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

[Ravi]

Allie, that would be a good topic for another thread. For the purposes of this argument, I believe that they are unconstitutional.

 

[AllieBaba]

UHC is the topic of the thread, remember?

 

[Ravi]

So you're against UHC, I take it.

I am neither for nor against it. I honestly don't know the details and what I've heard so far just further confuses the issue. If you were asking me, that is.

 

[Ravi]

UHC is the topic of the thread, remember?

I meant faith based initiatives.

 

[ReillyT]

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....

This is legally wrong. You draw out the two extremes and pretend there is no middle ground. The 1st Amendment does not mean simply that the government cannot use coercion to advance a particular faith. Its scope is grander than that.

* Anyway, UHC is the topic of the thread, so I will leave it at that.

 

[AllieBaba]

Really? Is that something that's written down, or is that just your take on it?

 

[manifold]

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.

Now you get it.

I'm glad I was able to drag you into the light, even if you were kicking and screaming all the way.

 

[Ravi]

Now you get it.

I'm glad I was able to drag you into the light, even if you were kicking and screaming all the way.

Except that the point you are trying to make escapes me.

 

[ReillyT]

Really? Is that something that's written down, or is that just your take on it?

If by "written down" you mean: are there probably thousands of court decisions defining a more limited role of the state with respect to religion than you have suggested - then yes, it is written down.

 

[manifold]

Except that the point you are trying to make escapes me.

The point is that invoking the golden rule to support a particular position concerning government policy is folly. midcan5 knows this to be true, he's just playing games...not that there's anything wrong with that!

 

[Ravi]

The point is that invoking the golden rule to support a particular position concerning government policy is folly. midcan5 knows this to be true, he's just playing games...not that there's anything wrong with that!

Jebus, I never disagreed with that. Is that code for "uncle?"

 

[Glori.B]

The point is that invoking the golden rule to support a particular position concerning government policy is folly.

i agree!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Jebus, I never disagreed with that. Is that code for "uncle?"

Actually you DID disagree claiming that the Golden Rule DID apply to Government action.

 

[Ravi]

Actually you DID disagree claiming that the Golden Rule DID apply to Government action.

NO! I said that welfare or government programs didn't violate the golden rule, dammit!

And as far as I can tell, they don't. That doesn't mean they should be used to justify them. It just means they don't violate it.


aiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

 

[RetiredGySgt]

NO! I said that welfare or government programs didn't violate the golden rule, dammit!

And as far as I can tell, they don't. That doesn't mean they should be used to justify them. It just means they don't violate it.


aiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

The Government BY its nature VIOLATES the Golden Rule, period, end of story, claiming other wise is stupid at best.

 

[manifold]

The Government BY its nature VIOLATES the Golden Rule, period, end of story, claiming other wise is stupid at best.

Hey Ravi,

For the record, I felt compelled to rep RGS for this and I want you to know that I hold you personally responsible.

 

[Ravi]

The Government BY its nature VIOLATES the Golden Rule, period, end of story, claiming other wise is stupid at best.

I disagree.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I disagree.

And THAT is why we are all telling you you are wrong. Government BY ITS NATURE is not an individual, the Golden Rule can NOT apply. It forces people to do what it wants whether they agree or not. There is NO FREEDOM to Give or NOT give. You do or you get harmed by the Government. No option, NO choice. No matter how much YOU may agree with them, I promise you there are a shit load of people that DO not agree with any specific thing, no matter what it is, the Government forces them to do.

 

[Ravi]

And THAT is why we are all telling you you are wrong. Government BY ITS NATURE is not an individual, the Golden Rule can NOT apply. It forces people to do what it wants whether they agree or not. There is NO FREEDOM to Give or NOT give. You do or you get harmed by the Government. No option, NO choice. No matter how much YOU may agree with them, I promise you there are a shit load of people that DO not agree with any specific thing, no matter what it is, the Government forces them to do.

The government, like it or not, is a collective that forms an individual. Therefore, in acting in the best interest of itself (us), it is possible for it to violate or not violate the GR. There is freedom, it's called a vote, and it's coupled with freedom of speech. If the majority doesn't want to give, then we won't give. So far it seems to me that the majority wants to give. Otherwise we'd not be giving.

And we can probably all be thankful that the constitution exists to nullify the golden rule and prevents the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Gunny]

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.

Whether or not you agree with what it is being taken for, the fact that it is being taken means the golden rule doesn't apply.

The golden rule applies to what you are willing to give.

It does NOT apply to what you want others to give because that involves taking what's their's to suit YOUR agenda, not theirs.

The only thing that matters as far as what you are willing to give for is that it is not the same as what I am willing to give for. Therefore, by legislating it, you are taking what's mine, I'm not giving it.

I don't how much simpler I can make that. If you want to justify your willingness to give of other people's money, you're going to have to look for something other than the golden rule to do so because they are diametrically opposed.