Opposition to Health-care Reform Revives Christian Right

[Midnight Judges]

Come now,ya'll clearly are asserting Jesus would favor the health plan.

In my world Jesus is God...maybe your world is different

very different lol.

[Midnight Judges]

If it is a right,is it a human right or a US citizen right?:evilg:

IMO it ought to be both, for reasons stated below. And there is no valid reason why we can't make that happen in the richest country on earth.

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?

IMO, it should be. In some cases preventative care can save a life. I'm perfectly happy to chip in my tax dollars towards that effort. And yours too [ducks shoe].

I would be much healthier if I didn't work so hard,is it society's obligation to care for me or not?

It is society's obligation to make sure all workers are able to survive on fair wages (IMO). That's why I support increasing minimum wage and extremely low taxes for lower income households.

Unfortunate can mean many things

I know what you mean by this and you are right. In my experience, sometimes you help people even if they won't help themselves, and you can't let that deter you.

[Smoot Point Really]

Reading these scriptural interpretations is comical... and totally irrelevant... The "Christian-Right" isn't the biggest obstacle to passing this massive overhaul of the health care system, but some want you to believe that.

Now, earlier, I wrote the following:

Liberals like doing "God's work" TO you, if you want it or not, with other people's money. How pious of them.

A few didn't understand why I said it... I don't really think I need to explain. However, I'll add the following: I don't respect a liberal's interpretation of scripture or their thoughts on "WWJD" in this or any scenario. 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).

Liberals combat Christian Conservatives by employing a tactic that is defined in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" (rule #4): Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. I guess it works for some... Many on this thread seem to be content with the tactic.

The biggest obstacle to passing this health care is the will of the people and the election in 2010... Of course, Democrats can (and probably will) get it passed... with or without Republicans.

[twa]

IMO, it should be. In some cases preventative care can save a life. I'm perfectly happy to chip in my tax dollars towards that effort. And yours too [ducks shoe].

I appreciate the thought and if they pass this idiocy I will be on the receiving end of your cash.

http://www.youtube.com/user/smileytwa#play/favorites/21/Q-5d5IfdYK4

[Vicious]

I don't respect a liberal's interpretation of scripture or their thoughts on "WWJD" in this or any scenario. 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).

Such generalization and hate. This is America, I don't think you could find any two people that have the same views on every subject, yet he lumps 150 million people into one pile and ****s on them. It's really funny, but still frightening that an educated human being is still able to think this way. I guess they didn't pay attention when fallacies were being discussed.

[Baculus]

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.

For those of us who support reform, yes, we do hope it will be a net good. But I never said anything about the reform efforts I support as being "superior to any other method" -- that's your own assumption based upon nothing I have said (since we haven't even talked about the mechanics of health reform in this thread).

Let's not throw out any red herrings.

There's also a lot of assumptions from these Christian right-wingers who oppose reform. Assumptions which influences their own conclusions.

[Baculus]

A few didn't understand why I said it... I don't really think I need to explain. However, I'll add the following: I don't respect a liberal's interpretation of scripture or their thoughts on "WWJD" in this or any scenario. 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).

Rubbish. And not only rubbish, but an elitist, inclusive way of looking at Christianity. This is the exact sort of small-minded hypocrisy that made me post on this thread in the first place. It's the sort of attitude that represents everything that's wrong with the Christian Right. You even denounce other Christians, as if your faith is superior to anyone else by virtue of their political stance.

Liberals combat Christian Conservatives by employing a tactic that is defined in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" (rule #4): Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. I guess it works for some... Many on this thread seem to be content with the tactic.

Can you imagine that? Expecting people to live up to their rules, especially when they use these rules to pass judgment on others.

No wonder so many of these high profile right-wing Christians end up in sexual scandals -- apparently their "codes of conduct" are rules to be ignored. And if you expect them to follow such rules, they sneer at your "radical tactics."

Which, BTW, was the main point of my postings . . .

The biggest obstacle to passing this health care is the will of the people and the election in 2010... Of course, Democrats can (and probably will) get it passed... with or without Republicans.

"Will of the people?" Oh, you mean the millions of people who voted for Obama and want reform? Or do you mean the folks in the other party who lost an election, but they still expect everyone to follow their lead?

Obama ran on health reform, and last November, the "Will of the People" spoke. THAT is the "Will of the People." Folks such as yourself seemingly cannot come to grips that Obama won the election. And yes, it will hopefully get passed, in spite of the GOP's effort to stop it while attempting to destroy Obama.

[Baculus]

Come now,ya'll clearly are asserting Jesus would favor the health plan.

In my world Jesus is God...maybe your world is different

Tell that to the folks who are always claiming that God is on their side. For years we've listened to the Christian-right-wing political connections and how faith inspires them to do one thing or another. Even this current political climate has been couched in terms of "God-fearing Christian patriots vs. Big Government Secular Marxists," with God, of course, being on the side of the latter.

Suddenly, though, when it comes to the issue of health care, Jesus's guidance is suddenly absent? We can ask for the guidance of God in war, which is what Bush did, but such guidance suddenly becomes inconvenient in this debate?

[Baculus]

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.

Very well stated.

BTW, I do not think H.R. 3200, by any means, is the only form of possible health care reform. If we can determine some other means of reform, I am fine with it, too.

[twa]

Suddenly, though, when it comes to the issue of health care, Jesus's guidance is suddenly absent? We can ask for the guidance of God in war, which is what Bush did, but such guidance suddenly becomes inconvenient in this debate?

Did Bush claim a mandate from God on directing the war?...I missed that?

Jesus's guidance is always available imo,but I would be careful claiming his endorsement lest you become what you dislike.

[The Sisko]

However, I'll add the following: I don't respect a liberal's interpretation of scripture or their thoughts on "WWJD" in this or any scenario. 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).

Who exactly are you to pass judgement on anyone else's interpretation of scripture, be they liberal, conservative or otherwise? And how is it that European/American traditionalists Christians are the "lucky" ones to be singled out for such "persecution"?

I will give you one thing though. You're on a real roll with ironically representing boorish behavior that the OP is trying to illustrate in threads. Think you can work one more in before midnight to get the hat trick for the week?

[The Sisko]

Very well stated.

BTW, I do not think H.R. 3200, by any means, is the only form of possible health care reform. If we can determine some other means of reform, I am fine with it, too.

Many thanks.

I agree with you about other methods of reform and sadly, that's one of the big problems I have with the GOP on this issue. If they were offering a competing vision for how to fix the system instead of simply opposition for the sake of it, that would be a good thing. As it stands, it appears they're completely bereft of ideas and are limited to using lies, mischaracterization and demagoguery in an effort to derail what has been proposed to fix the problem.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Nothing more Christian than wanting to deny health care to those in need.....:doh:

[twa]

Nothing more Christian than wanting to deny health care to those in need.....:doh:

Send me a donation in the interim ...it would be un-Christian to make me wait three yrs wouldn't it?

[techboy]

For those of us who support reform, yes, we do hope it will be a net good.

Irrelevant to my point. I'd hope that the supporters of reform actually believe it will work.

But I never said anything about the reform efforts I support as being "superior to any other method" -- that's your own assumption based upon nothing I have said (since we haven't even talked about the mechanics of health reform in this thread).

If it's not superior, then it should be opposed, and the better method supported.

Let's not throw out any red herrings.

I find most political debates tedious, so I can assure you I have no intention of tossing out any red herrings.

There's also a lot of assumptions from these Christian right-wingers who oppose reform. Assumptions which influences their own conclusions.

I don't care about their assumptions. I care about your unwarranted assumptions.

Nothing in this response even came close to my original point to you, which is that you are baking in the assumption that health care reform is of course a net good, and of course Christian opponents know it, so obviously are selfish, small-minded hypocrites that value their own money over the welfare of others, and don't care what Jesus said if its inconvenient.

That's just way too many assumptions, and so unless you ask somebody, and he says "Yes, I am a selfish **** that will condemn children to die that could have been saved by nationalized health insurance, because it means I'd lose 100 extra dollars a month out of my pocket, and screw Jesus too", I'd suggest you put down the paint brush and find another rhetorical point to try to ram home.

Even if you're right, you're wrong, because the issue is not whether or not health care is a net good. It's whether Christians that oppose it believe it's a net good and oppose it anyway, out of selfish desires.

So, unless you're a mind reader (because who's going to admit that), or you have a smoking gun like a private e-mail, you're out of line here.

Heck, even if you do have the smoking gun, you're still out of line, because that still speaks to an individual, and not the incredibly large group you're attacking.

P.S. How many Christian Conservatives are you friendly with in real life (not on a message board)?

P.P.S. Please learn to use the multi-quote.

[PeterMP]

Why doesn't anybody ever discuss the morality of leaving future generations huge amounts of debt for things we want, but don't want to pay for?

[techboy]

Nothing more Christian than wanting to deny health care to those in need.....:doh:

Nothing more Christian than supporting the party that supports abortion.

Yeah... not real fair, is it?

[twa]

Why doesn't anybody ever discuss the morality of leaving future generations huge amounts of debt for things we want, but don't want to pay for?

**** em ,daddy want's a new pair of knees

[PeterMP]

**** em ,daddy want's a new pair of knees

Well, some where along the line, I am going to need a new pair of knees.

[techboy]

Well, some where along the line, I am going to need a new pair of knees.

Don't be lazy. Grow them in your lab yourself, slacker.

[zoony]

as if this medical plan **** weren't confusing enough, now we're intertwining it with scripture.

****, what other **** can we pile on top?

[SkinsHokieFan]

Why doesn't anybody ever discuss the morality of leaving future generations huge amounts of debt for things we want, but don't want to pay for?

Ding ding ding.

There is an ethical, moral and legal issue with that. Which the entire political class (both parties) have been complicit in

[Jumbo]

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, you're still pretty much a "basket-case lite" at heart. :laugh:

But for awhile now it's been apparent to me that you regularly work at controlling it as much as possible since days past, and though the veneer is not especially solid or uniform, and this remark is a rather prominent display of the thin spots, I think your efforts count to the positive.

TB, fun stuffs in rebuttal. I particularly liked the abortion dig. But beware the Dark Side. The allure can be as deceptively subtle as it is beguiling.

This current area of discussion easily takes on the nature of catapulting bucketloads of gravel into an entire neighborhood of shared glass housing.

Hey zoony :evilg:, how about the next load of **** we pile on is working in the idea that so many of the objectionable illegals often discussed are both Christian and anti-abortion. So should the right hate on them for draining health resources or love on them for being their kind of folk and having such "anti-liberal values?" And should the left continue to defend them and appear to be so willing to provide succor, or should they be more invested in denial of free services and the pursuit of aggressive deportation to get their multi-baby-making God-fearing traditionalist candy-asses out of the country. :hysterical:

[AsburySkinsFan]

Nothing more Christian than supporting the party that supports abortion.

Yeah... not real fair, is it?

Which party is against abortion? (Keep in mind when answering, that I'm going to ask you to prove it.)

[AsburySkinsFan]

Why doesn't anybody ever discuss the morality of leaving future generations huge amounts of debt for things we want, but don't want to pay for?

You're exactly right! Why should we be saddling people with huge medical bills which ruin their lives because they either have to live under insurmountable bills or declare bankruptcy? Sorry, but you haven't proved anything with your comment except for the fact that you are apparently refusing to accept the reality that they are putting together a bill that is debt neutral. Now you may say that they'll never do it, and you might be right, but ya'll are kicking dirt in the grave before the body has even arrived, and that smacks of hackery. Maybe, just maybe what all of our politicians (and us as well) should be doing is actually working together to reform health care in such a way that the system will actually work for all people; but instead its easier to just shout "socialism" and stick our fingers in our ears yelling like 5 year olds while there are people out there who need health care and can't get it; not because they are stuck in the health care system, but because they are stuck in a partisan sniping argument about health care. Where one side is playing politics in the hopes that they can regain the majority again next year, and the other side is too fractured to gain a consensus.

And now the "Christians" are jumping on board saying its not the government's job to provide health care when their very health institutions routinely dump those who are the least able to pay on the very state run institutions that the "Christians" claim are not supposed to be responsible for providing health care...its just flipping stupid in its hypocrisy.