Obama Violating Separation of Church and State?

[East of Eden]

Obama recently attempted to get Pastors to use their pulpit to convince their congregations to go along with the his Health Care Program. He accused the opposition of violating the 9th commandment. He spoke of our obligation to be our brother's keeper.

Shouldn't those of you who oppose Christians trying to get their Biblical views enacted into law in regards to abortion, gay marriage, etc. be equally concerned about this?

It would be nice if Obama would be his own brother's keeper, who last time I checked was still living on $5 a month in Kenya. Perhaps while on vacation at that $20,000,000+ Martha's Vinyard retreat he'll have time to reflect on that.

[micatala]

I haven't read the thousand page proposal so where in said proposal is anything about fining people who don't have healthcare?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... -has-.html

I wonder if it ever occured to Obama that the reason some can't afford healthcare is because of all they're paying in taxes.

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I pay way, way more in insurance premiums, even with my employer covering a substantial amount, than I do in federal income taxes. Having children certainly helps. And I am not well off, but am making substantially more than the medium income in my state, either individually or by household.

Let's say you have a household income of $40,000. Even if you pay 15% of all of that in federal income tax, that is $6,000. If your insurance costs you and your employer together $500 per month, then it is also costing $6000 per year for your insurance.

If such a person factors in standard deductions, any dependents, etc., they are probably paying much less in taxes than even their out of pocket expenses for insurance, never mind any actual health care costs they have.


Anyway, it seems we are getting a bit off topic here. This should probably go in the other thread in this forum on health care or in a new one. The issue here is separation of church and state.

[McCulloch]

What I believe is not relevant. My point is that you as a believer in Jesus' teachings should admit that taxation was not opposed by your messiah. So how is it that you claim that taxation is wrong?

Show me where I ever said 'taxation is wrong'.

Did I misinterpret? Do you not believe that slavery is wrong? So do you believe that taxation is not wrong, except beyond some undisclosed rate? Or is it a necessary evil, to be minimized at all (human) cost?

You missed the point. People in the top federal tax bracket do not pay 35% of their income. They pay 35% of any income beyond a certain point. Their income below that break point is taxed at a lower rate. Thus, those in that bracket, after deductions and taking into account the graduated scale, pay significantly less of their income as tax than the marginal tax rate. Not that I doubt you, but you have claimed that American taxpayers are paying close to 50% of their income as taxes. Please show your sources and your calculations.

The link here has a slide show with computations. They do not include sales tax or gas tax, etc., or the many other hidden taxes. When you but a loaf of bread, there are passed-on taxes built in the price from the manufacturer.

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/tax-rates ... ama/82191/

Thank you.

The revolution launched at Boston was not so much over the rate of tax but a fight between the enlightenment idea of no taxation without representation (analogous to slavery) and the Biblical idea of being subject to governing authorities. The winners of that struggle, went forward and created the world's first modern secular nation, with the principles of the enlightenment enshrined in their constitution with religion relegated, as it should be, as a private matter.

I think even in the UK with a state church, religion is still a private matter, as the Muslims there would tell you.

Another non sequitur. The UK of today is not a valid comparison with the Boston Tea Party. Religion in Britain in the late 1700's was not a private matter.

[East of Eden]

Did I misinterpret? Do you not believe that slavery is wrong? So do you believe that taxation is not wrong, except beyond some undisclosed rate?

Tax rates of 50-94% are wrong, and are a mild form of slavery. Consider you could be jailed for not paying this tax.

Or is it a necessary evil, to be minimized at all (human) cost?

That would be my opinion.

Another non sequitur. The UK of today is not a valid comparison with the Boston Tea Party. Religion in Britain in the late 1700's was not a private matter.

I see what you're saying, but the Boston Tea Party was about taxation, not religion.

[McCulloch]

I see what you're saying, but the Boston Tea Party was about taxation, not religion.

OK, we agree. The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation, not religion. One wonders why you brought it up.

However, since you did, we can look at it from a religious perspective. The enlightenment thinkers, rebelling against religious conformity, shaped the philosophy of many of the American Founding Fathers. Their rebellion against that tax was firmly under the influence of these heretical thinkers. On the other hand, the Christian religion teaches submission to human governments and authorities, with the only exception being that a Christian should not disobey God to obey human governments. The King (and defender of the Faith) and the British Parliament, according to the Bible, were put there by God and good Christian colonists had no business objecting to any taxes, with or without representation.

[East of Eden]

OK, we agree. The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation, not religion. One wonders why you brought it up.

It was in response to your defense of high taxes.

However, since you did, we can look at it from a religious perspective. The enlightenment thinkers, rebelling against religious conformity, shaped the philosophy of many of the American Founding Fathers. Their rebellion against that tax was firmly under the influence of these heretical thinkers. On the other hand, the Christian religion teaches submission to human governments and authorities, with the only exception being that a Christian should not disobey God to obey human governments. The King (and defender of the Faith) and the British Parliament, according to the Bible, were put there by God and good Christian colonists had no business objecting to any taxes, with or without representation.

They had a right to express their opinion as far as the law allowed, I'm not sure I see a justification for a violent revolution. Your country doens't seem to have suffered for not having one. To the degree Canada is more socialistic than I prefer, that is your country's democratic choice. It isn't like the Queen imposed it on you.

[McCulloch]

They had a right to express their opinion as far as the law allowed, I'm not sure I see a justification for a violent revolution. Your country doens't seem to have suffered for not having one.

While we're off topic, my country had two violent rebellions. One on December 4, 1837, led by William Lyon Mackenzie who would later become mayor of Toronto and grandfather to a Prime Minister. There was one battle. The rebels lost. The other, Les rébellions de 1837–38, was a little longer, but also the rebels lost.

[East of Eden]

While we're off topic, my country had two violent rebellions. One on December 4, 1837, led by William Lyon Mackenzie who would later become mayor of Toronto and grandfather to a Prime Minister. There was one battle. The rebels lost. The other, Les rébellions de 1837–38, was a little longer, but also the rebels lost.

I should have specified, your country doesn't seem to have suffered for not having a successful violent rebellion against the UK.

[GentleDove]

From Page 2 Post 14:

Why do you think you have a right for the state to force other people to pay for your medical care? Can you offer verifiable evidence of this so-called “right�?

Because I'm a veteran of the US Army. It's in the contract.

Being a veteran is different from being an ordinary citizen in that you are receiving payment for your service to this country. (Thank you for your service to the people of the United States.) But it can be dangerous to veterans’ health to have people who believe euthanasia is good to be administrating and extracting money from taxpayers for their health care. I don't think this was "in the contract":

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 81718.html

On the issue of my considering it a right for all to have universal healthcare, I base it solely on compassion for those less fortunate.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. What I mean is that the wrong of going without medical care because of poverty (which is rare in the United States) is not corrected by the wrong of force-funded, centrally planned system of health care “insurance.�

Those of us who are compassionate should give to worthy charities that are responsible and accountable to those who donate and those who receive the charity and who can be prosecuted by the civil government if any wrong-doing crops up. And if we discover they aren’t worthy, then we can withdraw our financial support.

If the civil government’s socialized medicine program is ineffective or even involved in fraud or is ill-managed and bankrupt, who will prosecute the civil government? Do you think the civil government will “go out of business� if they mismanaged or misallocate resources or become too bureaucratic or otherwise inefficient and fail in the “health care business�? No, they will limp along, declaring “not enough money� the remaining market-based infrastructure to be the problem.

If anyone wants to be different from our congresspersons, he or she can read the bill here. Here’s the pdf format. (Sorry, I don't know why the url link won't work; might need to cut 'n' paste.)

Another thing: Why are members of Congress exempt from this wonderful socialized medicine program? And unions exempt from paying taxes for it? Wouldn’t they be eager to sign up themselves, if they thought “universal health care� to be such a good and compassionate program?

And why would illegal immigrants, who do not pay taxes, be covered under this new socialized health care proposal? (For more on this confusion, see pages 143 and 170 of the pdf of H.R.3200 above.)

Also, how is providing abortions “medical care?� It is ending life, not promoting life. Yet, millions of Americans who believe abortion is murder will be forced by this program to pay for the murders of unborn babies, as Associated Press (AP) now admits after getting caught.

And isn’t it ironic and weird that on the Health Reform web site, it says that the “threat of Medicare insolvency� is one reason we need the civil government to pass health reform legislation?

Yes, churches are succumbing to the socialist mindset, and Christians are ignoring God's commands.

So I contend where charity fails, and the free market fails, government should step up to ensure all its citizens can receive decent medical care. I don't doubt we can all quible about what constitutes "decent", but I would contend there needs to be some mechanism in place where folks who really need medical care can receive it, before it becomes a medical emergency.

We do have that system, limping on through decades of “help� the civil government has given it by giving special protection to the AMA, establishing the Food & Drug Administration, and passing the HMO Act, etc. With required taxes people will be less likely to give voluntarily to charity. The result of a “universal health care� will be less compassion, less responsibility, less accountability, and less health care for those who truly need it. People will think the state is like a bank, holding their taxes for them for when they get sick, like people now think Social Security is.

I do agree it would be great if this would occur - as long as folks were not unduly burdened with proselytizing.

Of course not. No one should ever be unduly burdened with anything, except taxes and long waits and ill health.

Until such time the issue can be solved without government involvement, I'd say having the government involved becomes necessary.

Does GentleDove consider folks with ill health as not deserving of medical care?

First, if people decide that avoiding hearing the gospel is an excellent reason to avoid going to Christian charities for help with their medical care, then that is their free choice to make. (Why don’t they go to atheist charities for help with medical care?) It is necessary for Christians to get serious about providing abundant care via Christian medical charities.

Second, the “medical care crisis� is not nearly the problem socialists say it is, and the rise of medical care costs over the last forty years have more to do with socialist interfering in the health care market than a rise in the real cost of medical care.

Third, medical care is not a “right,� it’s a responsibility of individuals, families, churches, charities, and the marketplace. People don’t want to examine their lives but just want “free money,� impersonally given to them to throw at their health problems, without taking responsibility for their own health care. The fact is that many medical conditions are caused by promiscuity, homosexual sex, using drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes, eating too much junk food, using birth control pills, poor hygiene, injuries sustained while “high� or while committing foolhardy or even criminal acts—in other words, there is a moral component to some diseases and injuries for which people want to avoid taking responsibility.

In these cases, especially, I don’t believe people have a right to force others to pay for their foolish or immoral lifestyles. Remember all the hue and cry over “OctoMom� receiving “public assistance" (redistributed tax money)? And she received some charity, as well. Subsidizing immorality and foolish behavior is something we all would have to accept as being the responsibility of civil government and our “collective� responsibility as taxpayers, if we accept “universal health care.�

And he seems overly interested in “aborting� the unborn and "euthanizing" the elderly in violation of the 6th commandment.

LOL The "death panel" myth lives.

Once again, I did not say anything about a “death panel.� That is your hyperbole.

I'll leave that one for the observer to decide. I personally see an implication in "'euthanizing' the elderly" of the death panel myth.

I’m not making that up as some kind of rhetorical hyperbole. Read pages 425 to 440 of the H.R.3200 pdf.

Read this interview with Obama. Here’s a section of the interview regarding “end of life decisions� regarding the elderly with anti-socialistic commentary.

Even pro-universal-health-care people are concerned.

President Obama’s advisor on the Health Care Bill, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel wrote this in a 1996 Hastings Center article: “This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.� Source

You don’t have to believe in God to know whether Obama is violating the 8th Commandment or not; all you have to be able to do is read. I brought up “breaking commandments� because, according to the OP, Obama accused Christians of violating the 9th commandment, himself bearing false witness against Christians.

Fair 'nuff. I still don't see how we can consider anyone in violation of "God's commandments" when we can't show God gives a hoot to begin with.

Then you have a problem with Obama, as he is the one quoted in the OP. I think the OP was referring to the story covered this article and this article.

[GentleDove]

In addition, look at the history of civil government involvement with health care; every time they pass some health care act, the prices for medical care rise, while the service goes down (government-required HMOs, government-required insurance plans, etc.). I doubt people really want medical care facilities to be run like the Post Office or the DMV.

Why is it that in countries with government mandated universal health care, such as Canada and the UK, any politician who advocates its removal is unelectable?

Because the voters are socialists.

You paint with a wide ideological brush.

Socialism is a broad umbrella, as the Wikpedia article I linked to explains.

Social democracy is notably different from Socialism. Key features in Social democracy are

1. Representative democracy
2. Civil liberties
3. Labor rights
4. Mixed economy
5. Welfare state
6. Fair trade
7. Environmental protection
8. Secularism

Social democracy is a type of socialism (economic theory) that is democratic (political theory). All democratic socialists campaign on those issues, I agree. There is a socialist way of defining each of those terms, in that the end economic “solution� is state planning and the seizing and funneling the people’s money toward each of those areas as the oligarchy (the small ruling class) sees fit.

While some members of the American Democratic Party could arguably be considered social democrats; however, the party overall is not usually considered to be advocates of social democracy like the Canadian New Democratic Party. It is more correctly described as Social Liberalism. If Obama is a a socialist then he is in good company:

• Tony Blair (UK)
• Willy Brandt (Germany)
• Ed Broadbent, Tommy Douglas (Canada)
• Stephen Lewis (Canada, UN)
• Nelson Mandela (South Africa)
• Golda Meir (Israel)
• Ralph Nader (US)
• Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson (USA)

I do think all of those you listed are (or were) socialists. They may all compromise more or less with other socio-politico-economic systems, to “get their foot in the door,� but the goal is to “progress� ever more toward a pure (utopian) socialism, where the state (democratically selected or not) controls the economy.

[youranilldonkey]

There is no law prohibiting "the separation of church and state" therefore no one is in violation of anything.


http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/huston/060723

...our nation was based on and intimately connected with, religious freedom. Not freedom from religion.

I don't think there is any reason to worry if the church starts preaching politics. But I would worry if the government started preaching religion.

That's my two cents.