Clearly.
Who told you I was basing anything on a claim you made?
An adequate health system doesn’t mix church and state. Religious institutions are not necessary to the practice of medicine or the implementation of a state-owned insurer. You’re confused.
According to the priests I encountered as a kid, Jesus. Who told you that the church’s teachings on how to behave towards your fellow man only apply if you live in a theocracy?
“Evil” has supernatural connotations, it seems to me. I prefer to think of the American right as “vile”.
‘This evasion.’
There is none that you have stated. Please come back and try again, or thanks for playing.
You are developing quite the history of saying things like this - totally unsupported imputations of dishonesty that you hint are backed up somewhere in the history of this board.
Guess your Church’s ‘holistic teaching’ justifies that sort of thing somewhere, right? Must be in one of the less-cited Papal encyclicals.
[QUOTE]
I guess we can’t debate either the morality or secular justification of any indlvidual program, then.
Not to mention, you are lying. I am not ‘elevating this program above all else’ though it’s a pretty damn easy call to justify its being towards the top of the heap in terms of being able to justify it relative to other programs.
I am comparing it directly to another program, the proposed GOP tax cut. I am saying that it’s an easy call to justify this as being more valuable in the secular sphere and more moral from a Christian perspective than the difference between the richest 1% getting a $1.5 trillion tax cut, and only a $1.492 trillion tax cut.
It’s really a snap to elevate it above that.
Congratulations. You can regurgitate bullshit Fox News talking points.
And just because you choose to put some unsupported characterization of liberalism out there, doesn’t mean we have to debate it. Just because some conservative says “liberals are like this” doesn’t mean there’s any truth in it. It’s just a really mediocre level of intellectual dishonesty.
Why aren’t those sick kids pulling themselves up by their bout straps? We can’t allow a government based healthcare system that will encourage them to be remain dependent on government. much better that they rely and depend on the mercy of the righteous few who vote to ensure they remain dependent on the mercy of the church.
The Pope said that healthcare is a right, not a consumer good nor a privilege. He wasn’t addressing CHIP of course, but rather that so many people in the world do not have access to treatment or healthcare. I’m sure if he is aware of the children healthcare program, he also feels that tax cuts are more important, and that Christian mercy should not guide political policy. Take the pro life debate, for instance. No one who votes to enact an abortion ban is ever guided by religious motivation, right?
It is this sort of flippant non sequitur that prevents most of us from taking you seriously.
By your own standard — assuming the above is intended to be anything more than meaningless ass-scratching — you supported CHIP since it was enacted by the “rules of representative democracy, [expressing] our will of what’s legal, moral and right.”
Similarly, you supported Hillary’s murder of Vince Foster and the Benghazi Four(*), et cetera. I’m just quoting your own opinion back at you since Clinton and Obama were elected as “executive to express our will of what’s legal, moral and right.”
Get the picture? You’re so intent on throwing your putrid shit at the walls to express your anger that almost nothing you say makes any sense anymore or is, even within your narrow world, consistent.
I wasted tine perusing these links, and discovered that not one of them addresses the proof I asked for.
But I can’t say I am surprised.
Of course you also skipped the IMF study, from people who are not commies; not surprised by your bad faith.
Ok, does “So I’m told,” in these words you wrote refer to the immediately prior sentences? Who told you that my church’s teachings guide my behavior with respect to the formation of social policy?
Every leftist fuckhead that said prohibiting abortion would establish a theocracy.
Sorry. You don’t get to haphazardly apply Church teachings when they suit you. Secular policy must be justified apart from any references to a Flying Spaghetti Monster. That lesson has already been established.
QFT and I have to notice (again) that people like Orrin Hatch voted for CHIP. I guess he and several republicans also skipped the lessons that only Bricker and others “learned”.
Why should that have the slightest relevance to our debate about public policy?
Do you find his positions on same-sex marriage or abortion equally relevant?
Or do you just like the Pope when he agrees with you?
My position on abortion is not based on what the Pope says. Because that would be wrong. Everyone says so.
Is any aspect of your life based on or influenced by what Pope ? Why are you pro life? helping sick children is not matter for religious belief, but abortion? Is that not an aspect of public policy you would like to see guided by religious considerations?
Way ahead of you, I do remember that one point stasticians like Hans Rosling made was that to make a nation develop one very important piece was to have a healthy population.
The secular and more economical way to continue the progress of a nation is to also have healthy people that will then go to help others with their taxes in their old age.
You are welcome to your medicare later, even if you do not deserve it.
that would be one of the things, yes 
What the hell?
I never supported any such theory about Clinton: no Foster murder, no Benghazi, no pizza gate. I don’t agree any of those are true, so how in the world does this make any sense to throw at me?
Done with you, again. Bye. Hope your gut flora are doing well, and thank them for their continued participation in politics. Special shout out to the few that do take me seriously.
There is no area of public policy that I want to see guided by my religious faith.
It’s true that there are areas in which my desired outcome aligns with my religious faith, but that’s mere happenstance, and, indeed, if every single policy dictate I favored was different, then my faith would be guiding my choices as well.
No, no: the lesson is clear. Religious faith is simply an impermissible influence when deciding policy. That’s the rule. Your ideological brethren have made it clear; I have adopted it totally.
Now, in my personal life, a different answer is present. But those personal considerations are not remotely relevant to my secular public policy proposals.
Good point! Because though your church has a great deal to say about social policy, you seem to ignore any of it that would be left-of-center here in the U.S.
Well, sure. But a wide range of policy prescriptions are feasible, in the limited sense that they won’t sink the Republic anytime soon if implemented. And at least specious secular justifications can be found for pretty much all of them.
If you’re morally guided by your Church, and your Church urges policy prescriptions that are somewhere within that range of feasibility, why exactly are you not supporting them?
Prohibiting abortion might not establish a theocracy, but it IS an inherently theocratic policy. While it has the facial secular justification of protecting the lives of human persons, that justification rests on a very non-secular set of beliefs about when human personhood begins.
It is not good secular policy that has Christian moral justification as well - it’s strictly an imposition of religious beliefs on believers and unbelievers alike, like laws against dancing.
I’m ignoring all of it. No religious considerations for social policy.
So?
Because your ilk use them as weapons. You cherry-pick guidance when it suits you and screech like frightened geese when faith is used to advance a policy you don’t like.
But that’s not the principal reason. The principal reason is: because those teachings are not intended to be applied piecemeal. People wring their hands at the Church’s rejection of birth control, not understanding that the Church also teaches that sex is reserved to a marital act and in that context alone does the rule exist.
Not really. It’s perfectly possible to imagine a secular, atheistic affirmation of the need to protect human life in the womb, and more so not even necessary to imagine it: there are pro-life atheists.
No. It’s policy you don’t want, so it’s swept away as theocratic, your supposed interest in religiously based social policy a mere wisp of a memory now that we pick something you disfavor. Keep your theology off my biology!
Thank you for illustrating my point. “Some of us” are less interested in seeing other human beings – especially our own citizens, particularly children born into circumstances not of their own making, of one of the wealthiest nations on the planet – suffer needlessly in order to ensure that we can personally expand our own wealth well beyond that needed to provide the basic necessities they lack. You demonstrate that you are considerably more self-oriented and uninterested in finding common ground with your fellow Americans on a topic that seems to be pretty low-hanging fruit. Yeah, you know, the “think of the children!” variety. If we can judge the morality of a parent by how he treats his children, can we not assess the morality of a society by how it treats its children?
If this nation which ranks second in the world in GDP doesn’t have the resources to ensure that its own children are universally provided access to health care, let alone fed, clothed, housed and educated, we are doing something very wrong. Of the misallocating or squandering our resources type of wrong.
Stupid phone posting. But I am not Catholic, so for me the Pop is just some guy. I agree with some of what he says and not other things.