Healthcare, socialism and christians

chaz345 said:

Like someone else said, if helping the poor and giving to the government were in any way related, then why did he separate it when he said to give to the government (Ceasar) what is theirs and give to God what is His?

Click to expand...

Err, because the people he was talking to were occupied subjects of Rome; not citizens who democratically elected and could un-elect Caesar.

I'm with you 100% on what you say re abortion.
There is no coherent logic to those who say that government has no right to decide what a woman does with her unborn child and yet who also say that democratically elected government should have a right to direct my money to alleviate the suffering of the sick and poor.

But you strike me as a clever individual and you can probably see how this argument can easily be turned round to attack a more typically "conservative" position

Each individual Christian is commanded to care for the sick and suffering.
Those individual Christians have a duty to do this in respect of every part of their lives. If they live in a democracy then this duty also extends to using their vote to bring about a government most likely to alleviate the suffering of the sick and poor.
Would you agree ?
If not, why not ?

Oneofthediaspora said:

Each individual Christian is commanded to care for the sick and suffering.
Those individual Christians have a duty to do this in respect of every part of their lives. If they live in a democracy then this duty also extends to using their vote to bring about a government most likely to alleviate the suffering of the sick and poor.
Would you agree ?
If not, why not ?

Click to expand...

Well I neither agree nor disagree.
But I would say my reason for not agreeing is based on the fact that to care for the sick and suffering means to sacrifice MY time/money/emotional energy on their behalf.
It doesn't give me the right to say other people should have to (which is what voting in favour of tax increases does).

But I am not the kind of person who thinks the government doesn't have the right to taxation. I just don't think I personally have the right to call for it.

chaz345 said:

That you don't have the specific skills to serve that specific need doesn't preclude you from individually or as part of a group, providing the resources that make it possible for someone with those skills to provide the services at little to no cost to the end user.

Click to expand...

That is my point exactly and I'm glad that we agree on this point.

So in the end, our difference are really just in how we define the bolded term. I define my community as "a group" and so therefore, paying taxes to the representatives of our community who have organized skilled workers to do that job, is a sensible thing to do. You seem to think that "a group" can only be defined as a private (for profit?... or is that not necessarily a pre-requisite) organization.


Another point that is being lost here is the confusion around "charity". I had originally agreed with you chaz, that charity is the heart of God's work. After some thought, I now have to disagree.

For me, compassion is at the heart of God's work. Compassionate is what God truly wants us to be. Charitable is too action specific whereas compassionate is a state of mind from which charity can arise.

Like someone else said, if helping the poor and giving to the government were in any way related, then why did he separate it when he said to give to the government (Ceasar) what is theirs and give to God what is His?

Click to expand...

As for this separation; I take it more to mean that God wants us to focus on things of value and to concentrate on what calls us towards work he approves of. IOW, we should not place such value in money; so much concern into what is "ours". Our "things" are meaningless, but what God wants from us is meaningful.
What I read with that question is this idea that money has to go to two places: Government and God.
God does not want our money. I don't recall Jesus talking about tithing ever (am I mistaken there?).
He wants His compassionate work done. THAT is what he wants. If we pay our money to help the poor with an open heart, why is that a bad thing?

If I happily and willingingly pay taxes to help the less fortunate, why would God be choked? Strike that.
Why would God care?
In my mind, money is not an object to be hoarded and protected. My money doesn't rule my life. God calls on me to pay taxes? Would God want my tax money to be used to pay for the flap on a wing of an F-16 or a soup kitchen?

When I see conservatives on here overly concerned with "who has control over there money", I think they are missing the whole point of Christ's message of the focus on Him. They are worried about the government taking all their money; statements like that suggest to me that their money has control over them.

a.d.ivNonasNovembres said:

But I am not the kind of person who thinks the government doesn't have the right to taxation. I just don't think I personally have the right to call for it.

Click to expand...

Government has the right to tax the people and you have the right to elect government.

Oneofthediaspora said:

Err, because the people he was talking to were occupied subjects of Rome; not citizens who democratically elected and could un-elect Caesar.

I'm with you 100% on what you say re abortion.
There is no coherent logic to those who say that government has no right to decide what a woman does with her unborn child and yet who also say that democratically elected government should have a right to direct my money to alleviate the suffering of the sick and poor.

But you strike me as a clever individual and you can probably see how this argument can easily be turned round to attack a more typically "conservative" position

Each individual Christian is commanded to care for the sick and suffering.
Those individual Christians have a duty to do this in respect of every part of their lives. If they live in a democracy then this duty also extends to using their vote to bring about a government most likely to alleviate the suffering of the sick and poor.
Would you agree ?
If not, why not ?

Click to expand...

I don't entirely agree simply because I don't believe that, in this country at least, government help is all that effective in alleviating their suffering. Rather, because of the way the system is structured, it creates a dependence.

As we've shifted more and more toward more and more government help for the poor, the problems of poverty haven't decreased, they've increased. Does private charity do a perfect job at helping everyone? Nope, but neither do government programs.

Also, like I said, I think there is a tendency by some to see how much of what they earn (when all levels and forms of taxation are considered it's close to half, even for the lower middle class) already goes to the government and feel that that means they've done their part.

rambot said:

He wants His compassionate work done. THAT is what he wants. If we pay our money to help the poor with an open heart, why is that a bad thing?

Click to expand...

Conservatives don't believe that is a bad thing. However, what the government has set up in the name of helping the poor is a bad thing. The deceptions about who gets helped, and how much they get helped are bad things. Counting assistance as taxable income is another bad thing. The erosion of more personal help as a consequence to the existence of these programs is another bad thing. The entrenchment of special interests as a another consequence of this system is another bad thing. The economic consequences which harm everybody, from the homeless person to the businessman who might have employed him if things were different is another bad thing.

rambot said:

If I happily and willingingly pay taxes to help the less fortunate, why would God be choked?

Click to expand...

With church-state issues, government aid cannot legally help the soul. And the way certain people in power are interpreting it, government funds going to religious charities have to come with regulations so that these people are no longer free to serve in the Lord as long as they get the money. Christians should be free to preach and pray when they need to. Now, some would say that having this program doesn't prevent this group from offering their services separately, and they don't have to accept the money. But the more we're paying in taxes for their secular competition, the less we can afford to donate to these independent Christian charities, which BTW, do a better job by and large. And the more Christians ask the government to do something that the church has historically done and is commanded to do, the more we are abdicating our responsibility. When something like 20% of the Christians do 80% of the work, as was the case in America several years ago, it's abominable - we should be giving more and and serving more, not asking the government to do it for us.

rambot said:

When I see conservatives on here overly concerned with "who has control over there money", I think they are missing the whole point of Christ's message of the focus on Him. They are worried about the government taking all their money; statements like that suggest to me that their money has control over them.

Click to expand...

Well, I happen to care if my tax dollars go to funding abortions. Excuse me for being concerned about that. I also happen to care that my money, depending on where I live, can go to teaching children things that are contrary to the Word of God. Excuse me for being concerned about that. I am concerned that by the time I have a family, I will be taxed and regulated to the point where I don't have very many options for providing for them and raising them. Excuse me for being concerned about that, too.

chaz345 said:

When Jesus made the call to care for the sick and poor, was he talking to the government or to individuals?

You seem to have fallen into the same misguided impression of American conservatives as the left here has which is that you are equating opposing GOVERNEMNT care for the poor and sick with opposing doing it at all.

Going back to Jesus, ALL of his directives and commands were aimed at the individual, were they not? Did he say "go and set up government programs to care for the sick and poor" or did he say simply "go do it"?

Click to expand...

Right... and our democratic government isn't indeed the way for individuals to band together and get things done... wait it is

rambot said:

So in the end, our difference are really just in how we define the bolded term. I define my community as "a group" and so therefore, paying taxes to the representatives of our community who have organized skilled workers to do that job, is a sensible thing to do. You seem to think that "a group" can only be defined as a private (for profit?... or is that not necessarily a pre-requisite) organization.

Click to expand...

I think our difference in not so much in definition of the word group as it is in the definition of the word compassion. "Giving" that is compelled by force of law has nothing at all to do with compassion. Advocating a position that requires others(as well as one's self) to "give" under such conditions has nothing at all to do with compassion.

I get what you are saying about God not really caring as long as the help is accomplished, but I don't entirely agree. Yes He's happy that he help is occuring, but the manner in which it is happening is relevant to some extent too. Compassion(defined as caring put into action) helps BOTH the giver and the recipient, "giving" that's done by force of law only helps the recipient.

MattLangley said:

Right... and our democratic government isn't indeed the way for individuals to band together and get things done... wait it is

Click to expand...

If by getting things done you mean getting people trapped into a generational dependence on the government then I agree, our government programs are wonderfully effective.

chaz345 said:

If by getting things done you mean getting people trapped into a generational dependence on the government then I agree, our government programs are wonderfully effective.

Click to expand...

That all depends on your outlook on government. Personally I like to view it for what it is, no more or less, it is a representation of us as a people. We vote who gets in so we get to control what happens. The government is a mirror into our people and if it isn't then those people are either too much in the minority or too lazy to influence it. So all the criticism you hold against the government simply reflects yourself, you can do something about it and posting here on this forum isn't one of those things that accomplishes anything.

Also we are already and always have been extremely dependent on our government. Remember that whole concept of taxes for protection that goes back in civilization's history. That makes us more dependent on our government than just about anything else.

chaz345 said:

One of the most liberal states in the country(MA) turned the state into a charity by putting a line on the tax form for additional voluntary contributions. The amount collected didn't even pay for the cost of changing the forms. Speaks volumes about how much liberals care. It's not about helping the poor, through goverment or otherwise, it's about solving society's problems using other people's money.

Click to expand...

This wouldn't be a character attack on an entire group, now would it?

What on earth are you talking about? Helping the poor is one of society's problems. "Liberal" isn't a tax bracket.

MattLangley said:

That all depends on your outlook on government. Personally I like to view it for what it is, no more or less, it is a representation of us as a people. We vote who gets in so we get to control what happens. The government is a mirror into our people and if it isn't then those people are either too much in the minority or too lazy to influence it. So all the criticism you hold against the government simply reflects yourself, you can do something about it and posting here on this forum isn't one of those things that accomplishes anything.

Also we are already and always have been extremely dependent on our government. Remember that whole concept of taxes for protection that goes back in civilization's history. That makes us more dependent on our government than just about anything else.

Click to expand...

I disagree entirely. We've come to the point in this country where we've got an almost separate "ruling class" of sorts. No one who hasn't been groomed pratically from childhood has any real shot at getting elected to any office that has any impact nationally. Not only that but it's been shown time and again that our elected representatives(both parties) are completely out of touch with the realities of daily life for Joe Average.

As for being able to do something about it, have you seen the rate at which the incumbent wins, even if they've completely ignored the wishes and needs of those they "represent"? Politics was never intended to be a lifelong career and of the few who enter for anything other than personal power, even fewer end up that way for very long.


On the last point, there is a monumental difference between being dependent on government for something like defense and being dependent on it for the provision of daily needs.

chaz345 said:

I disagree entirely. We've come to the point in this country where we've got an almost separate "ruling class" of sorts. No one who hasn't been groomed pratically from childhood has any real shot at getting elected to any office that has any impact nationally. Not only that but it's been shown time and again that our elected representatives(both parties) are completely out of touch with the realities of daily life for Joe Average.

As for being able to do something about it, have you seen the rate at which the incumbent wins, even if they've completely ignored the wishes and needs of those they "represent"? Politics was never intended to be a lifelong career and of the few who enter for anything other than personal power, even fewer end up that way for very long.


On the last point, there is a monumental difference between being dependent on government for something like defense and being dependent on it for the provision of daily needs.

Click to expand...

Ohh, so since it's hard you might as well not try? I'm sure that's the same attitude Jesus had going against an entire religious and political system of his time that ended up putting him to death. I'm sure Jesus would understand that it's a little hard in our modern situation compared to his.

Sorry no sympathy from me, many have gone the hard path and gotten into government positions of influence (the President really has limited power you can get in to Congress and make a change with a lot less work).

I guess we'll just have to disagree since I personally prefer my defense is a daily need, which includes military for protecting me daily against external attacks and the police for protecting me daily against internal attacks (as well as issues like keeping the roads safe, etc). I guess in your world the police and military can take a break on a daily basis and just check in every month or year?

MattLangley said:

That all depends on your outlook on government. Personally I like to view it for what it is, no more or less, it is a representation of us as a people. We vote who gets in so we get to control what happens. The government is a mirror into our people and if it isn't then those people are either too much in the minority or too lazy to influence it. So all the criticism you hold against the government simply reflects yourself, you can do something about it and posting here on this forum isn't one of those things that accomplishes anything.

Also we are already and always have been extremely dependent on our government. Remember that whole concept of taxes for protection that goes back in civilization's history. That makes us more dependent on our government than just about anything else.

Click to expand...

What you advocate is called the tyranny of the majority/democracy. Maybe if people opened up the constitution and read, they'd realize that this nation is supposed to be a republic which restricts the very same notions you support.

King Nebuchadnezzah said:

What you advocate is called the tyranny of the majority/democracy. Maybe if people opened up the constitution and read, they'd realize that this nation is supposed to be a republic which restricts the very same notions you support.

Click to expand...

You are mistaken.

Matt wrote: "We vote who gets in so we get to control what happens." Voting for representatives is indeed a republican form of government.

nvxplorer said:

This wouldn't be a character attack on an entire group, now would it?

What on earth are you talking about? Helping the poor is one of society's problems. "Liberal" isn't a tax bracket.

Click to expand...

Maybe the last part was, but the first part was a crystal clear example of how the left takes a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude when it comes to helping the poor.

MattLangley said:

Ohh, so since it's hard you might as well not try? I'm sure that's the same attitude Jesus had going against an entire religious and political system of his time that ended up putting him to death. I'm sure Jesus would understand that it's a little hard in our modern situation compared to his.

Sorry no sympathy from me, many have gone the hard path and gotten into government positions of influence (the President really has limited power you can get in to Congress and make a change with a lot less work).

I guess we'll just have to disagree since I personally prefer my defense is a daily need, which includes military for protecting me daily against external attacks and the police for protecting me daily against internal attacks (as well as issues like keeping the roads safe, etc). I guess in your world the police and military can take a break on a daily basis and just check in every month or year?

Click to expand...

The military serve a function that was specifically laid out in the constitution and given to the federal government. The police are locally funded and controlled and so aren't really relevant to the discussion. Where in the constitution is the power and duty to care for the poor given to the federal government?

I just realized that I've been remiss in bieng clear about a key point in my overall position. My issue is with the federal government taking over functions that were not constitutionally granted to it. The founders intended that as much as possible remained under state or local control where the voice of an individual or a small group of them theoretically has more influence.

chaz345 said:

Maybe the last part was, but the first part was a crystal clear example of how the left takes a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude when it comes to helping the poor.

Click to expand...

How so? Did you poll taxpayers to determine this? Additionally, your post was quite vague. I have no idea what the voluntary line was for. I certainly can't determine why someone would have checked that line or not.

The fact is, taxes affect everyone, not just conservatives. If a liberal proposes a tax increase, he is proposing an increase on his own taxes, not just "other people."

nvxplorer said:

You are mistaken.

Matt wrote: "We vote who gets in so we get to control what happens." Voting for representatives is indeed a republican form of government.

Click to expand...

Maybe you missed that part. That's called mob rule! 51% telling the other 49% what to do. A Republic protects the rights of individuals, including the minority. Using the gov't to FORCE your moral imperatives on others is tyranny. But, why stop there, why not use the gov't to enforce other Biblical principles such as no premarital sex, etc.??

nvxplorer said:

How so? Did you poll taxpayers to determine this? Additionally, your post was quite vague. I have no idea what the voluntary line was for. I certainly can't determine why someone would have checked that line or not.

The fact is, taxes affect everyone, not just conservatives. If a liberal proposes a tax increase, he is proposing an increase on his own taxes, not just "other people."

Click to expand...

The additional line was for any additional voluntarily contributions one may want to make into the state's general fund. Since liberals tend to pretty constantly think that the government doesn't have enough money, it was a perfect opportunity for them to put their money where their mouth is. Not surprisingly, not many did.