Originally Posted By gadzuux >> you'd think anyone who claims to follow Christ is a gun-toting maniac racist. << I'd think that someone who claims to follow the teachings of christ wouldn't be so determined to prevent poor and sick people from receiving health care.
Originally Posted By ecdc I'm with Dave on this. It won't be a perfect plan and I'm irritated at the big pharma give aways and the watering down. But it opens up the door. It starts the conversation. That's extremely important. As for gun-toting maniacs, I'm deeply disturbed that Josh so willingly says it's ok for his church to get in the gay marriage debate because it's a "moral issue," but his church remains utterly silent on healthcare. Because apparently it's not a moral issue. I don't remember that Jesus guy saying anything about the sick and afflicted.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<I'm deeply disturbed that Josh so willingly says it's ok for his church to get in the gay marriage debate because it's a "moral issue," but his church remains utterly silent on healthcare.>> It's amazing, isn't it? They come running in guns-blazing so quickly when there is even a hint that gays might actually get equal rights. But providing health coverage to millions of people - not a peep. It's just sad where our churches priorities are. It just makes me sick that these so-called Christian churches line up so readily with a political party that is so greedy and self-serving!! It really begs the question - would Jesus really approve of the people these church leaders are associating with??
Originally Posted By utahjosh It's an age-old discussion. I do give much and help the poor and the sick, both money and time. My church encourages the same of everyone. That doesn't mean any government programs that claims to offer aid should be supported.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I have met liberal bigots and conservative bigots. Are more conservatives bigots? Probably. Something I'm proud of as a conservative? No. But, I don't judge my liberal friends through the tainted lenses of the worst liberal I've met and I hope my friends do the same for me. Darkbeer's presence here does nothing for me. I think he does more to hurt his cause than to help it but there isn't much I can do about that. The leaders in "my" party have done a greater disservice to themselves than Darkbeer can do.
Originally Posted By queenbee If the Mormon leadership is concerned with the poor and sick why have they not weighed in on this debate like did with gay marriage? Are you saying they look to "Ceasar" to regulate sexual behavior but not to care for the poor and sick?
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<You didn't get mad when we let a major US city drown.>> Anyone see the Top Gear episode where they visited New Orleans. They were simply aghast with what they saw.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "That doesn't mean any government programs that claims to offer aid should be supported." Nor does it require that your church should use money from its coffers to support bigoted legislation either. If you don't see the obvious hypocrisy in your church's voice on these issues then I don't know what to say other than that you are incapable of thinking independently.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt It looks like some liberals in the House are threatening to fight back: <a href="http://current.com/items/90720539_liberals-say-bill-without-public-option-wont-pass.htm" target="_blank">http://current.com/items/90720...pass.htm</a>
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Must one support 100% of a group's agenda to be a member and proponent of said group? I'll give a liberal example. I think PETA does some terrific things. But, they do some lousy things. Doesn't mean that, should you believe in the ultimate mission of PETA, you should throw in the towel on the organization. I'm Catholic. (One who chose to be...not that it matters, as I converted in my late 20s. I don't agree with everything the Catholic Church does but that doesn't make me want to denounce my Catholicism.) I suppose it would be a lot easier if the world were just black and white.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Must one support 100% of a group's agenda to be a member and proponent of said group?" Apparently so if you're a conservative Republican. In many ways I think this is one of the biggest differences between modern day Dems and Repubs. Members of the GOP seem much more willing to tow the line and stubbornly refuse to reach across the aisle while Dems end up with watered down legislation in an attempt to be bipartisan. This cartoon sums it up perfectly: <a href="http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/08/18/tomo/" target="_blank">http://www.salon.com/comics/to...18/tomo/</a>
Originally Posted By utahjosh Ah, Hans. What can I say to you, you already think I'm incapable of thinking independently.
Originally Posted By queenbee Josh, you have stated that the church felt justified in its actions regarding prop 8 because it was a moral issue. Why is healthcare for the poor and sick not a moral issue they weigh in on with the same ferver?
Originally Posted By ecdc I do want to say that I really appreciate wahooskipper posting in WEs. It can't be easy posting something and then having 10 people who disagree respond. It's probably tempting to just stay away when it's populated by a lot of frustrated people who are angry and irritated at conservatives, but he stays and remains reasonable, patient, and thoughtful. I appreciate it.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Thanks...and thanks for not jumping on me for post 51 in which I was clearly being racist for only wanting a black and white world.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Ah, Hans. What can I say to you, you already think I'm incapable of thinking independently." Yes, and with good reason. Your arguments do nothing to convince me otherwise.
Originally Posted By utahjosh And with your personal insults and a "holier than thou" attitude equal to or greater than mine, I'm not going to have a conversation with you.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Sorry you feel insulted. If you'd present a reasonable argument to support your stance (or that of your church) then I'd back off. I'm certainly not trying to insult you, but rather I'm trying to make sense out of your logic.
