I am puzzled why the "no comment" religious leaders don't just say, "we believe in charity, not government mandated and controlled wealth redistribution." Thoughts?
CNN The ObamaCare Scandal You Have Not Heard About
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Possibly because they aren't able to pay for America's health care costs. The other problem for many churches is that because opposition to the president is their highest priority, they feel unable to align themselves with him on issues which they have common ground.
--Hiram
I guess my point is that no where in my religious teachings have I heard that we are obligated to pay "America's Healthcare costs".
That seems to be a Liberal belief, not a religious belief.
I am guessing the reason is similar to why Obama will not openly say that the wealth gap is wrong and that he is out to close it... It is just safer to say "they need to pay their fair share".
Maybe both groups think that we just "can't handle the truth"...
I guess my point is that no where in my religious teachings have I heard that we are obligated to pay "America's Healthcare costs".
Depends on whom you mean by "we", I suppose. While churches can't pay all of America's costs, certainly some churches believe they have a role in providing health care.
--Hiram
A caring charitable role of helping the truly unfortunate seems a long way away from being forcefully held responsible for all healthcare costs for the bottom ~30% of citizens. And reponsible for partial healthcare of another ~30% of citizens.
A caring charitable role of helping the truly unfortunate seems a long way away from being forcefully held responsible for all healthcare costs for the bottom ~30% of citizens. And reponsible for partial healthcare of another ~30% of citizens.
I just don't know how much difference matters. Churches, it seems to me, give care to those who need it. As far as I know, they don't have any scale of unfortunateness.
--Hiram
I guess I disagree. Many of the folks on welfare likely wouldn't meet the requirements of a charity. Often a charity expects the people to be trying to better themselves and their circumstances.
That doesn't seem to be a factor considered with the Liberal rob Peter give to Paul belief system. It seems Paul just has to be or act poor. Pelosi video
Many of the folks on welfare likely wouldn't meet the requirements of a charity.
That's why others must step in. That's why I like about the idea of entitlements, that we should be entitled to these things, and not vulnerable to the whims of charities.
--Hiram
So you believe that people like those in the video should be given free stuff because they choose not to work... Really?
So you believe that people like those in the video should be given free stuff because they choose not to work... Really?
I believe people should get what they are entitled to. They call them entitlements for a reason.
--Hiram
Amazing...
I'm actually OK with that, so long as we recognize that people are entitled to exactly everything they earn. Therefore, those on welfare will do without because those who are working are entitled to keep it. If they CHOOSE to share that wealth, through charity, that's wonderful. That way, it goes only to those who are trying to help themselves, and not to the freeloaders, as government "charity" inevitably does.
Post a Comment