In many parts of the world very few of the people we call Christians would be considered religous at all.
The TRUE values of the major world religens do not vary much at all.
Is there any evidence that many rightwingers want a theocracy?
To what are you alluding? Are you implying it's God's job to heal the ill and we shouldn't get involved because the citizens will like the government?
In the past Socialist and Communist governments were founded through force/violence. Furthermore, Socialism involves much more than social programs. To equate government medical care to Socialism or Communism is as silly to say Socialist and Communist countries must be Christian nations because they forbid murder just like the Bible does.
Were there elections to remove Stalin? Pol Pot? The North Korean leaders? Castro?
Got a question to ask in place of your stupid one.... When did those same people vote on their health care system?
The TRUE values of the major world religens do not vary much at all.
I can tell that America is a Christian nation because we are so loving and forgiving of our brothers around the world.
We accept their differences and help their needy.
And we would never attack them over political differences.
You're right. To date, the US has given more humanitarian aid around the world, than all other nations combined.
http://www.payvand.com/news/03/dec/1221.html
...a great example of us putting aside differences and helping even the Iranians in time of need.
I also agree, the US has never attacked another nation over political differences, to my knowledge.
You did very well!!
Yes, that must be what I am implying, because what I actually wrote is something so totally and completely different!
Brilliant, you are!
It's explained in the sentence to follow. In order to implement Communism, God has to be eliminated. Oh sure, you can continue to wrap socialism in the clothes of Jesus and pretend you are upholding Christian standards, as you do everything humanly possible to silence Christians and ostracize them from politics or government. It doesn't matter how covertly you destroy God, as long as that is the end result. It has to be that way, or Communism can't and won't prevail. The people have to be stripped of all faith in anything other than the state, so they will fully submit to the state. As long as God exists, they will always tend to rebel and rise up against the state, whenever the conditions get tough, in the name of righteousness and God's will. You see, they've been attempting this socialism and communism for a long time, and they've discovered this through trial and error.
To what are you alluding? Are you implying it's God's job to heal the ill and we shouldn't get involved because the citizens will like the government?
No doubt, they have tried all kinds of ways to make Marxist Socialist Communism work, peacefully, by force, by coercion or bribery, and also by masquerading as something else. They have discovered that the masses are much easier to control if they have no God to hang hope on. It's not that Marxist Socialist Communists mind killing millions of people, it's just easier and less problematic if they can transition the population from socialism to communism without the genocide and ethnic cleansing. They've tried it both ways, and it's just easier without God.
Got a question to ask in place of your stupid one.... When did those same people vote on their health care system?
Oh wait... I thought of a few better ones... How long do you believe the average peasant in North Korea, has to wait for an MRI? In Russia, how long does it take to see a doctor if you aren't part of the ruling class? If a Cuban tobacco harvester falls out due to heat stroke, how quickly does his communist government provide medical attention?
In msg #49 you wrote:
In msg #57 I asked:
If that is not what you're implying then why write it's necessary to destroy God in order to implement social programs? Why do people have to be stripped of all faith to realize medical care for everyone makes sense logically, morally and financially? In other words do you believe social prpograms are against God's plan/will?
Obviously you're unfamiliar with many northern European countries. Social programs work very well there. Medical, unemployment, day care....the list goes on. The world has changed since the text books of the 50s and 60s were printed showing only examples of forced take-overs of countries.
So now you feel it's your turn to ask a stupid question? It's apparent you have no idea the purpose of government and elected representatives. People voted for the representatives and the representatives voted for the health care system. As I've said, over and over, there is not ONE country that has government health care where the citizens want to revert to a "pay or suffer" system. Not ONE country. Not ONE exception.
What more proof do you need? As long or longer life expectancy. Much lower cost and not ONE country where the citizens want to dismantle the system. In fact, the citizens insist on keeping their respective plans. They demand the government provide "universal" health care.
The opponents of government health care can not point to ONE example where the citizens want to revert to a "pay or suffer" system so the question is, "What the hell is wrong with those folks who oppose government health care?"
In msg #49 you wrote:
In msg #57 I asked:
If that is not what you're implying then why write it's necessary to destroy God in order to implement social programs? Why do people have to be stripped of all faith to realize medical care for everyone makes sense logically, morally and financially? In other words do you believe social prpograms are against God's plan/will?
Obviously you're unfamiliar with many northern European countries. Social programs work very well there. Medical, unemployment, day care....the list goes on. The world has changed since the text books of the 50s and 60s were printed showing only examples of forced take-overs of countries.
So now you feel it's your turn to ask a stupid question? It's apparent you have no idea the purpose of government and elected representatives. People voted for the representatives and the representatives voted for the health care system. As I've said, over and over, there is not ONE country that has government health care where the citizens want to revert to a "pay or suffer" system. Not ONE country. Not ONE exception.
What more proof do you need? As long or longer life expectancy. Much lower cost and not ONE country where the citizens want to dismantle the system. In fact, the citizens insist on keeping their respective plans. They demand the government provide "universal" health care.
The opponents of government health care can not point to ONE example where the citizens want to revert to a "pay or suffer" system so the question is, "What the hell is wrong with those folks who oppose government health care?"
.In msg #49 you wrote:
In msg #57 I asked:
If that is not what you're implying then why write it's necessary to destroy God in order to implement social programs? Why do people have to be stripped of all faith to realize medical care for everyone makes sense logically, morally and financially? In other words do you believe social prpograms are against God's plan/will?
If you believe in God, you'll admit the most precious thing He gave man was a FREE WILL.....He must have given us that free will to use it....ergo, FORCING anyone to do something against their will is wrong and against God's will.....(There is no "God's Plan"....and if there was you wouldn't know wtf it was anyway)
YOU, PERSONALLY can be as charitable as you see fit...using your "free will"......you can't force others to be as charitable as you see fit or charitable at all for that matter.
Obviously you're unfamiliar with many northern European countries. Social programs work very well there. Medical, unemployment, day care....the list goes on. The world has changed since the text books of the 50s and 60s were printed showing only examples of forced take-overs of countries.
Your list is irrelevant....the conclusion they do good or are bad is irrelevant.....How others live their lives and what civil or moral values they use to live their lives is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS......as long as they don't harm you and your life personally.....
So now you feel it's your turn to ask a stupid question? It's apparent you have no idea the purpose of government and elected representatives. People voted for the representatives and the representatives voted for the health care system. As I've said, over and over, there is not ONE country that has government health care where the citizens want to revert to a "pay or suffer" system. Not ONE country. Not ONE exception.
Its you that has a warped sense of government....and your apparent desire to control the lives of others through the force of government.....simply put,
The first and main purpose of government is to protect its citizens from enslavement and physical harm from enemies, outside and even inside...
The second is to insure our FREEDOM to live peacefully within a society with as little government control in our decisions as is possible....
The third is to see that its citizens are treated equally as to punishment, the law, and opportunities presented.....not pitting one group against another or favor to one group
What more proof do you need? As long or longer life expectancy. Much lower cost and not ONE country where the citizens want to dismantle the system. In fact, the citizens insist on keeping their respective plans. They demand the government provide "universal" health care.
And WE in this country DEMAND FREEDOM above all else.
The opponents of government health care can not point to ONE example where the citizens want to revert to a "pay or suffer" system so the question is, "What the hell is wrong with those folks who oppose government health care?"
go meow
You should consider putting down the crack pipe before you post.
Its you that has a warped sense of government....and your apparent desire to control the lives of others through the force of government.....simply put,
The first and main purpose of government is to protect its citizens from enslavement and physical harm from enemies, outside and even inside...
The second is to insure our FREEDOM to live peacefully within a society with as little government control in our decisions as is possible....
The third is to see that its citizens are treated equally as to punishment, the law, and opportunities presented.....not pitting one group against another or favor to one group