Affordable Health Care Law under review by SCOTUS

[In the Corn]

How does she feel about the need to stone people to death if they curse? Of course, it probably helps the parenting to mention that the penalty for failure to obey one's parents is also stoning....


Probably just best to skip over Deuteronomy altogether. Hell, probably skip Leviticus as well. That sh!t is Crazy (capital C).

Eld, this has been said before, but you and many others continue to drum the Mosaic Law, but you fail to read the New Testament that tells us that Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Laws, so please don't fabricate truth or speak about what you don't understand as to how I should raise my child. You do not understand totality of my faith, but pick and choose the parts that paint us in a bad light.

GITH, you skipped the part this:

I know that my standards as a follower of Christ are not the world's standards. I have no expectation that any person not a follower of Christ should have to live by his standards

I fully know that the laws of man, no matter where I live will not match up with my values. People should be able to take part in speech and actions that I do not care for. I can and will live with that. As I hope everyone can else.

[Fresno Bob]

I fully know that the laws of man, no matter where I live will not match up with my values. People should be able to take part in speech and actions that I do not care for. I can and will live with that. As I hope everyone can else.

so then while you are personally anti-abortion, you are pro-choice. An excellent stance I say!

[baldgriff]

Eld -
My point here is that you are making some general arguments - and using the brush that doesnt apply to the person you are addressing.

I deleted my post about ITC, because I didnt want to get in the middle of all of this. My brother can take care of himself.


The problem here is that your espousing issues of the poor - and the mistreatment of the poor to one who spends his life trying to help them.

So whether you intended it or not - your argument became ham-handed at the point you painted ITC with the poor brush.....

[baldgriff]

The United States is THE most giving country on earth, in terms of charitable donations. So why are there still poor folk? Why is the gap between rich and poor so massive? Why is more than one out of every five children living in poverty (2nd worst among developed countries ahead of only Romania)? Are we just not donating enough, despite ranking #1 in the world? If that's the case, why aren't all the other countries beneath us experiencing even worse poverty issues?

I'll tell you why --- individual giving is insufficient. The reason that other countries don't have the poverty issues we have, the reason they don't have folks in bankruptcy because of medical bills, the reason that they don't have children living in squalor to the degree that we do here in the United States is because of their governmental policy. When you support "every man for himself" government, you support, in essence, abandoning those most vulnerable. Yet the rhetoric here is that those vulnerable people are leeches unwilling to take personal responsibility. That kind of talk should be loudly disavowed by any reasonable Christian. But it's not. Not only is it not disavowed, it's directly supported with the vote via the misdirect on the issues of abortion and gay marriage.

Eld -
Charitable giving can be given to a great many variety of causes. "The poor" are not always the beneficiary of the charitable giving. Are causes like fighting MS, Cancer and other types of giving any less important? (its a rhetorical question). What Im saying is that many people and corporations dontate, but just not to the poor.

In addition to that, it is my experience that most giving through churches goes to "overseas" missions. Until about 5 years ago a majority of the funds donated at the church I attended went to Lysanka. The conference that the chuch was affiliated with spent most of its charitable dollars on programs that are outside the US. Churches in the past seemed to promote taking care of the poor and homeless overseas, rather than the homeless in their communities. I dont have a financial breakdown as to where donated funds are spent.

You are correct - the US is the most giving country in the world. I celebrate that. However, I cant tell people where to donate their money. Is it unfortunate that there are poor and impoverished in "the greatest country in the world"? Yes it is!

Just recognize that there are multiple ways of giving and that giving doesnt only go to the poor and destitute - it is going to mulitple other causes.

[Mithrandir]

Eld -
Charitable giving can be given to a great many variety of causes. "The poor" are not always the beneficiary of the charitable giving. Are causes like fighting MS, Cancer and other types of giving any less important? (its a rhetorical question). What Im saying is that many people and corporations dontate, but just not to the poor.

In addition to that, it is my experience that most giving through churches goes to "overseas" missions. Until about 5 years ago a majority of the funds donated at the church I attended went to Lysanka. The conference that the chuch was affiliated with spent most of its charitable dollars on programs that are outside the US. Churches in the past seemed to promote taking care of the poor and homeless overseas, rather than the homeless in their communities. I dont have a financial breakdown as to where donated funds are spent.

You are correct - the US is the most giving country in the world. I celebrate that. However, I cant tell people where to donate their money. Is it unfortunate that there are poor and impoverished in "the greatest country in the world"? Yes it is!

Just recognize that there are multiple ways of giving and that giving doesnt only go to the poor and destitute - it is going to mulitple other causes.

Forgive me if I wrong but you are not addressing what I think ElD is saying:

He is stating that Christians seem to support the GOP for one or two issues (gay rights, abortion being the big two) while failing to see that the GOP is anti-poor. If Christians are so adamant about helping the poor and disenfranchised, then why do they support a political party that goes against this very thing?

[johnnya24]

Forgive me if I wrong but you are not addressing what I think ElD is saying:

He is stating that Christians seem to support the GOP for one or two issues (gay rights, abortion being the big two) while failing to see that the GOP is anti-poor. If Christians are so adamant about helping the poor and disenfranchised, then why do they support a political party that goes against this very thing?

Good old fashioned Nationalism

[Mithrandir]

Good old fashioned Nationalism

i don't follow?

[baldgriff]

Mith -
I think it was hinted at earlier - if not outright said. People who call themselves Christian vote across the wide political spectrum. There is a group of individuals that do vote strictly on the abortion platform. That alignment in values may be the one biggest vote getter, and I would say is - if a person votes based only on one arguement - they may be short sighted.

However, I also have no idea what those individuals do personally to impact "the rest of the worlds needy".

Not trying to deflect, but its the best answer I can give - as I cant answer for every person that votes in that mindset.

[Mithrandir]

Mith -
I think it was hinted at earlier - if not outright said. People who call themselves Christian vote across the wide political spectrum. There is a group of individuals that do vote strictly on the abortion platform. That alignment in values may be the one biggest vote getter, and I would say is - if a person votes based only on one arguement - they may be short sighted.

However, I also have no idea what those individuals do personally to impact "the rest of the worlds needy".

Not trying to deflect, but its the best answer I can give - as I cant answer for every person that votes in that mindset.

Ok Thanks.

[johnnya24]

i don't follow?

God and country. The appeal to base Nationalism is how right-wing parties all over the world get poor people to vote against their interests. Nationalism and religion are both ideals poor and/or uneducated people buy into as an escape from the realities of their daily lives. Considering this demographic makes up the majority of citizens in most countries, it's not hard to see why this is an effective line. The GOP put both God and country front and center. People who buy into these ideals can be manipulated to believe anything ... they can be manipulated to commit even the most horrific crimes. Nationalism is probably the most powerful and destructive force after religion.

[baldgriff]

No problem.....

I just dont think we can blame the fact that there are poor on one group of people.

ITC for example is likely classified here as religious right - but didnt vote Republican and works to take care of those less well off.

[baldgriff]

Really? All this time I was donating to PETA and assuming it was clothing the homeless. :|

So the quit with the righteous indignation on behalf of the poor.

Seriously, you seemed to get pissed off about the following -

1) There are poor people

and you imply that its the Christians fault because they are not taking care of the poor.

You paint ITC in with a whole group of people - and it gets pointed out that:

1) ITC doesnt vote Repub
2) Works his ass off for Meals on Wheels taking care of the aging poor
3) All people have the ability to designate there charitable giving (poor, sick, research, etc....)

All you can come up with is the snarky PETA comment.....


You wanna do something about the poor - quit donating to PETA --- Seems like a reasonably snarky response.


People can continue to blame the Church for every ill and every person that has not been taken of.....

How about this, as a paradigm shift. Without people inside and outside faith communities coming together to take care of those less fortunate than themselves - the world would be a lot worse off.

[baldgriff]

Wide political spectrum? Hardly. Evangelicals voted for Romney nearly 80% of the time. White evangelicals in Mississippi voted for Romney 96% of the time (Obama garnered an impressive 10% of the white vote in Mississippi overall).

One in four voters in the United States is an evangelical Christian.

Evangelicals and Christians are two different things..... Again you are pointing to a group that is on the "Right" side of the political spectrum. There are many Christians that do not align themselves that way. Are there not Black or Mexican Christians??

Im not going to do a state by state analysis that says X group vote Y way Z% of the time.... its just not worth it. I can only speak to my personal point of view. Again, there are poor and sick and we should do what we can to help them. I voted Libertarian Party.

[baldgriff]

Here is the WIKI of SSI and Medicare......

Social Security and Medicare Johnson believes in continuing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for people who have already paid into the system because "there are people in need," and "government is the only entity able to provide in some cases."[20] But he believes in what he calls enacting "responsible entitlement reform," because the notion "that we can control spending and balance the budget without reforming Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security" is "lunacy."[10]

Johnson says Social Security is valuable and is fixable without raising taxes.[7] He wants "Social Security to reflect today's realities without breaking trust with retirees."[10] He supports raising the retirement age, multi-pronged means testing for Social Security recipients, and changing the escalator built into Social Security from the wage index to the inflation rate. He wants Congress to investigate privatizing part or all of Social Security with the goal being that the investment of contributions could be self-directed.[7]

Johnson supports cutting federal Medicare and Medicaid expenditures by 43% by ending the federal, top-down bureaucracy that controls these programs, including all strings and mandates to states. Instead, he would block grant the remaining funds to the states to control all aspects of their own Medicaid and Medicare programs, making for "50 laboratories of innovation" from which best practices would emerge and eventually be duplicated.[7] He believes the states will "innovate, find efficiencies and provide better service at lower cost." He says "common-sense cost savings" will place Medicare and Medicaid "on a path toward long-term solvency."[10]

Johnson believes that funding for Social Security and Medicare should not come from payroll taxes, but instead should be funded out of revenues from the FairTax.[7]



I voted Libertarian and comfortable with the SSI/Medicare Wiki post.... Additionally, I would agree with much of his other social stances.

[GwynnInTheHall]

The issues of abortion and gay marriage gets lumped into one general "Christians are bad" topic. I understand why, but it is really wrong.

What would it take for you to give up your abortion stance? You believe you are correct and I doubt anything could change your mind.

If someone believes that abortion is the killing of human being and that the killing of a human being is wrong. They might not want to be forced into saying it is right. Or support it in any way. Would you give up your stance on abortion in fact make abortion illegal to gain a win on the rest of your politcal views?

It's funny that I'm being the one characterized as "broad brushing' and generalizing here--yet people continue to attribute things to me that I have not said. NEVER have I ever said at anytime on this site that "christians are bad". Never.

and NO I'd never vote against my beliefs, which is exactly my point. One party has aligned itself with parts of christian doctrine (specifically the two planks I've mentioned) and that is why, as I've stated, I believe that the Far Right and those who support those 2 planks will vote for candidates who share the same beliefs--and lose elections--again--I've never said this was bad--just that it will lead to 12 more years of Democrats being president.