Can you be a truly good Christian, yet be against universal healthcare?

[AllieBaba]

Hehe....

 

[Gunny]

Of course there is no defined, specific set of rules for all to follow. That is exactly why you can only apply the golden rule to one's specific moral code.

I don't think the government operates under the golden rule. If it did, we certainly wouldn't be invading other countries, would we? But if you think of the government as a single being comprised of each individual it represents than you can say that it isn't violating its golden rule by taxing everyone. Because the majority is in agreement that we should be taxed and the monies should be used to improve life for all.

You're arguing something completely different now, and either way, you are attempting to tailor the golden rule to suit your argument.

The golden rule is a statement made by Christ. It speaks to individuals, and applies only at the individual level.

I do not think of the government as an individual because it is not. And yes, even if the majority is in agreement that we should be taxed it STILL violates the golden rule because taxation is a levy by the government that DEMANDS you give.

It is you, and those who believe as you do forcing your beliefs on those who do not believe as you do. That is in complete contradiction to the golden rule.

You aren't allowing others to give what they wish if they wish. THAT would be in compliance with the golden rule.

You are demanding they give based on an amount YOU think is okay to support YOUR agenda.

 

[Gunny]

You're arguing something completely different now, and either way, you are attempting to tailor the golden rule to suit your argument.

The golden rule is a statement made by Christ. It speaks to individuals, and applies only at the individual level.

I do not think of the government as an individual because it is not. And yes, even if the majority is in agreement that we should be taxed it STILL violates the golden rule because taxation is a levy by the government that DEMANDS you give.

It is you, and those who believe as you do forcing your beliefs on those who do not believe as you do. That is in complete contradiction to the golden rule.

You aren't allowing others to give what they wish if they wish. THAT would be in compliance with the golden rule.

You are demanding they give based on an amount YOU think is okay to support YOUR agenda.

I would like to point out also that, ironically enough, you are using the EXACT SAME majority rule argument conservatives use regarding gay marriage.

Although I haven't seen this "majority" of which you speak in regard to this subject ... hypothetically, how does that work for you and not others?

 

[Glori.B]

The golden rule is a statement made by Christ. It speaks to individuals, and applies only at the individual level.

for the record, the "ethic of reciprocity" preceded christ's teachings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

 

[Gunny]

for the record, the "ethic of reciprocity" preceded christ's teachings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

Whether it precedes Christ's teachings is irrelevant as far as this thread is concerned since the original attempted guilt trip is based on the Christian belief of the golden rule as taught by Christ, not whether or not it existed in history prior to Christ.

I also take issue with the semantics used in equating the golden rule with "ethic of reciprocity."

The root word reciprocate means to do something in return, or interchange -- meaning there's an expectation of return.

The golden rule states you should treat others how you wish to be treated -- there is no expectation of return.

It does not state to treat them reciprocally. The golden rule would have to state you should treat others AS they treat you, not how you wish to be treated.

 

[Glori.B]

Whether it precedes Christ's teachings is irrelevant as far as this thread is concerned

yes, i realize... that's why i said "for the record".

the original attempted guilt trip is based on the Christian belief of the golden rule as taught by Christ, not whether or not it existed in history prior to Christ.

i agree it felt like a guilt trip.

I also take issue with the semantics used in equating the golden rule with "ethic of reciprocity."

It does not state to treat them reciprocally. The golden rule would have to state you should treat others AS they treat you, not how you wish to be treated.

did you read the wiki entry? the history is interesting... i guess you're thinking of jesus' expression of the golden rule in particular...

here's another way of looking at it, maybe more to your line of thinking in the context of this discussion...?

from wiki: "Confucius said in The Analects:

Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself. Analects XV.24

 

[Gunny]

yes, i realize... that's why i said "for the record".

i agree it felt like a guilt trip.



did you read the wiki entry? the history is interesting... i guess you're thinking of jesus' expression of the golden rule in particular...

here's another way of looking at it, maybe more to your line of thinking in the context of this discussion...?

from wiki: "Confucius said in The Analects:

Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself. Analects XV.24

I read the wiki entry. I also double-checked the definition of "reciprocate." I stand by my post. The word is used incorrectly. I'm not pointing that at you. btw. It's pointed at whoever coined the term "ethic of reciprocity."

As I posted earlier, the golden rule, as taught by Christ, neither compels nor expects reciprocation by definition. It entreats the individual to act unilaterally towards others regardless of how or if the individual is treated in return.

I am not arguing what terms wiki used, nor whether or not the ideal behind the Golden Rule existed prior to Christ. Clearly, wiki says what it says, and just as cleary the ideal of treating others as you wish to be treated existed prior to Christ.

I would be interested to know who exactly coined the term "ethic of reciprocity" as equating to the Golden Rule.

 

[Ravi]

Gunny, I was simply stating two things. IMO, taxation doesn't violate the golden rule. And the golden rule is just a guide to your own moral compass. The only way to violate it is if you act in a manner toward someone that you would not wish someone to act towards you.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny, I was simply stating two things. IMO, taxation doesn't violate the golden rule. And the golden rule is just a guide to your own moral compass. The only way to violate it is if you act in a manner toward someone that you would not wish someone to act towards you.

I know what you are stating. I disagree and explained why. Taxation and the golden rule are mutually exculsive. One cannot exist in the presence of the other. One is giving and one is taking.

By taxing -- taking from me via legislative demand -- to support your political agenda IS treating me in a manner in which you would not wish to be treated.

 

[Ravi]

By taxing -- taking from me via legislative demand -- to support your political agenda IS treating me in a manner in which you would not wish to be treated.

Ah, that's a good point. I'll have to think about it.

 

[Ravi]

I know what you are stating. I disagree and explained why. Taxation and the golden rule are mutually exculsive. One cannot exist in the presence of the other. One is giving and one is taking.

By taxing -- taking from me via legislative demand -- to support your political agenda IS treating me in a manner in which you would not wish to be treated.

It still works for me because I'm okay with other people trying to support their political agenda as long as it is constitutional. Welfare qualifies, imo. So does defense spending. Faith-based initiatives don't. I'm willing to give some of my income to the benefit of society and I would want others to do the same.

 

[manifold]

It still works for me because I'm okay with other people trying to support their political agenda as long as it is constitutional. Welfare qualifies, imo. So does defense spending. Faith-based initiatives don't. I'm willing to give some of my income to the benefit of society and I would want others to do the same.

It works for most people, to varying degrees. But it is still technically inconsistent with the golden rule, which is the wholly academic point we've been debating for several posts and pages.

 

[Ravi]

It works for most people, to varying degrees. But it is still technically inconsistent with the golden rule, which is the wholly academic point we've been debating for several posts and pages.

Feel free to explain how it's inconsistent with the golden rule.

 

[manifold]

Feel free to explain how it's inconsistent with the golden rule.

I already have. And so has Gunny and a few others. You just can't seem to come to grips with the idea that even though you might consider something best for the "greater" good, in this case taxation for welfare, defense, UHC etc., it still involves an element of coercion and therefore is inconsistent with the golden rule.

 

[Ravi]

I already have. And so has Gunny and a few others. You just can't seem to come to grips with the idea that even though you might consider something best for the "greater" good, in this case taxation for welfare, defense, UHC etc., it still involves an element of coercion and therefore is inconsistent with the golden rule.

You are still misinterpreting it. It doesn't matter if I think it is best for the greater good in relation to the golden rule. All that matters is that it is consistent with what I personally would approve of as treatment toward myself.

"Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you."

Since I don't have a problem with being taxed there is no way being taxed violates the golden rule for me. It might for you, but that doesn't matter. It's my consistency that I am testing, not yours.

As for being beaten and robbed, I don't want that treatment so I certainly would be violating the golden rule as applied to myself by giving it to someone else.

 

[manifold]

You are still misinterpreting it. It doesn't matter if I think it is best for the greater good in relation to the golden rule. All that matters is that it is consistent with what I personally would approve of as treatment toward myself.

"Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you."

Since I don't have a problem with being taxed there is no way being taxed violates the golden rule for me. It might for you, but that doesn't matter. It's my consistency that I am testing, not yours.

As for being beaten and robbed, I don't want that treatment so I certainly would be violating the golden rule as applied to myself by giving it to someone else.

I understand your point, and your reasoning. However I still disagree. You don't have a problem being taxed for "some" things but you do for others. You've already said so with regards to faith based initiatives for example. And since this is a philosophical debate, I dismiss any arguments rooted in current laws or constitutionality. Therefore, unless you are ok with 100% of your earnings being taxed for any purpose whatsoever, you are technically violating the golden rule by supporting the taxation of others.

 

[manifold]

OK Ravi, I think I can better articulate where we disagree on this.

I'll use welfare as my example.


You say taxation to pay for welfare does not violate the golden rule because you are ok with paying this tax and therefore forcing others to pay for it is not doing unto others as you would not want done to you.

I say taxation to pay for welfare does violate the golden rule because you are forcing others to pay for something against their will and that in fact does constitute doing unto others as you would not want done to you...specifically being forced to pay for something against your will. You are arguing the the "something" makes a difference, I'm arguing that it doesn't.

In short, you are justifying it on a specific case by case basis depending on the particular purpose. I am restricting the philosophical debate to the general concept of taxation, which is certainly a form of coercion, and therefore inconsistent with the golden rule.

 

[AllieBaba]

It still works for me because I'm okay with other people trying to support their political agenda as long as it is constitutional. Welfare qualifies, imo. So does defense spending. Faith-based initiatives don't. I'm willing to give some of my income to the benefit of society and I would want others to do the same.

Ok, once again for the peanut gallery:

Faith-based initiatives are not unconstitutional AS LONG AS they do not impede the rights of others to worship as they please.

Get it yet? People get to follow their faiths, even in politics. They get to use those faiths to guide them in their quest for whatever. SO LONG AS IN DOING SO THEY ARE NOT TRAMPLING THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS TO DO THE SAME.

So a faith-based initiative to ban abortion or gay marriage or whatever is OKAY so long as it does not make it a criminal act for others to pursue their own religion (PROVIDED those religions do not in turn trample upon the rights of others). This country was developed because the founders believed that all men, UNDER GOD are provided GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. Heaven forbid if they had been refused the right to faith-based initiative. But while their proposals were faith driven, they did NOT deny the same rights to others, which means they were A-OK.

Separation of church and state does NOT mean a complete stifling of all religion and religious motivation in politics. It ONLY means that the state cannot use coercion to force upon others a particular faith. It DOESN'T mean there is never to be any reference to faith anywhere, at any time, or that faith-driven legislation is automatically evil....

 

[Ravi]

Mani, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......................but then YOU are forcing ME to either live in anarchy or communism. So if I am violating the golden rule, so are you.

I don't wish to give 100% of my earnings for any purpose someone might dream up.

 

[AllieBaba]

So you're against UHC, I take it.