I find it disgusting that access to healthcare isn't automatically considered a right.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I find it disgusting that access to healthcare isn't automatically considered a right.
Amen to that. BTW, did you hear what the Pope said today? Hey, I really like this guy.
You mean this? Pope Francis: 'I prefer a church which is bruised, hurting and dirty'
No, I hadn't heard. Thanks for mentioning it. I love Papa Francesco. We share a namesake. I think he will go down as one of the greatest Popes. We really needed someone like him to remind the Church of its true mission on earth.
Yes, and he also assaulted unbridled capitalism as encouraging too much disparity of wealth and fostering greed.
Indeed. There have been many pronouncements from the Vatican criticizing out of control global capitalism. The Church has its own economic philosophy called Distributism, which is similar to socialism but they wouldn't call it that because the Church tends to be pretty iffy over that label thanks to the abuses of the various Marxist states towards religious freedom. It's sort of answer to problems in both socialism and capitalism.
Distributism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As for me, personally, I'm a socialist, as you can see from my avatar.
In your experience, what fraction of Catholics share your leanings on this? With us Jews, there's a lot, let me tell ya.
A large amount. It's pretty popular in South America, due to liberation theology (the belief that Christ came to uplift the poor and other oppressed peoples). Some of the more conservative figures in the clergy don't like it and try to suppress it, but the tradition still lives on. There's been various clergy and lay members who were important figures in Christian socialism and Christian communism.
Liberation theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christian communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christian anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Of course, Dorothy Day was an important proponent of Christian socialism as well as Christian anarchism, and she's on her way to Sainthood: Dorothy Day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The conservative corners of the Church are wary of anything resembling Marxism due to the abuses committed by states like the USSR. That has led the Church to side at times with right-wing regimes that didn't threaten clerical power, which was a big mistake in hindsight. But left-wing Catholicism is still very much a force to be reckoned with. I hope that eventually the more conservative parts of the hierarchy come to the understanding that not all forms of socialism, communism and anarchism are a threat to Catholicism. Some forms are extremely compatible with Christianity and closer to the message that Christ preached. I view capitalism, especially in its current form in America, as evil and I don't see how a Christian could support it in good conscience.
Actually, I'm very familiar with liberation theology, but thanks for the links. One of the most awe inspiring conversations I had was with a priest from El Salvador who was the priest of the two nuns and lay ministers murdered by pro-government assassins in the 1980's. We got so wrapped up in our discussion that we actually skipped a meeting we were supposed to attend. He invited me to come down and spend a summer with his group, but I couldn't because of work.
I also had a friend (she passed away about 5 years ago) who worked with Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers, and I got involved with them for about 10 years. One of my fondest thrills was having a one-on-one conversation with Chavez.
BTW, I'm positive that I was and probably still am on an FBI watch list because of some of the meetings I attended years ago, but I'm really harmless as my main religious hero was Gandhi, which is another story, but I'll spare you that one.
Really? I blame the status quo primarily on you lefties, especially your Democrats.
This mess of endless wars, crony capitalism, bloated nanny state, & Obamacare is primarily your party's work
Libertarians are quite powerless.
I bet you can't even name one of us in power off the top'o your head.
I'm looking at the larger status quo, one which makes Obamacare less feasible.There's been one side in this healthcare debate that has been adament we return to the status quo....and it ain't the democrats.
And the first thing your party did when Obama won was continue the Bush agenda.No it hasn't. I'm shocked you could even part your lips to utter such nonsense. Like I've said before - All hands are dirty but it was Bush and friends who fed us false information and ultimately lied us into two unfunded wars.
I agree.It was Bush's unfunded Medicare Part D that greased the pockets of big pharma. Many in the Republican party get their "kicks"from big oil, big pharma and big insurance....And don't think for one moment I'm singling out Repubs...many Dems suckle the corporate teet as well. And there's no such thing as my party being responsible for the nanny state. Many of these laws that went into effect stared with bypartisan support.....and as of today..a vast majority of people on welfare and other public assistance programs are from staes that vote heavily red. Many of the states that get back more from the feds than what they give are red states...
Figured it out? Hah! I'm the one who educated you on our being extremist losers (not that it wasn't obvious to most). We scare the social conservatives, the slackers suckling on gov's teat, the power hungry Vogons, meddling social engineers, the economic micro-managers, the theocratists, the drug warriors, etc, etc. And we have really poor social skills.Your party is powerless for a reason. I'm not sure you've figured out why.
See! You can't blame us for your government's massive & pervasive failures.Your party has had only a hand full in politicians throughout the country in low level local races/office over the years.
I'm looking at the larger status quo, one which makes Obamacare less feasible.
All Presidents continue many of the things inherited from former Presidents. Don't think for one moment that I've condone all of Obama's policies because I don't. I do recognize that when this administration came in many of the Bush policies that had little oversight were given more oversight and there some of the programs and techniques in the Bush administration that were not adopted by this administration. I don't see it as pub vs. dem......I just don't see the viability in your party to matter. This may be more to do with your party's inability gain public support.And the first thing your party did when Obama won was continue the Bush agenda.
I believe that once again you're imagining this to be a Pub vs Dem competition.
I see it more as a small minority of us against both of your parties.
While it's true we control the Senate and the Presidency..we've hardly been in charge. Much of this president's agenda has been stopped in the House and filibustered in the Senate. Anything passed was with bipartisan support out of the Senate and the House with the president's signature....I hardly see that as being in charge.I agree.
Both parties are at fault.
But you guys have been in charge for half a decade now, & it's high time to take a lion's share of the culpability.
I never tried to. You just don't matter enough as a party for me to care.See! You can't blame us for your government's massive & pervasive failures.
Never said you did. I called attention to the (Libertarian and Republican) free market mantra...tis all.But I'm just having fun responding to your ludicrous accusation that Libertarians are worsening things.
Me too...The only thing we ruin is our own dreams of political success.
Long ago I ditched the illusion that we'd ever matter.
This sentence suggests that continuance is inevitable. But no, it's a choice.All Presidents continue many of the things inherited from former Presidents.
Oh, I know. But it's much more fun to closely tie you to Obama.Don't think for one moment that I've condone all of Obama's policies because I don't.
If you agree that my party is feckless, then your argument that we're blocking your nanny state evaporates, bub.I do recognize that when this administration came in many of the Bush policies that had little oversight were given more oversight and there some of the programs and techniques in the Bush administration that were not adopted by this administration. I don't see it as pub vs. dem......I just don't see the viability in your party to matter. This may be more to do with your party's inability gain public support.
Being in charge doesn't mean you automatically get your way.While it's true we control the Senate and the Presidency..we've hardly been in charge. Much of this president's agenda has been stopped in the House and filibustered in the Senate. Anything passed was with bipartisan support out of the Senate and the House with the president's signature....I hardly see that as being in charge.
Of course you don't care about us.I never tried to. You just don't matter enough as a party for me to care.
I inferred more from your post....Never said you did. I called attention to the (Libertarian and Republican) free market mantra...tis all.
Our screaming cannot be heard over your screaming "Gimme, gimme, gimme!".As long as you have Libertarians (using the word very lightly) and Republicans shaking their fist and screaming about "big gub'ment"....while partaking of said big gub'ment....we'll continue to see more of the status quo...let the free markets solve our woes.....
I've always believed that healthcare should be a right given to everyone simply because we're all human. Yet throughout this whole ACA thing I've been hearing opponents talk about healthcare as a "benefit" or worse yet a "privilege" as if it's something that should be "earned".
Seriously? We're not talking about a christmas bonus or being able to move into a bigger house. We're talking about people's lives here. I could understand people being against it because they think it will be less effective than our current system or far to costly to maintain (both of which are bogus as has been constantly shown, but that's not what this thread is about). But to be against universal coverage because you consider healthcare a benefit or privilege? That just seems so... heartless to me. Is it just me? Has anyone else come across this? Can any of those who favor it offer any justification?
No ****, sherlock. Again, you're preaching to the choir. I've acknowledged TO YOU that America spends an insane amount of money on its armed forces.
Our military isn't a service "rendered" to the American people in the same manner as Medicare and Medicaid.
I don't have to agree with everything that my political party represents. That makes me no less a Libertarian. I've said nothing on this thread that conflicts with Libertarian principles.
What do you not comprehend about "I support cuts"?
I'm just not going to throw labels around like "extreme"
when I'd like to examine what extreme cuts would look like and how they would impact Americans before voting in favor of them, just as I'd like to see a universal healthcare proposal before rejecting it on a ballot.
Make sense?
Yeah...I know...
You're using the term "extreme" cut backs without providing a definition as to what, specifically, that would detail.
Again, the Commonwealth of Virginia has one of the largest concentrations of military in the country. It would be unwise for me, regardless as to my political affiliation, to not consider my local economy when voting.
These aren't anti-Libertarian principles. I'm all for cuts. I want to see excess go.
There isn't anything anti-Libertarian about wanting "extreme" defined for me. You're throwing terminology out here that we're not using as Americans.
The Libertarian party isn't platforming for "extreme" military cuts. You're reading this yourself.
Explain to me how I'm not in support of:
i: A desire for military cuts?
ii: The Libertarian concept of a smaller military?
One thought and ideal doesn't necessarily negate another.
Our screaming cannot be heard over your screaming "Gimme, gimme, gimme!".
That says it all in a nutshell. People want something for nothing and vote for the folks who promise this.
51% want the other 49% to pay for everything. This is no different than 3 wolves and one sheep voting on whats for dinner.
This is why we are a republic. Thank God!
That says it all in a nutshell. People want something for nothing and vote for the folks who promise this.
51% want the other 49% to pay for everything. This is no different than 3 wolves and one sheep voting on whats for dinner.
This is why we are a republic. Thank God!