warned, ive got my serious debate face on)
    There's a somewhat contradictory verse to that song:

    "Stand up now
    From the men of property
    The orders came
    They sent the hired men and troopers
    To wipe out the Diggers' claim
    Tear down their cottages
    Destroy their corn
    They were dispersed -
    Only the vision lingers on "

    http://www.diggers.org/english_diggers.htm

    It is not literally contradictory because the verse you quote speaks of land and this one speaks of cottages and corn. But clearly a person who has a cottage that is called "their" cottage has to have some degree of authoritative control over it and the land it is on. That control might be called ownership or might be called something else.

    The one part of the verse you quote that I think is relevant is that no man has the right to buy and sell for private gain. This does not preach against buying and selling your cottage or corn for private gain. Perhaps what is intended is a social framework in which all land is held in common and is regarded to be put out in lease to people who want to own a cottage on it; the lease renewable upon proper husbanding of the land.

    [Edit: Some] modern governments have legal provisions for the taking of land by eminent domain, which in a sense puts all property ownership into a sort of lease arrangement; ownership being terminated in exchange to compensation for the loss of invested interest. In some ways then, you don't own your land so much as you own the improvements you make to it or on it.

    I speak as a fellow homeowner.

    I am taking heed of your debate face. 😉
  3. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    93539
    04 Feb '13 15:321 edit
    Originally posted by JS357
    There's a somewhat contradictory verse to that song:

    "Stand up now
    From the men of property
    The orders came
    They sent the hired men and troopers
    To wipe out the Diggers' claim
    Tear down their cottages
    Destroy their corn
    They were dispersed -
    Only the vision lingers on "

    http://www.diggers.org/english_diggers.htm

    It is not literally contradicto t or on it.

    I speak as a fellow homeowner.

    I am taking heed of your debate face. 😉
    some good points and i like your spin on home ownership. although, buying or leasing a house makes the land private, restricting access to the people. this may not be a huge problem on a small scale but much of the countryside has been shut to the average man due to private ownership of large areas by rich individuals. can i criticize them with out allowing ramblers to go trudging through my garden?


    (i should have put this in debates, as the ownership of land doesnt seem to be tickling the collective religious fancy).
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    04 Feb '13 15:54
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    one of my favorite songs has the lyric -

    'the sin of property, we do disdain, no man has the right to buy and sell the land for private gain'.

    as an atheist home owner it often plays on my conscience, i pretty much agree with the lyric and am therefore being a giant hypocrite.

    the song is based on a english 1600's christian movement called th ...[text shortened]... think theists and non-theists included.

    (be warned, ive got my serious debate face on)
    I see nothing wrong with selling and buying land for I have done it myself and do not feel a little quilty. So if my conscience is right, then it is right to own land and property on the land.
  5. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    04 Feb '13 16:27
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    some good points and i like your spin on home ownership. although, buying or leasing a house makes the land private, restricting access to the people. this may not be a huge problem on a small scale but much of the countryside has been shut to the average man due to private ownership of large areas by rich individuals. can i criticize them with out allo ...[text shortened]... in debates, as the ownership of land doesnt seem to be tickling the collective religious fancy).
    IMO Spirituality is an OK place to discuss the moral and ethical issues of land ownership, like what rights and responsibilities land ownership should or does confer on the owner. Even if you own no land, you stand in some relationship to those who do, say as a visitor or tenant or neighbor, and your rights and responsibilities in that relationship come into play. But it's not one of the popular issues that Spirituality cycles through with regularity.
  6. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    04 Feb '13 18:27
    As a non-theist I feel most "spiritual" when in the great outdoors; near the sea,
    a river, mountains or just wandering across moors. This debate is certainly not
    out of place in this forum.


    My own - not very well thought out - feeling is that we are temporary guardians of the land our homes are on. When we die what we care for should pass back to some communal pot. (Caveats for spouse & family ....)

    I also see no reason why anyone should own excessive amounts of land. Farmland should be leased from the community and nobody needs recreational land bigger than an acre (4000 cu. m.)
  7. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35531
    04 Feb '13 22:54
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I see nothing wrong with selling and buying land for I have done it myself and do not feel a little quilty. So if my conscience is right, then it is right to own land and property on the land.
    What if we ran you through a sewing machine?

    Would you feel quilty then?
  8. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    04 Feb '13 22:58
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    What if we ran you through a sewing machine?

    Would you feel quilty then?
    I vote we try it.
  9. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    93539
    05 Feb '13 09:43
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I see nothing wrong with selling and buying land for I have done it myself and do not feel a little quilty. So if my conscience is right, then it is right to own land and property on the land.
    the land you own was once free land, the a.indians used the land as a 'common treasury' for all. dont you think they have been stitched up? duvet think its okay to privatize the land. is it okay to claim land as your own? does good look down at the people pillow him and think privatization of his land has cotton out of hand? shooting indians, making them scatter, cushion their anger by rewarding them with land that they were already using. needle-ss to say im sure it goes against god.
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    05 Feb '13 12:00
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    interested to know what the rest of you think theists and non-theists included.
    I am OK with property and property rights, including land to some degree. I do however have issues with extreme wealth.
    Another thing I have issues with is citizenship an the belief that people collectively own a country and its land, public and private, and can thus exclude 'foreigners'.
    I believe that immigration laws as they currently stand are a violation of human rights.
  11. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    93539
    05 Feb '13 12:23
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I am OK with property and property rights, including land to some degree. I do however have issues with extreme wealth.
    Another thing I have issues with is citizenship an the belief that people collectively own a country and its land, public and private, and can thus exclude 'foreigners'.
    I believe that immigration laws as they currently stand are a violation of human rights.
    "Another thing I have issues with is citizenship an the belief that people collectively own a country and its land, public and private, and can thus exclude 'foreigners'.
    I believe that immigration laws as they currently stand are a violation of human rights."



    in principle i completely agree. practically though it could cause all sorts of issues. any town or city with a booming economy could see millions of people descend on it. the city or town may not have the infrastructure to cope.
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    05 Feb '13 20:20
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    the land you own was once free land, the a.indians used the land as a 'common treasury' for all. dont you think they have been stitched up? duvet think its okay to privatize the land. is it okay to claim land as your own? does good look down at the people pillow him and think privatization of his land has cotton out of hand? shooting indians, making the ...[text shortened]... ing them with land that they were already using. needle-ss to say im sure it goes against god.
    I paid money that I worked long and hard for to pay for the property I own. The American Indians have enough land reserved for them. That land is called Indian Reservations. It was given to them free of charge. They never paid a penny for it. 😏
  13. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    93539
    05 Feb '13 20:44
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I paid money that I worked long and hard for to pay for the property I own. The American Indians have enough land reserved for them. That land is called Indian Reservations. It was given to them free of charge. They never paid a penny for it. 😏
    they paid in blood.
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    05 Feb '13 22:26
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    they paid in blood.
    Well okay, but they got land, didn't they?
  15. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    05 Feb '13 22:351 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Well okay, but they got land, didn't they?
    One source easily found says "When the last glaciers receded about 10,000 years ago (thus ending this first great migration to America), ancestors of the Native Americans filled nearly all of the habitable parts of North and South America." http://www.dialogoaa.com.ar/history1.html

    So they already had nearly all the habitable land. It was appropriated by the colonies, the territories, then the states and finally the USA, and then about 2.5% of THEIR land was ceded back when the treaties were forced upon them.


    (Note that of course the 10,000 years is wrong, and the world was not created that long ago.😉)
Back to Top