| Is possible that the Right's opposition to universal health care is based in a conviction that illness is God's punishment? |
|
|
|
Asked 129 days ago
by dauguy  United States |
|
About
In nature, the Great Pyrenees is confident, gentle, and affectionate. While territorial and protective of flock or family when necessary, the general demeanor is one of quiet composure, both patient and tolerant. The Great Pyrenees is strong willed, independent and somewhat reserved, yet attentive, fearless and loyal to flock and family.
|
11 Points
|
Isn't that why the Reagan Administration refused to act on the AIDS epidemic for so long?
That's what I heard as well. Perhaps had they started "safe sex" and other means to reduce it's spread it never would have turned into the pandemic it has become.
Uganda started their ABC program (Abstinence, Be faithful, use Condoms)very early on. The President of Uganda even did whistlestop stump tours throughout the country preaching ABC, and as a result, Uganda under him reversed the incidence of new AIDS cases.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3250021.stm
This comment was deleted.
[5 points] 129 days ago by deleted user ReplyAnd all Calvinists.
Their 'double predestination' doctrine doesn't explicitly say this; but in actual practice, they pretty much believe you can tell who God has pre-0rdained for salvation by how well off they are here.
Oh, and all fundamentalist. Like believing that AIDS is God's vengeance for causing a person to be born gay--despite the FACT that most people suffering from AIDs are not gay.
And in America, where it is routinely believed that being poor is the person's fault, and in no way the due to the deliberate economic structure we have. So it must be their fault they are sick and can't afford a doctor, or perhaps even a bit of divine retribution.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
What are you drinking this afternoon? That is a pretty stupid assumption, Sweety!
RE: ...Calvinists. ...but in actual practice, they pretty much believe you can tell who God has pre-0rdained for salvation by how well off they are here.
These actions are caused by a misreading of Calvinist theology. As you said, it happens, but the Presbyterian Church USA has taken a strong stand against that teaching.
No, it caused by having known Calvinists.
Anybody can misrepresent their beliefs, even Calvinists B^)
Who cares what the official dogma is if the common belief is other? It it what people believe that (hopefully ) governs their actions. Like Fundamentalists, who nominally believe in Christ's teachings, but practice the OT xenophobia. Or Americans who nominally believe in freedom but have drug and abortion laws and favor illegal wiretaps.
You and I are not so far apart on our observations. I've seen the same thing as you describe and can name other things from the other side that would support your point.
But I don't believe that religion has any bearing on opposition to government health care. The opposition is partly about the cost, partly about the loss of freedom, partly about government tending to make a mess of anything they take over and partly about not believing that the current legislation will solve the problem. But the opposition has nothing to do with religious beliefs.
RE: fundamentalist ...believing that AIDS is God's vengeance for causing a person to be born gay.
I've heard this from a few. Most fundamentalists don't believe it.
Many Christians though, have a mechanical view of sin. And they believe that God sets his laws in place to protect us from evil. They believe that the laws of God works like the law of gravity. You ignore it at your own peril. And these same people see a terrible and unforeseen illness arise from homosexual contact. From their point of view, it's not vengeance, but it is inevitable. I don't know that it's anybody's theology, but the mechanistic view is pretty common.
Are you saying most people are just plain stupid? (At least those with average IQs [100] or less.)
No. I'm saying that many people have a different view of the way the world works and the media has distorted their belief system into something from the wacko fringe of Christianity.
If they don't believe it, they should call out their media leaders who say they do. They don't, so, it must be OK by them.
No reason they should. Anybody that believes that has a screw loose and won't be corrected.
Then they should not be upset if they are painted with the brush their leaders chose.
Given the vocality of the fundies, they AGREE, and that is why they do not speak out.
The people you could cite are not leaders. They are TV Evangelists. Most are a pimple on the ass of Christianity,
Like Rush Limbaugh? Like G.W. Bush? Like Newt Gingrich? I didn't know they were televangelists!
I never heard any of those three say that it is God's judgment. The only one I ever personally heard was Hagee. And he is an idiot.
The right will oppose anything the left comes up with. They would rather see the democrats fail than save the country. That is so un-patriotic and just plain wrong. To them the republican party is the most important thing.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
BS!
I also see the left oppose anything the right comes up with-I think it goes both ways.
The difference is the left doesn't call it unholy.
What difference does it make what they call it, if it is the same thing?
If it's not unholy of course it makes a difference; didn't your pastor teach you that?!! :)
No, the left does not try and say it is God's will.
So? What difference does that make, if the action is the same?
The difference between God saying, and a politician saying it. Or do you think that politician's voice carries, or should carry the same weight as God's (assuming you believe)?
God is unquestionable ( to a believer); politicians, and other human beings, are not
So, the issue you have difficulty with isn't the action, but the fact that some do it saying it is God's will?
Because God's will is unquestionable--and for people who don't believe in the Christian God--a majority of the people on earth--that is unacceptable.
Why is it you or I always get the last word? Don't the others care about the virtue of debate at all???
Just venturing a guess... it could be *they* don't have all responses to questions/comments forwarded to an email address they have set up specifically for ask500. Doing so makes it easy to "catch up" even days later. :)
No, it's because anyone makes and irrefutable point, they stop replying rather than saying that you have made your point.
And it rubs off. I used to, back when I first started posting here, acknowledge if my debating partner made a point. Now, I do not. An example fo the polarization that extremism causes.
If that were true, how do you explain Obama trying to include republican opinions all the time? It makes me mad that he does this. Don't need republicans and don't want them. They don't have any good ideas. All they do is say no but never come up with a viable idea. Right now I think the dems should take advantage of the numbers we have and don't worry about republicans. They don't want to move on, just more of the same. It doesn't work both ways as you may think.
So? Coalition building is NECESSARY for universal health care to pass. That is not anywhere near the same thing as saying it is God's will and doing nothing.
Don't you have to work with people who don't share your beliefs? Do you think everyone who participates in assembling a car shares the same beliefs? That every carpenter, drywaller, and general laborer on a skyscraper goes to the same church?
Aren't you happier with a boss that gets input from everyone, then makes his decision, as opposed to a tyrant that just tells you what will be?
Republicans don't ask others opinion on any topic. Listen to what they are saying now. Go against Obama, the democratic president at all costs. McCain tried it and look where it got him. Maybe people actually finally care.
Do you really believe that republican presidents never asked for democratic opinion, or listened when given? I find that hard to believe. Just because it was not addressed in the media does not mean it didn't happen.
Yeah, I saw how Bushie asked fro Democrat input.
Please remember--I am affiliated with neither party, nor do I think either acts in the people's best interest.
How did you see it?
Like Santa Claus--not at all. Bushie made a number of speeches in which he made it clear that he was pursuing his agenda despite any opposition or questions.
I am talking about modern times only. I don't know about years ago. Both Bush's never asked any democrat what they thought. Reagan never asked democrats what they thought. Yes I believe republicans don't care about any other party or opinion other than their own.
How do you know that (Bush's and Reagan never asking the opinion of democrats)?
Ridiculous!
I think only the stupid ones have this belief. Of course when you consider at least 20% of all Americans cannot read or write this margin is probably almost as wide as your hunch suggests. :-)
It's not the "illness", its the poverty level. Ie; its about the money, honey.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/06/hbc-90003020
A. God punished the evildoer by making him poor.
b. The poor cannot afford to treat their illnesses.
Conclusion: God punishes the evildoer with illness.
-The above statement is NOT the view of a Christian-
Sez you. MANY Christians say differently, and many more think it.
I think you are way of base. I don't know a single Christian that believes that. The world's troubles are caused by sin and sinful behavior. The evildoer's suffering is a natural consequence of his/her actions.
Listen to Rush Limbaugh sometime--or do you already?
I guess I must not listen to him much. What did he say? I know he generally doesn't say much of a religious nature and he is not a religious man.
He uses God to justify his pronouncements.
I haven't heard that, but like I said, I don't listen to him much.
Anybody else... Is dauguy right?
You are guilty of equating a fringe group with mainstream Christian thought. I think you know better, or at least you should. (given your background)
Which 'fringe' is that? The 29-30percent of the population that self-identifies as ;'fundamentalist'?
ONe in three is NOT a fringe. Hell, one in TEn isn't.
No, it's whatever percentage of Fundamentalists that are biblically illiterate. Barna would argue that they aren't even Fundamentalists.
That would be all of them. You cannot accept every word as literally true and biblically literate. But the literal truth of every word THE fundamental basis of Fundamentalism.
RE: You cannot accept every word as literally true and biblically literate and [be] biblically literate.
Well, that's our disagreement point then. I'll redefine my opinion. By not being biblically literate, I meant that they did not read and study their bible, much less theology texts. The fringe group I was speaking of must not know that God is a merciful God. They must be ignorant, willfully ignorant or not a believer. I think that the people that believe illness is God's punishment are ignorant of the facts.
Just because you read the book doesn't mean you are literate in it. That would be like saying you had read a play so were literate in Shakespeare. Hardly.
I don't know how else to say it. It's like telling you that those who believe "God helps those who help themselves" are not speaking for Christians and anybody that is biblically literate knows that.
Breathtakingly impenetrable.
You cannot be considered literate in the Bible just because you can read it. By that definition, anyone who can read a "women's room" sign is literate, even if they cannot tell you what it means, and can read nothing else.
Knowing how to read is not the same thing--it is only one component.
Use educated if you prefer, instead of literate.
OK