Opposition to Health-care Reform Revives Christian Right

[AsburySkinsFan]

Stop blinding me with science... Does anyone else here believe that there are 150 million "liberals" in the United States?

Well there was apparently on 66 million who voted for Obama in November and I feel pretty certain that not all of them will fit the classic definition of a "liberal". So, no I don't believe it.

[Smoot Point Really]

How'd he feel about spreading his religion via coercion and government means?

First, kudos to Larry for spelling coercion correctly... Now to my point... I'm pretty sure Larry had no problem with my statement:

A liberal's mindset is to dishonor tradition and disrespect anything that a European/American traditionalist would consider sacred, especially their Christian faith (even those who call themselves Christians).

I'll go a step further and reference Baculus' response (which was earlier posted and worthy of comment). Let me preface with the following:

I'm not referring to any individuals... Your individual faith may be entirely different, even if you consider yourself a liberal or conservative. The problem that I'm trying to address is crediting/blaming the "Christian Right" with opposing Health-care reform. The same people (liberals) who are eager for health-care reform are looking for someone to blame for not having health-care yet, therefore they go to the well again and blame the Christian Conservatives. In this thread, it struck me as ironic that liberals would start quoting scripture in one post and use the word "fraud" in another.

Let's look at the sentence that I quoted above... I'd be curious if anyone here can show me examples where a liberal/progressive doesn't consider most (if not all) traditions false, unnecessary and/or oppressive. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I have quite a bit of history on my side when it comes to liberals/progressives and their feelings toward religious traditions (especially Judeo-Christian, but others as well). I won't go into it because I think it's unnecessary.

I intentionally used the phrase "even those who call themselves Christian". Theologically, I believe Europe and America to be extremely liberal. I don't want to go into the specifics, but there are many examples of theological liberalism at work in the United States. The most telling example is the sheer number of denominations. It's as if these denominations feel they can not only cut ties from their past, but also their present. Unity is abandoned so quickly and instead of having one Pope you have hundreds of thousands of Popes. Each individual Christian can quickly assume their own level of authority and do not have to live under obedience to anything but their own will.

I don't have a whole lot of time to go into such detail... Liberals generally view tradition as a blockade to progress. My intention wasn't to shock anyone. Even if a few think I'm "basket-case lite", I'd be interested in hearing actual opposition to my logic instead of opposition to my presentation.

[Prosperity]

A liberal's mindset is to dishonor tradition and disrespect anything that a European/American traditionalist would consider sacred, especially their Christian faith (even those who call themselves Christians).

Smoot, if you want to seem like less of a basket case, list the traditions of European and Americans traditionalists, especially Christians, and then go around and check off the ones liberals hate.

Do liberals hate sporting events? Football? or Futbol (for the European traditionalists)

Do they hate religious holidays? I love Christmas for one

Do they hate marriage? Not at all they want EVEN MORE marriage

Do they hate Democracies and or Constitutional Republics?

Do they hate higher education?

Do they hate drinking alcohol?

Do they hate any sort of traditional food?

etc

all you have really done is make an assertion without providing any evidence except for one premise which contends that liberals will get rid of any institution that gets in the way of progress.

This point is stupid and here is why:

When liberals replace a traditional institution, for example something like Slavery, or Monarchy, they replace it with something better which then becomes traditional: like the free market, and equal protection under the law. There are many traditions started by liberals which have supplanted more older and traditional institutions and years later have become entrenched in "European Christian" culture.

[Smoot Point Really]

Smoot, if you want to seem like less of a basket case

Obviously, you missed the word "sacred"... Please try again.

[Prosperity]

football is not sacred to you?

The bill of rights is not sacred to you?

the free market is not sacred to you?

Is Christmas not sacred to you?

Is marriage not sacred to you?

what are you referring to? Purely religious institutions? Either way, they struggle against slavery was lead by CHRISTIAN liberals, out of some devotion to a sacred ideal

What is sacred for traditional European Christians?

make a list and we'll go from there

Now remember, for you to try and remove the basket case lite label (which is by now more like basket case dark roast) you have to make a list of Euro-Christian institutions (all of them) and then point out how every liberal actively dishonors them.

[Burgold]

I am to render unto Caesar what is Caeser's.

but doesn't this really mean that a man of Christ should be pro-taxes and anti-tax cuts?

I only read the first page, but it always did seem to me perverse how so many Christians line up in Christ's name to deny care and support to the weak and ill.

[twa]

but doesn't this really mean that a man of Christ should be pro-taxes and anti-tax cuts?

I only read the first page, but it always did seem to me perverse how so many Christians line up in Christ's name to deny care and support to the weak and ill.

First we are not under a Caesar,and under the American representative form of govt promoting wise use of funds AND freedom is not only allowed but encouraged:cool2:

Do Christians or even the Religious Right attempt to deny care and support to the weak and ill?....Hell No(if you take a honest look at it)

They oppose certain methods or plans and are then cast as villains.

I don't care for the Religious Rights methodology in many cases(or even some of them),but the inferences some cast their way are equally off putting.

Of course by their rallying under religious auspices for politics they open themselves up to criticism.

[alexey]

I don't have a whole lot of time to go into such detail... Liberals generally view tradition as a blockade to progress.

I have a different perspective on this. I do not think liberals have anything against tradition. I think the tension you are talking about comes from those who block progress tending to do so in the name of tradition.

It seems that for many people it is not always easy to figure out which traditions are worth keeping. This is where progressivism runs into conflict with traditionalism. Slavery, role of women in society, etc - there is plenty of examples where people resisted worthy progress in the name of tradition.

[Smoot Point Really]

football is not sacred to you?

The bill of rights is not sacred to you?

the free market is not sacred to you?

Is Christmas not sacred to you?

Is marriage not sacred to you?

what are you referring to? Purely religious institutions? Either way, they struggle against slavery was lead by CHRISTIAN liberals, out of some devotion to a sacred ideal.

In the interest of time, I'll answer a few of your questions and be done with it:

1) I enjoy football, it isn't sacred. It isn't liberal or conservative.

2) Free market isn't sacred. The liberals are trying to kill it though.

3) Christmas is sacred to me, but that doesn't mean liberals wouldn't rather call it "X-mas" or celebrate Kwanzukahmas or attribute whatever politically correct term would be.

4) Interesting you bring up marriage... surprised you did. It's another thread.

The funny thing (not haha) for me is that you are attributing the word "sacred" to such frivolous things that you have no clear concept of what the word means. The words "sacred" and "tradition" (as you are using them) are indistinguishable from "fad".

Questions of my own:

Do you consider Church to be sacred? How about Jeremiah Wright's Church?'

What is your definition of liberal/progressive? I would argue that most are merely humanists/materialists who don't want to be bothered with traditions.

Generally speaking, liberals/progressives have always viewed themselves as iconoclasts... How can you possibly argue against this?

[Burgold]

First we are not under a Caesar,and under the American representative form of govt promoting wise use of funds AND freedom is not only allowed but encouraged:cool2:

Since when? :evilg: More, do you know where the word Czar is derived from? We are not under one Caesar, we are under dozens! Do unto them, twa!

Do Christians or even the Religious Right attempt to deny care and support to the weak and ill?....Hell No(if you take a honest look at it)

Yes. If you take an objective look at where a number of the policy positions of the religious right and where they ultimately lead there are a number of positions where they deny care and support to the weak and ill. Easiest examples (albeit controversial) abortion to save the life of the mother and refusal to give aid to illegal aliens.

Now, I don't think people should enter the country illegally and the reap the benefits of our culture and tax dollars, but if I do see a man bleeding on my doorstep I don't want him to die simply because of the lack of ink on a passport.

[Prosperity]

I consider the good life and especially the knowledge needed to reach it, to be sacred. It is by divine providence that as humans have the capacity learn and use it in order live virtuous lives and live with our souls in harmony as well as live with each other in harmonious societies. This is God's will as seen in the natural capacities of a human. The progress towards good societies through learning is what is most sacrosanct. I get these ideas from the first liberals in history, Plato and Cyrus the Great. I suppose you could call liberals iconoclasts and you may be right, but what is in a representation (an icon)? An icon is not sacred, it is an imitation of what is sacred, what is sacred are the fundamental tenets of the ways we must live... and those aren't imitations they are what is of substance.

your failure to define YOUR OWN TERMS, and your continued failure to PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE leads me to believe one thing:

you may be a partisan troll

[AsburySkinsFan]

but doesn't this really mean that a man of Christ should be pro-taxes and anti-tax cuts?

It just means that you pay to the gov't what the gov't requires you to pay, and you do so willingly because it is Caesar's face on the money. Jesus' point was actually 2-fold, 1) addressing the issue at hand about paying Caesar's high taxes and 2) it made the person who was using the Roman coinage look bad because they were using Caesar's currency thus associating them with Caesar. That doesn't mean Christians are "pro-tax" it just means we are to pay what is required.

I only read the first page, but it always did seem to me perverse how so many Christians line up in Christ's name to deny care and support to the weak and ill.

Here's the argument that you'll hear, "it should be voluntary to help the poor, not forced." That argument has never held much water with me due to the facts that 1) we have a representative gov't which is an extension of the will of the people, 2) they never have a problem with forcing me to pay taxes for programs that I oppose.

[twa]

Easiest examples (albeit controversial) abortion to save the life of the mother and refusal to give aid to illegal aliens.

Now, I don't think people should enter the country illegally and the reap the benefits of our culture and tax dollars, but if I do see a man bleeding on my doorstep I don't want him to die simply because of the lack of ink on a passport.

You might call that controversial;)...Far as I know almost all of the RR accept real instances of life of the mother exceptions for killing a fetus...tis the liberal reading of that clause they object to.(mental anguish my ass)

How many refuse a bleeding man's need?

In my experience none.

[Larry]

Funny that the end of life consultations as well as verification of alien status CHANGED in the proposals....But I guess they are just humoring the hicks eh?

Yes, they are. (At least in the case of the end of life consultations. I'm not familiar about whatever else you're talking about.)

The end of life consultations are a good law, which have been sorely needed in our health care system for decades. They are completely voluntary, and the patient is in charge of making all decisions, based on the advice of his Doctor.

And they were removed in the hopes that, if removed, then the people who've been pointing at them and lying about them would quit lying about them.

(They should have known better.)

Is factcheck ignorant as well?

The non-partisan Web site, Factcheck.org agreed in its own analysis of the bill.

“Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans,” the analysis said.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53857

Observing that your source (slogan: "The Right News. Right now.") doesn't provide a link to where they're getting this endorsement from factcheck.

However, going to factcheck, I did find this page, Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating?.

And the page does seem to mostly say what they're claiming it says.

What factcheck says:

The bill submitted to Congress contained no funding for abortions.

However, in the House, when the bill went to committee, an amendment was added to the bill. (Along a mostly party-line vote.) What the amendment does is:

1) It mandates that the government insurance must fund any abortions which current law requires Medicaid to fund. (Specifically: Rape, Incest, and to protect the mother's life.)

2) It also states that just because this law only

mandates

coverage in those specific cases, that the government and/or private insurers

may

cover other procedures if they chose to do so.

And, under Obamacare, if poor people chose to sign up for the government or private insurance, then they will be subsidized in purchasing health insurance.

In short, according to factcheck, the proposal Obama sent to Congress didn't fund abortions, but the House has amended Obama's proposals so that, as amended, it would. But, only in those limited cases in which the government is already paying for abortions, anyway.

(And it does specifically leave the door open for the expansion of that coverage.)

(BTW, just thought I'd put in a plug: FactCheck has a lot of information about all the lies going around about this issue. Seems like this issue is generating a lot of business for FactCheck. I suspect that this debate might be well served if lots of us would all spend some time there.)

[Prosperity]

How many refuse a bleeding man's need?

In my experience none.

not to go off on a tangent, but remember the nut-job pharmacist video... an innocent bleeding man on the ground then BANG executed in cold blood

I seem to remember you cheering that on

[Larry]

Stop blinding me with science... Does anyone else here believe that there are 150 million "liberals" in the United States?

Actually, if we're using the most common definition used in Tailgate (meaning "liberal is anybody who's to the left of me, on any issue at all"), then I'd say that there are over 300 million "liberals" in the US.

I'm pretty sure Larry had no problem with my statement:

You're pretty sure about a lot of things.

And you're wrong about virtually all of them.

[AsburySkinsFan]

How many refuse a bleeding man's need?

In my experience none.

None, now a guy with cancer...now that's a different story.

Actually, if we're using the most common definition used in Tailgate (meaning "liberal is anybody who's to the left of me, on any issue at all"), then I'd say that there are over 300 million "liberals" in the US.

And going by the Tailgate definition of Socialist or Communist; its anyone who supports any kind of gov't program to help others, those folks are full blooded Commies who hate capitalism and just want our money because they are waging class warfare.

[Prosperity]

As for the previous "who donates more question" does donating money to things like the 700 club count as charity? Maybe the conservative religious organizations just have stronger charity networks?

[Larry]

You might call that controversial;)...Far as I know almost all of the RR accept real instances of life of the mother exceptions for killing a fetus...

Uh, it isn't the Democrats who keep passing anti-abortion bills where they refuse to include any provision whatsoever for rape, incest, or the life of the mother.

In fact, I'll point out that in the current health care topic, it most specifically is the religious right, who's opposing this bill, specifically on the grounds that it would fund abortions in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

The objection which you quoted, is an objection because this bill doesn't deny funding for those very cases.

[twa]

not to go off on a tangent, but remember the nut-job pharmacist video... an innocent bleeding man on the ground then BANG executed in cold blood

I seem to remember you cheering that on

You and I obviously define innocent differently:evilg:...as does the law.

You conflate innocent with perhaps not a threat any more.

Wonder how that came out?

As for your charity post...

My preference is to remove all tax exemptions from all organizations,and I put feet to it by claiming none.....The system is widely abused both by churches and non-profits(and of course individuals.

[Thiebear]

As for the previous "who donates more question" does donating money to things like the 700 club count as charity? Maybe the conservative religious organizations just have stronger charity networks?

You are at your best when you mingle the militant atheist with the disdain of republicans and stir them both into a rather sarcastic mix.

[Larry]

And going by the Tailgate definition of Socialist or Communist; its anyone who supports any kind of gov't program to help others, those folks are full blooded Commies who hate capitalism and just want our money because they are waging class warfare.

Somebody posted a really nifty flowchart that made that point, 3-4 weeks ago. But I didn't capture the graphic, and I can't seem to find it, now.

[Larry]

You are at your best when you mingle the militant atheist with the disdain of republicans and stir them both into a rather sarcastic mix.

You make this post, and call him names?

[Prosperity]

You and I obviously define innocent differently:evilg:...as does the law.

You conflate innocent with perhaps not a threat any more.

Wonder how that came out?

As for your charity post...

My preference is to remove all tax exemptions from all organizations,and I put feet to it by claiming none.....The system is widely abused both by churches and non-profits(and of course individuals.

innocent until proven guilty, and dead men can't be proven guilty, so he was in fact legally innocent

My preference is to remove all tax exemptions from all organizations,and I put feet to it by claiming none.....The system is widely abused both by churches and non-profits(and of course individuals.

I don't know, I kind of like Churches I think taking tax exemption away would hurt them too much

[Thiebear]

You make this post, and call him names?

What?

I actually lol at that comment and thought it was spectacular in how articulately succinct it was.