While I agree with some of the observations made by Rod Livdahl's in his June 10 letter to the editor, he sadly misses the most significant point completely. The issue has nothing to do with whether some crackpot believes God wants him/her to run for public office. The issue has to do with what the Bible says and what the Constitution says. The Bible says that the church is to help the needy and the Constitution says the government is to govern in a particular manner. The problem is that the government has trampled all over the churches' domain and has created its own Church of Welfare, Church of Unemployment Benefits, Church of Food Stamps, Church of Medicare and the list goes on-and-on. The problem is that these wasteful, inefficient, ineffective and corrupt institutions serve only to prolong poverty and line the pockets of the corrupt officials who implement them. That is the reason they should be eliminated!
John Katausky, Chandler
Dale Whiting posted at 8:06 am on Sun, Jun 19, 2011.
John,
You might have pointed out that Bush 41 advocated that 1000 points of light idea, i.e. that private institutions step in to take back charitable activities from government. That idea never crossed the end of the runway. Bush 41 also raised taxes after saying "Read my lips. No new taxes!" and otherwise angred the Neo-cons. Bush 41 was a moderate. He was accused of advocating for a "new global order," which is precisely what we have now, China leading the way.
But Bush 41 got dumped. Recall "It's the economy, stupid?" Obama is likely to face this same fait. Following Bush 41 we had 8 years of Clinton. The economy rebounded because of the US lead in technology, principly the internet economy. If and when Republicans take over from Democrats in 2012, they will find nothing to spur the economy forward.
Hate to be a prophet of doom, but if history is to teach us anything, it ought to teach us that we must completely reorganize our society to become competitive in the new global order. And Obama is the only candidate preaching anything close to that view. Hopefully one of the Republican candidates will either champion this point of view and get elected, or will get elected and champion this idea, a sort of stelth plank!
Leon Ceniceros posted at 8:06 am on Sun, Jun 19, 2011.
The Democrats started their ....CHURCH OF THE TAX & SPEND WELFARE PROGRAMS....back in the 1960's. Now the Democrats have their ....MESSIAH....in the White House = BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.
THE DEMOCRATS THINK THEY ARE THE "CHOSEN PARTY" AND CAN PERFORM MIRACLES WITH NO MONEY............JUST LOOK AT THE ....OBAMA-CARE .."LOAVES AND FISHES MIRACLE".....THERE IS NO MONEY TO PAY FOR IT....AMERICA IS ............IN THE HOLE FOR ....$14,000,000,000,000.00 (one dollar end on end from the White House in Washington, D.C.,.........TO THE SUN.
I GUESS THE WORD........."DEFICIT".........IS NOT IN THE DEMOCRAT'S VOCABULARY.
Cerulean posted at 12:55 pm on Sun, Jun 19, 2011.
John wrote, “The problem is that the government has trampled all over the churches' domain and has created its own Church of Welfare,”
Is this a joke? If not, are you suggesting that the church can or will pay the cost of health-care for the masses who cannot afford it in today’s market? This is not a funny joke, John.
I agree churches earn billions in tax-exempt contributions, and they should be able to do much more in terms of helping those in need – but the business of the church is to build a higher steeple, not to provide welfare.
Granted, church organizations do give charitably which is much appreciated by those who receive. This, however, is a fraction of the problem that exists in our country as it relates to those who are underprivileged and who are under-represented in government, as stipulated by the Constitution.
LEON,
CBO (Congressional Budget Office) ESTIMATES THAT . . . .“OBAMA CARE” . . . . WILL END “DEFICIT” SPENDING BY MORE THAN. . . . . $100 BILLION . . . . . . IN THE FIRST TEN YEARS.
THEN IT CONTINUES TO REDUCE DEFICIT SPENDING BY. . . . ONE TRILLION . . . . IN THE SECOND TEN YEARS.
Rich posted at 1:22 pm on Sun, Jun 19, 2011.
Is this a joke? No, it's remarkably accurate. Charity is a religious, not a secular function. So is marriage for that matter. The government has taken over so much of society that it is, in fact, a religious establishment in the sociological sense. And as to healthcare, the only real problem with it is that someone beside the patient is paying for it. It is a personal service that the government has destroyed by allowing insurance companies (the largest campaign contributors) to corrupt it into unaffordable, third rate assembly line service. Return it to the status of personal service and the market forces will make it among the world's best and most affordable.
Cerulean posted at 3:27 pm on Sun, Jun 19, 2011.
Rich,
Charity is not a secular function? I wonder what the Red Cross or Oxfam, UNICEF, Doctors without Borders, The Angel Network and many, many others would say about that. They are all secular charities.
It was health providers who demanded that Insures take some of the risk of health-care cost. Will your doctor accept patients who have no health insurance? As soon as insurers guaranteed payment for a customer’s doctor visit, costs skyrocketed into the stratosphere.
Marriage is both a religious and civil ceremony. And, health-care is too expensive in the sociological sense.
Rich posted at 6:56 pm on Sun, Jun 19, 2011.
Charity is not a secular function? I wonder what the Red Cross or Oxfam, UNICEF, Doctors without Borders, The Angel Network and many, many others would say about that. They are all secular charities. Actually they are secular scams. Look up the salaries they are paying out of 'donated' funds.Not exactly monks with vows of poverty.
It was health providers who demanded that Insures take some of the risk of health-care cost. Will your doctor accept patients who have no health insurance? As soon as insurers guaranteed payment for a customer’s doctor visit, costs skyrocketed into the stratosphere. Exactly, as a personal service it is better and affordable. Once government allowed the insurance industry (their biggest contributors) in the costs went through the roof and our life expectancy shrinks.
Marriage is both a religious and civil ceremony. No, marriage is a religious sacrement. The State simply got in the business to make a buck, now they're defining it.
And, health-care is too expensive in the sociological sense. Not in a free market, backed by the largest supporter of political campaigns, it is, But that's corruption, not economics.
Cerulean posted at 9:54 pm on Sun, Jun 19, 2011.
"No, marriage is a religious sacrement." It depends on your religion.
Rich says, no, no, no - corruption, corruption, corruption. No wonder you think government is like a church.
CSalafia posted at 9:20 am on Mon, Jun 20, 2011.
This is a typical misinterpretation of what scripture says. While, yes, it does say that the Church is to take care of the needy, it is also very explicit that this is ALSO the role of the Government.
The OT is not only to be used as a hammer to clobber your favorite scapegoats. In creating the nation of Israel, there are very specific commands, not suggestions, as to how the rulers are to treat the needy, the orphan, the immigrant, etc.
RationalHuman posted at 5:54 pm on Tue, Jun 21, 2011.
Too funny!
You religitards keep bleating about marraige - can you name ONE monogamous married couple in the Bible? Most had multiple wives AND concubines!
"Sacred" my patootie.
RationalHuman posted at 5:55 pm on Tue, Jun 21, 2011.
And
RationalHuman posted at 5:56 pm on Tue, Jun 21, 2011.
And let us hope the government does not TRULY become a church...just what we need, more tax-exempt criminals.