Prosperity Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 It's very simple, really. Jesus did command us to help the poor and the sick. He did not command us to seek out the nearest government agency to do it for us (though he didn't say we shouldn't, either).If a person opposes health reform because he thinks it's bad for the country as a whole, he is not a hypocrite. If a person opposes health reform because he thinks it's good for the country as a whole, but he personally doesn't want to be inconvenienced by higher taxes or something, then he is a hypocrite. Unless you ask a person, and he is honest and tells you "yes, I'm a self-serving ****", that's something that's impossible to know, and so the thrust of this thread is ridiculous and unfair, just as it is unfair when conservatives point to what they see as the failure of the War on Poverty and assert that liberals care only about power, and poor people are just a means to an end. If a person wants to add a clause that prohibits healthcare to illegal aliens then.... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 If a person wants to add a clause that prohibits healthcare to illegal aliens then.... ? You shouldn't disparage your President :evilg: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/11/2065287.aspx The bullet points sent tonight by the White House: * Undocumented immigrants would not be able to buy private insurance on the exchange. Those who are lawfully present in this country would be able to participate. * Undocumented immigrants would be able to buy insurance in the non-exchange private market, just as they do today. That market will shrink as the exchange takes hold, but it will still exist and will be subject to reforms such as the bans on pre-existing conditions and caps. * Verification will be required when purchasing health insurance on the exchange. One option is the SAVE program (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) which states currently use to make sure that undocumented immigrants don't participate in safety-net programs for which they are ineligible. * There would be no change in the law that requires emergency rooms to treat people who need emergency care, including undocumented immigrants. There is already a federal grant program that compensates states for emergency room costs associated with treatment of undocumented immigrants, a provision sponsored by a Republican lawmaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 deleted post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 It's very simple, really. Jesus did command us to help the poor and the sick. He did not command us to seek out the nearest government agency to do it for us (though he didn't say we shouldn't, either).If a person opposes health reform because he thinks it's bad for the country as a whole, he is not a hypocrite. If a person opposes health reform because he thinks it's good for the country as a whole, but he personally doesn't want to be inconvenienced by higher taxes or something, then he is a hypocrite. Unless you ask a person, and he is honest and tells you "yes, I'm a self-serving ****", that's something that's impossible to know, and so the thrust of this thread is ridiculous and unfair, just as it is unfair when conservatives point to what they see as the failure of the War on Poverty and assert that liberals care only about power, and poor people are just a means to an end. The thrust of this thread is entirely fair because many right-wing Christians are, simply put, hypocrites. When these same right-wing Christians espouse policies that are, to me, entirely contrary to the doctrine that Jesus purveyed, then I think it is entirely fair to demonstrate this hypocrisy. And this includes saying health care reform is "bad for this country," even though it will provide assistance for those who need it, then yes, I think it is hypocritical. Especially since these same people supported spending a trillion dollars on war, but when it comes to welfare to help others, it suddenly becomes "bad for this country." These folks frame this debate in religious terms, so I am going to condemn them in religious terms as well. Even on this thread, when I quoted Christ, those words were brushed aside as if the "social justice" element of his words are meaningless. They're more happy with "Supply Side Jesus" instead of the Jesus that said to help the poor and the sick. It makes me think of this: It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. What are people such as Rush Limbaugh and other right-wingers who worship "gold" going to do? Sorry, I see a lot of phonies. That's just how I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 I'm not a Christian but I thought being a Christian meant helping your fellow man.The thing that really bothers me about the Christian Right is that they want to force their way of life on the rest of us. And that I think is totally uncool. Secondly, I think the Christian Right cares more about making money than actually helping people. That pretty much sums it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 And this includes saying health care reform is "bad for this country," even though it will provide assistance for those who need it, then yes, I think it is hypocritical. Implicit in your analysis is the assumption that health care reform will work and be a net good and be superior to any other method. You don't even have to be wrong to be wrong, here. As long as the opposition believes it's not true, it's not hypocrisy. Score points in your debate some other way. It makes me think of this: It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. What are the next 3 or 4 verses? What are people such as Rush Limbaugh and other right-wingers who worship "gold" going to do? Probably the same thing that left wingers that worship "gold" are going to do. Idolizing money (which is a sin) is very different from being rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 What are the next 3 or 4 verses? Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, but give to God was it God's? Jesus was all for paying taxes... sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 OT: Actually, regarding the passasge It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. I've read that what it refers to is than many walled cities of the time had entrances which contained baffles which were intentionally narrow, and required a u-turn to pass through. This was done to prevent invaders from moving large numbers of people through the entrance quickly, and to prevent them from bringing siege equipment with them. (Similar walls are used, today, at high-security vehicle checkpoints, to prevent terrorists from crashing a vehicle through the checkpoint.) These entrances were called "The eye of the needle". Supposedly, the "camel through the eye of the needle" passage was intended to refer to something which was difficult, not something that was impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Supposedly, the "camel through the eye of the needle" passage was intended to refer to something which was difficult, not something that was impossible. I've never heard that, but it doesn't really matter. Anyone that actually bothers to read the entire passage, and not one single line out of context, will find that George Soros still has a shot at Heaven, even if he is a liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 You shouldn't disparage your President :evilg:http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/11/2065287.aspx The bullet points sent tonight by the White House: * Undocumented immigrants would not be able to buy private insurance on the exchange. Those who are lawfully present in this country would be able to participate. * Undocumented immigrants would be able to buy insurance in the non-exchange private market, just as they do today. That market will shrink as the exchange takes hold, but it will still exist and will be subject to reforms such as the bans on pre-existing conditions and caps. * Verification will be required when purchasing health insurance on the exchange. One option is the SAVE program (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) which states currently use to make sure that undocumented immigrants don't participate in safety-net programs for which they are ineligible. * There would be no change in the law that requires emergency rooms to treat people who need emergency care, including undocumented immigrants. There is already a federal grant program that compensates states for emergency room costs associated with treatment of undocumented immigrants, a provision sponsored by a Republican lawmaker. well yeah, that's healthcare coverage, I'm talking about healthcare itself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 well yeah, that's healthcare coverage, I'm talking about healthcare itself Your point is that you want to make it illegal for anyone to provide health care to illegals, no matter who pays for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 That's not my point, but hasn't that been pushed around by the GOP. The whole rationale about how Obama was going to extend healthcare to illegals was that supposedly the government wasn't going to force hospitals to demand proof of legal status before they treated patients and thus the government was going to be paying for illegals. (which is the status quo) MY point is that there are a hell of a lot of people who oppose health care not because they think it will be an inefficient form of giving healthcare to those that currently can't afford it (except ER), but because they think it is inefficient to even give healthcare to those that currently can't afford it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 I think you are using the wrong definition of give But maybe not in all cases Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 It's very simple, really. Jesus did command us to help the poor and the sick. He did not command us to seek out the nearest government agency to do it for us (though he didn't say we shouldn't, either).If a person opposes health reform because he thinks it's bad for the country as a whole, he is not a hypocrite. If a person opposes health reform because he thinks it's good for the country as a whole, but he personally doesn't want to be inconvenienced by higher taxes or something, then he is a hypocrite. Unless you ask a person, and he is honest and tells you "yes, I'm a self-serving ****", that's something that's impossible to know, and so the thrust of this thread is ridiculous and unfair, just as it is unfair when conservatives point to what they see as the failure of the War on Poverty and assert that liberals care only about power, and poor people are just a means to an end. Not at all an unreasonable characterization but you failed to take a few things into consideration. First, when any faith-based movement supports anything political, it's only natural that people are going to examine the degree to which the movement's core principles agree with the positions it takes. Furthermore, as some have said regarding outrage from the left of various criticisms of Obama, politics is a dirty game. If you're going to get in the ring you'd better be prepared to have some mud thrown at you. Therefore, I have literally zero, zilch, nada, no sympathy whatsoever for the religious right groups on this. However, I think of the overarching general principles of the faith, 99.999% of all Christians can probably agree on love, charity and duty towards one's fellow man etc. Given those bedrock principles, along with the oft stated goal of the religious right to use government to bring their interpretation of faith into in other areas of society, I do think it's a bit inconsistent of them to oppose legislation that will help others gain access to healthcare. To be fair though, I think I have to state the obvious. Namely that the fly in the logical ointment of this argument is that there are often multiple interpretations of religious texts/dogma. That makes this a somewhat difficult case to make from the other side. However, beyond the issue of religious doctrine there's a more basic issue that in my mind makes me think of them as hypocrites. What gets them over the line IMHO is the inconsistency of their positions on similar issues based on nothing more than the source of the policy. So, when W. introduced the expensive and unwieldy Medicare Part D boondogle, we saw none of the groundswell of opposition from the religious right that we're now seeing to Obama's healthcare legislation. Then, there's perhaps the bigger issue of the tone their opposition has taken. I think the hateful tone and over the top demagoguery are completely and totally unChristlike. So, when W. and the GOP-led congress enacted Medicare part D, not only was there little or no opposition from the religious right, there also was a notable lack on their part of the type of language and tactics they've used to characterize Obama, i.e. as ungodly, a socialist, a nazi, un-American, or any of the other crap we've seen thrown at Obama over this. Likewise, there were also no references from the religious right to a "government takeover" of the pharmaceutical industry or exaggerated claims of euthanasia even though the part d drug benefit covered hospice and other end of life care. When a movement based on inserting religion into other areas of society opposes something like this, I think it's only fair to expect that they're going to get called on how that position squares with their core beliefs. Furthermore, when these groups have been inconsistent in their opposition to this type of legislation and has done so in a fashion designed to incite fear and loathing, they hammer the final nail in the coffin of my opinion of them. I think more thoughtful Christians, whether they support or oppose Obama's healthcare plan would likely agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Therefore, I have literally zero, zilch, nada, no sympathy whatsoever for the religious right groups on this. Frankly, I don't either, and within my circle of friends and acquanitances are some of the more significant players on the Hill. And, frankly, I doubt they want any sympathy, though as you say, politics is a dirty game and I'm sure that they, just like the left, will reach for whatever tool they think will get the job done. My objection came to the ridiculous oversimplification that it is unchristian to oppose health care reform. The reasoning appears to be that "I know what Jesus meant, and I know what he would want our government to do, and if you don't agree, then you're a bad Christian", an argument which is, quite frankly, leaving me wondering just which side the religious right is actually taking in this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 When a movement based on inserting religion into other areas of society opposes something like this, I think it's only fair to expect that they're going to get called on how that position squares with their core beliefs. Furthermore, when these groups have been inconsistent in their opposition to this type of legislation and has done so in a fashion designed to incite fear and loathing, they hammer the final nail in the coffin of my opinion of them. I think more thoughtful Christians, whether they support or oppose Obama's healthcare plan would likely agree. I agree,which is why I dislike mixing politics with religion...by doing so you taint the message. Individuals can(and I think should) be motivated by their beliefs as to their votes and policies they support,but that is a different matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Not at all an unreasonable characterization but you failed to take a few things into consideration.[rest of post trimmed] I think you've made a good point, as well. techboy's got a point, that there do exist Christian Libertariens, whose religion supports caring for the poor, but whose politics object to the government doing it. (And I think that there are a few of those, right here in Tailgate.) But I think your point has some validity, as well. That if, say, Pat Robertson (used here simply as an icon for the stereotypical Religious Right) says "well, my religion says I should care for the poor, but my ethics say it's wrong for the government to force my religion's morality on everybody in the country", then he's a hypocrite, because he's spent decades trying to use the government to force his morality on the nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 That if, say, Pat Robertson (used here simply as an icon for the stereotypical Religious Right) says "well, my religion says I should care for the poor, but my ethics say it's wrong for the government to force my religion's morality on everybody in the country", then he's a hypocrite, because he's spent decades trying to use the government to force his morality on the nation. I doubt that's what Pat Robertson would say. Actually, what does Pat Robertson say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Actually, what does Pat Robertson say? Oh why, Lord, does thou ask of me to wear a diaper? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share Posted September 12, 2009 My objection came to the ridiculous oversimplification that it is unchristian to oppose health care reform. I don't think so. If you look at the arguments against heathcare reform, they center on folks who don't want healthcare to be rationed, and folks who don't want the debt to increase. It's nothing more than saying you don't want to share resources or money with poor folks and certainly not with illegal aliens. It is that simple. Of course the religious right only accounts for a fraction of American Christians, so this does not speak to Christianity as a whole. But it speaks volumes about Republican Christians who oppose extending healthcare to the less fortunate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 It is that simple. Again, someone is sounding like the religious right, and I'm becoming confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Again, someone is sounding like the religious right, and I'm becoming confused. They have God on their side now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share Posted September 12, 2009 God isn't on anyone's side. Not even Notre Dame Football. Regardless, it has yet to be articulated how denying healthcare coverage to millions of unfortunate Americans is the Christian thing to do. We've all seen the arguments for several Months now right here on es. Healthcare is not a right-that's what our resident republicans say. That's what John McCain said in the national debates. Obama disagreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 If it is a right,is it a human right or a US citizen right?:evilg: It would appear to me we satisfy the human right to care with treating anyone with a emergency condition. Are we now stipulating preventive care is a human right? I would be much healthier if I didn't work so hard,is it society's obligation to care for me or not? Unfortunate can mean many things;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 God isn't on anyone's side. Come now,ya'll clearly are asserting Jesus would favor the health plan. In my world Jesus is God...maybe your world is different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.