First Amendment Under Attack

[Rerun]

I hope we get what we believe.

       

[Hemodoc]

Actually, I didn't start this thread as a treatise on religion, but instead on the freedom of religion. Two quite separate issues.

I have no doubt Gerald that we have the Bible faithfully in English in the good old KJV as your ancestor helped translate.

I have no doubt that God alone placed His word in the Bible through His Holy Ghost.

I have no doubt that God set forth what was Scripture and what is not Scripture, not man. The Bible was NOT settled at the council of Nicaea. The Apostles knew what was and wasn't Scripture long before.

I have no doubt that the God of the Bible is both loving and just at the same time. That is why God sent His only begotten Son to die on the cross to satisfy both justice (payment of sins) and love at the same time. In the history of the entire world, there has NEVER been a greater act of love than the gift that God gave of His own son.

I have no doubt that arguing theology on IHD is about as useful as bubble baths for hogs so I won't venture there. In the end we all get to give account for our own sins and  no one else.

Now, the issue of first amendment rights is worthy of debate. That is the issue of this thread not religious beliefs in all their forms. The encroachment of gay rights over religious freedom is not new, only new to America. Europe and Canada are well ahead of us on this. It was only a matter of time before it came to our shores as well.

The next step of course will be enforcing this same interpretation in the churches themselves which will directly challenge the first amendment in its entirety.  For anyone who loves liberty, I would hope this is an issue that deserves discussion.

[Hemodoc]

Thanks Gerald for articulating much of how I feel about things.  I have great respect for those who choose to live in particular ways according to their belief that they will eventually face judgment  but I struggle mightily and am driven crazy by those who feel that the judging is somehow within their realm.  If we are indeed to be judged at the end it will surely be in our favour to have treated all  with kindness, including those with whom we disagree.

Keeping the freedom of your own beliefs is not judging. The bakers in recent Oregon case on the same issue stated they held no malice against homosexuals, they simply couldn't condone what they were doing. Once again, quite different issues. Freedom entails the right to say yes or no based on your own conscience. Now, the bakers in the case above have lost their religious freedoms by coercion from the government. Is that a good thing given the power to destroy that the government carries?

[G.Lively]

The title of this thread is about the First Amendment.  I assume the author of that title meant freedom of speech, which is only one part of the First Amendment.  Having said that, I expressed myself, per the rights outlined in the First Amendment.
My understanding of religion is complex but is based on empirical evidence as I found it.  Faith did not enter the picture.
Example: the Council of Nicea took place 1200 years after the birth of Jesus, the apostles were not around.  The 200 or so gospels were not all written by apostles. In fact, most gospels were written to reflect what someone else believed an apostle said. For instance, there are more than two gospels with the name "Paul" as the author.
I see organized religion as an entirely separate issue from faith in religion since religion itself is a personal belief. Someday we may see a survey of how many go to church just to hedge their bets that there might be a hell.  Then there is the religious right which is not about religion at all.  It is about pushing organized religion into officialdom.  I will believe what I wish and I will respect those who believe otherwise.
A side note:  I wish you wouldn’t quote the Bible on this public forum.  I find it offensive.



Gerald Lively

[Hemodoc]

Thanks Gerald, but let's start last first. I did NOT quote the Bible, just listed some of the things I believe simply as others before me did starting with you actually. But if I did quote the Bible, what of it? You are defending YOUR first amendment rights, but what of mine? You state what you wish and tell me to not do the same. Go figure.

Canonization of the Bible. The first council of Nicaea in 325 AD is where many credit the biblical canon. Today, many dispute this and place it at the council of Trent or other councils.

I go back to the Bible where Paul and Peter state what is Scripture. That is why I stated that the apostles knew what was Scripture and what wasn't. If you wish to believe in the "other" gospels, so be it. That is your right under the first amendment under freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Returning to the topic, first amendment rights. The religious right. I qualify for someone who would be part of the religious right.  I know of no one personally like equated who is pushing for a theocracy. The TEA party is the current harbor for most in the religious right and likewise, I know of no one advocating for a theocracy. Lastly, a theocracy is not advocated in the Bible either. So, that is news to me that I am supporting an effort for a theocracy in the US.

Further, the separation of church and state as I have mentioned several times on IHD originated in America in Rhode Island from it's Baptist founder, William Rogers and is truly the philosophical basis for the founding of Rhode Island as a separate colony.

I know of no one that wishes to have state sanctioned religion like Europe had before America became a colony.

I know of no one, such as those in the TEA party who support constitutional principles that wishes to have a theocracy. That is completely anathema to anyone who supports the constitution and the Bill of Rights, one of which is the topic of this thread.

If there is some fringe group out there who does want a theocracy, that is their right under the first amendment, but it is NOT the goal of anyone or any group in mainstream Christianity nor the TEA party.

Lastly, there are many in times past at this point who used the Christian base for political gain. Today, the religious right is quite "out" in the GOP. I could go into the biblical reasons why seeking political power jointly with the church is not condoned, but I would definitely have to quote the Bible. If you ever wish to hear why that is not a biblical direction, I am more than happy to oblige.

Have a great night, but I respectfully disagree with your pronouncements on the so called "religious right." But I do support your right to speak your mind and quote whatever you wish to quote and that does not offend me in any manner. After all, we both support the first amendment for all people, or are you in support of selective first amendment rights and we should suppress the first amendment rights of folks on the religious right? Your support of YOUR first amendment rights and suppression of my own first amendment rights is a bit confusing.

In any case, have a great night.

[G.Lively]

HemoDoc
It appears you can say what you wish.  If you begin quoting the Bible, I will not read it. 

[Simon Dog]

Further, the separation of church and state as I have mentioned several times on IHD originated in America in Rhode Island from it's Baptist founder, William Rogers and is truly the philosophical basis for the founding of Rhode Island as a separate colony.

I think you meant Roger Williams.

[G.Lively]

The far right-wing of the Republican Party, which includes the Tea Party, do advocate a mix of religion and governance. This did not begin with George W. Bush who proposed appropriations for faith-based organizations nor did it end with a monument in a courthouse sponsored by some judge.  Leadership of the far right in the House of Representative have all said something about mixing Christian principles with government, yet this group will not support help for the hungry, needy, or the sick.  Strangely unChristian, don’t you think?

George W. Bush talked with God, Nixon prayed on his knees to vanquish his opposition, Santorum proposes to regulate your sex life and along with Bachmann, wants to banned contraceptives and abortions from any government medical service and there are dozens of others in the House who support these ideas – which are all based on religious beliefs.   

“Tea Party supporters are much more likely than the public overall to cite “religious beliefs” as the biggest influence on their views of same-sex marriage and abortion. Roughly half of Tea Party backers said their religious beliefs are the most important influence on their views of gay marriage (53%) and abortion (46%).” PEW

“We received your message telling us that you want to keep religion out of schools.God was in our schools for over 200 years. When the radical anti-God people kicked him out:
1) Teen pregnancy went up 500%.
2) VD went up 226%
3) Violent crime went up 544%
4) SAT scores went down for 18 years in a row while before that it had never gone down more than 2 years in a row.
Our petition is to restore the student’s religious freedom given in the 1st Amendment. The bill would not have teacher led prayer but students would be allowed to pray if they wish to do so as well as speak about their faith.”
Frank G. Simon, MD, Director
American Family Association of Kentucky
PO Box 8089
Louisville, KY 40257
Email: fsimon@afo.net Website: http://afaofky.com
Website: http://teapartyofky.com/
Phone: (502) 893-2444
FAX: (502) 897-2426
The US Supreme Court has made several decisions on the separation of church and state, accordingly, to do otherwise is unconstitutional.  I could write a book on this subject, but I will spare you the drudgery of reading all of that. If you haven’t notice the trend toward theocracy, authoritianism, and perhaps, fascism, you aren’t paying attention.

You said, “Canonization of the Bible. The first council of Nicaea in 325 AD is where many credit the biblical canon. Today, many dispute this and place it at the council of Trent or other councils.”

First Council of Nicaea - 325

The First Council of Nicaea (/naɪ'si:ə/; Greek: Νίκαια /'ni:kaɪja/ Turkish: Iznik) was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. This first ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[5][6]
Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the nature of the Son of God and his relationship to God the Father,[3] the construction of the first part of the Creed of Nicaea, establishing uniform observance of the date of Easter,[7] and promulgation of early canon law
The council promulgated twenty new church laws, called canons, (though the exact number is subject to debate[58]), that is, unchanging rules of discipline. The twenty as listed in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers are as follows:[59]
1. prohibition of self-castration
2. establishment of a minimum term for catechumen (persons studying for baptism)
3. prohibition of the presence in the house of a cleric of a younger woman who might bring him under suspicion (the so called virgines subintroductae)
4. ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial bishops and confirmation by the Metropolitan bishop
5. provision for two provincial synods to be held annually
6. exceptional authority acknowledged for the patriarchs of Alexandria (pope), Antioch, and Rome (the Pope), for their respective regions
7. recognition of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem
8. provision for agreement with the Novatianists, an early sect
9–14. provision for mild procedure against the lapsed during the persecution under Licinius
15–16. prohibition of the removal of priests
17. prohibition of usury among the clergy
18. precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving the Eucharist (Holy Communion)
19. declaration of the invalidity of baptism by Paulian heretics
20. prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and during the Pentecost (the fifty days commencing on Easter). Standing was the normative posture for prayer at this time, as it still is among the Eastern Christians. Kneeling was considered most appropriate to penitential prayer, as distinct from the festive nature of Eastertide and its remembrance every Sunday. The canon itself was designed only to ensure uniformity of practise at the designated times.[60]

That man made the rules of organized religion, changed dogma and made many decisions that conflict with those of the Bible, ought to be clear.  I maintain that religion is a very personal matter and religious organizations are the antithesis of that concept.

You turn a blind eye to the notion that the Christian Right is involved in politics.  Even on the face of it, this is wrong.  “Separation” is not a vague word, yet it seems to be the interpretation of the Christian Right.  Wasn’t it the Tea Party negatively claimed that our President was a Muslim? Would the religious right-wing vote for a Buddhist, Shinto Priest, Muslim for President? Or a Secular Humanist?

Lastly, you have a First Amendment right to speak your thoughts.  I have a right not to listen.  Should you be in my home and we were discussing something, I would ask you to not to support your argument with Biblical quotes as you do now.  Or, I would toss you out if you failed to stop.  Courtesy would require you to stop.

I wrote this without proofing or reorganizing.  I hope it makes sense.  My eyesight is failing and I can go only so far.  Perhaps I focused too much for too long on cathode-ray tube presentations and listened to hard for obscure radio signals.  The old eyes and ears are failing.  However, I can still scan those old frequencies and identify what the signal is.  Kind of useless now.


Gerald Lively

[Hemodoc]

Christian principles are not at all the same thing as desiring a theocracy. Enough on that.

I am not Catholic so yes, organized religions have unabashedly perverted the simple gospel message. I don't disagree.

The last two administrations are the most fascist in our history. Are you saying Obama wants a theocracy? Perhaps as a Islamic caliphate perhaps. Once again, desiring Christian principles such as love your enemy, provide for the poor, pay your bills on time, be honest, etc, who doesn't desire that in their government but that does not in any manner support a theocracy. Once again, for constitutionalists, a theocracy is the last thing anyone wants. Christian principles, sure why not. The world would be a better place if more went back to those basics like our founding fathers for instance.

If you don't want to read what I write, fine with me.

Have a great day Gerald, I hope all is well with you.

Peter

[G.Lively]

As a student of social trends, I see the Tea Party promoting fascist principles.  Perhaps they do not realize this, perhaps they are as stupid as I imagine them to be.
On religion, perhaps we can agree.  I see myself as a Secular Humanist who recognizes the intentions of good behavior espoused by the Bible while recognizing the fallacies of organized religion.   As for quoting the Bible to support a point of debate, forget it.

[Hemodoc]

As a student of social trends, I see the Tea Party promoting fascist principles.  Perhaps they do not realize this, perhaps they are as stupid as I imagine them to be.
On religion, perhaps we can agree.  I see myself as a Secular Humanist who recognizes the intentions of good behavior espoused by the Bible while recognizing the fallacies of organized religion.   As for quoting the Bible to support a point of debate, forget it.

Thanks for calling me stupid Gerald, go figure, it didn't take you very long to venture there.

Fascist principles? Seriously Gerald, you need to stop watching the MSNBC propaganda kool aid drinkers. Promoting the principles of the founding fathers is NOT fascism. Go figure. Since when is supporting the constitution fascism??? Scratching my head on that one.

Lastly, why do you keep talking about me quoting the Bible when I have not done that at all in our recent exchanges??? Sorry, but you are way off base young man.

In any case, have a great day Gerald, off to do something better.

[G.Lively]

Unless you make policy for the Tea Party, I didn't call you stupid.  You ought to get that much out of my words.
Fascist principles;  racism, degrading the role of women, control of private lives, anti-intellectualism, condemnation of university teaching and education, condemnation of liberalism, corporatism (Italian fascism), destruction of contemporary government, rewriting history including text books; all policy decisions common with Hitler and Mussolini and the Tea Party. We could include war as a diplomatic solution, election rigging per ID laws and gerrymandering and a long list of other issues.  I am pointing this out as an indication of the trend set by the Tea Party in their actions, not in their propaganda.   

[G.Lively]

Dear HemoDoc:

The title of this thread includes advice to those with thin skins.  If you can't handle the freight, don't drive the truck.

[Hemodoc]

Gerald,

You have given me quite an education tonight. I had NEVER heard of the Tea Party/Fascism accusations so I googled that. Quite an eye opener.

So, quite  list you have above, but you are exposing your own biased views founded not at all on rationalism whatsoever while overlooking the massive power grab of the folks in office today.

Freedom of religion, separation of church and state and religious tolerance all have one thing in common, they are Christian principles. Those same Christian principles espoused by the majority that support the Tea Party principles.

If anyone is rewriting history, I would venture it is not the Tea Party folks who are in support of upholding the rule of law established in the constitution. America is indeed no longer a Christian nation today, but it is the secular humanist's that are rewriting early American history. An interesting history lesson documenting the Christian origin of the United States comes from a very surprising source, the US Supreme Court in a ruling in 1892.

Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States - 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

Even the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the First Amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc., and also provides in Article I, Section 7, a provision common to many constitutions, that the executive shall have ten days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While, because of a general recognition of this truth, the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that
"Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; . . . not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."

. . . These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.
[/i]

So, that is the world of 1892 and the historical references to America as a Christian nation still held in the records of the US Supreme Court. Today, the prevailing religious view is secular humanism and despite the Christian principles of liberty of conscience to all men, today,  the strong arm of government is wiping out any vestige of our obvious Christian origins by taking down memorials with Christian references placed generations ago. The concept of religious liberty espoused today by secular humanism is NOT the conscience of liberty granted by the founding fathers in their enduring wisdom brought forth by the principles of Christianity which brings individual accountability and conscience as the basis of basic human freedoms.

The Tea Party stands for limited government, personal liberty and a return to constitutional republicanism. That is NOT at all fascism as so many propaganda sites exploiting those ignorant of the real virtues of the Tea Party would have folks believe.

So Gerald, you are certainly free to believe and speak whatever you wish, but I would hope it would be free of ignorant propaganda of the true puppet masters in this nation seeking to create polarization and elimination of open dialogue between people with different beliefs. I would hope you could discuss things without resorting to such vehement and ridiculous accusations that are really beneath the respect I have developed for you in times past.

[Hemodoc]

Dear HemoDoc:

The title of this thread includes advice to those with thin skins.  If you can't handle the freight, don't drive the truck.

Too funny Gerald, not having thick skin is not at all a tenable accusation easily made against me here on IHD. If you have something to discuss, go for it, nothing you say can in any manner offend me.

[G.Lively]

HemoDoc;

I spoke of Tea Party actions, not policy.  Policy in that group is propaganda.  What the Tea Party does is what counts.
The majority of founding fathers were deists, not Christians.
Take any fact from my post and check it out, it is true, no doubt.
Study the elements of fascism and with an open mind, you should see it. I have already list some of those elements,
I know of the Texas School Board that approves text books got into a controversy about writing in conservative slants on history.  The majority of members are from the Tea Party.
Lincoln said government is by the people, of the people, and for the people.  I believe him.  So, where are those food stamps, unemployment checks, jobs bills, and why the bad position on healthcare?  Is not it a Christian principle to help these people?
Will the Tea Party vote for a Muslim President?


Gerald Lively

[Hemodoc]

HemoDoc;

I spoke of Tea Party actions, not policy.  Policy in that group is propaganda.  What the Tea Party does is what counts.
The majority of founding fathers were deists, not Christians.
Take any fact from my post and check it out, it is true, no doubt.
Study the elements of fascism and with an open mind, you should see it. I have already list some of those elements,
I know of the Texas School Board that approves text books got into a controversy about writing in conservative slants on history.  The majority of members are from the Tea Party.
Lincoln said government is by the people, of the people, and for the people.  I believe him.  So, where are those food stamps, unemployment checks, jobs bills, and why the bad position on healthcare?  Is not it a Christian principle to help these people?
Will the Tea Party vote for a Muslim President?


Gerald Lively

Not much on first amendment issues, but shucks, let's rip into some of these.

1) Healthcare. Who is defending Obama's position on healthcare today.  You will see the majority of Democrats come around to the Tea Party, true healthcare reform positions before the 2014 midterms.  As far as health care, centralized control of healthcare is a great danger as we are just beginning to see with the beginning of the Obamacare fiasco. We have yet to see the worst of the roll out, it is only the first salvos of the Obama healthcare debacle. If you really believe big government is where we should head for our health care, then there is not much to debate.

For myself, healthcare should be non-profit and between your doctor and you. Unfortunately, those days are long gone for just about everybody.

2) The 1892 SCOTUS ruling on the Church of the Holy Trinity spells out well the historical background of Christianity in America and it's influence on this nation. Just because Jefferson, Washington, Franklin and others were deists does not in any manner diminish the Christian influence before, during and after their time.

3) You worry about a minority faction with in the minority party in Washington today and these wild allegations of fascism against the so called Tea Party which has no party officers or any official organization. The Tea Party is in fact more of an ideology than an organization.  A large number of Tea Party folks are libertarians such as Rand Paul. I don't know anyone who would accuse Rand Paul of being a fascist but apparently some bloggers do. The other aspect of Tea Party folks are mainly evangelical Christians who once again are NOT fascist nor do they desire a theocracy as you keep falsely implying. I listen fairly frequently to these folks and have no clue where you get fascism out of their statements but so be it.

4) Christian elements of helping people. Absolutely but the Bible does not support socialism as the way to do it. Private property ownership and the "Christian" work ethic is at the center of how God Himself supplies our needs. As far as welfare as we know it today, that is not the Bible way. For able bodied people, if you don't work, you don't eat was Paul's admonition to those who did not hold up their own weight in work. For those who were unable to work and the poor, portions of the crops were set aside and the owners were told not to glean the fields. But it was up to the person looking for food to go out and get those provisions left for them, once again if they were physically able. There are many including Dr. Benjamin Carson who extoll personal study and hard word as the solution for poverty, not the current welfare system of the US that locks entire groups into dependency on the government often for life and often through several generations. This locks them into enslavement into permanent poverty and permanent diminished opportunities. Is that really the American dream?

Once again, the SCOTUS ruling in 1892 documents the vast Christian charitable organizations that took care of the sick and the poor:

. . .the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices. . .

But more than that, America was a land of opportunity due in large part to private property ownership and hard work. Today, that is one of the biggest hurdles we face with diminishing opportunity especially for youth without any tangible employment skills. Perpetuating the cycle of poverty, welfare and lack of education is not "Christian." Christian charities continue in abundance in America, but not to the extent that they did a century ago as we continue to see the secularization of American society. Thus, there is no indictment against Christianity, but our society in general and the direction it chooses to head.

I would point out the absolute failure of government agencies after Katrina to care for the people injured and homeless after this natural tragedy, it was instead the multitude of Christian volunteer organizations that gave the greatest help to these people. Government is not nearly as good at helping these folks as you allege.

http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/07_0820_katrina_volunteers_respond.pdf

http://risingfromruin.msnbc.com/2007/08/superstars-in-t.html

5) Will the Tea Party vote for a Muslim president? NO. Will the Democratic party vote for Ted Cruz? NO. Is that a surprise?

6) The Texas School Board, probably too large a discussion on this thread. Why not open up a new thread just for them if you wish.

7) Lincoln, a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Well, nicely stated, but do you believe what we have in Washington today is anything close to that with Obama? Sorry, apply your allegations for the Tea Party against this administration. Not sure why his abuses of power are overlooked and you focus on the so called Tea Party.

An interesting historical application is the implication that the Tea Party is analogous to the National Socialists who brought in fascism to to Nazi Germany. Just as the accusations of racism are completely unfounded, so to is this weird accusation of fascism. Once again, if you wish to debate that off topic issue, open a new thread.

[G.Lively]

Rick Santorum – today said, “If we have a system where the government is going to be the principal provider of health care for the country, we’re done. Because then, you are dependent on the government for your life and your health. […]”

Margaret Thatcher – “‘The British national health care system is safe in my hands”  Her comment on why the opposition was against universal healthcare;    “And the reason is because most people don’t get sick, and so free health care is just that, free health care, until you get sick. Then, if you get sick and you don’t get health care, you die and you don’t vote. It’s actually a pretty clever system. Take care of the people who can vote, and people who can’t vote, get rid of them as quickly as possible by not giving them care so they can’t vote against you. That’s how it works.”  She wasn’t going to take on health care, because she knew once you have people getting free health care from the government, you can’t take it away from them.

The ACA system is not free, even so, Santorum’s motives may have been described by Thatcher decades ago. As far as the health care system in Britain or in any of the many developed and civilized countries that have a universal health care system, they also are not free but are paid for through taxes. Those health care systems are designed that way because those countries understand that health care should not be marketed but something that all citizens should be provided, no matter their financial status. Someone getting sick is not a time to make a profit but a time to care for him or her, as any decent civilized society should do.
It is a shame that conservatives, especially those who claim the moral high ground because of their religion as Rick Santorum does, cannot understand that simple truth. Jesus certainly understood it as he was always healing the sick, wherever he went, which showed his compassion for them and his understanding that they should not have to suffer or die from being sick.
Certainly, if so-called Christians like Rick Santorum truly followed in the path of the one they claim to follow, and then if they cannot display the power of Jesus to heal, they could at the very least, display his compassion.

[G.Lively]

Your post includes topics already addressed.  Apparently you prefer to ignore the factual actions supported by the Tea Party in favor of propaganda.  Further, the Bible does not mention socialism.  One might interpret Jesus throwing out the "money changers" as an act against capitalism, but I don't believe that interpretation either. 

Comparing what the Romans of the time of Jesus and the plethora of prophets roaming around the countryside did, is disingenuous and irrelevant.  The ACA and the Tea Party are now.  Yet, you claim the Tea Party follows the principles set out in the Bible.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  A little lesson in political science would demonstrate the Tea Party's choices of action are elements of fascism.  That you don't see this is disappointing.  Go Google "Corporatism" for a start.  I have covered everything else but you failed to check these things out, or ignored them.

I see that you do not respond with facts that are checkable, which means you are steeped in propaganda, blinded by the bright light of "what if", and will not permit yourself to be persuaded.  Therefore, my participation in this thread is over.

[Hemodoc]

Rick Santorum – today said, “If we have a system where the government is going to be the principal provider of health care for the country, we’re done. Because then, you are dependent on the government for your life and your health. […]”

Margaret Thatcher – “‘The British national health care system is safe in my hands”  Her comment on why the opposition was against universal healthcare;    “And the reason is because most people don’t get sick, and so free health care is just that, free health care, until you get sick. Then, if you get sick and you don’t get health care, you die and you don’t vote. It’s actually a pretty clever system. Take care of the people who can vote, and people who can’t vote, get rid of them as quickly as possible by not giving them care so they can’t vote against you. That’s how it works.”  She wasn’t going to take on health care, because she knew once you have people getting free health care from the government, you can’t take it away from them.

The ACA system is not free, even so, Santorum’s motives may have been described by Thatcher decades ago. As far as the health care system in Britain or in any of the many developed and civilized countries that have a universal health care system, they also are not free but are paid for through taxes. Those health care systems are designed that way because those countries understand that health care should not be marketed but something that all citizens should be provided, no matter their financial status. Someone getting sick is not a time to make a profit but a time to care for him or her, as any decent civilized society should do.
It is a shame that conservatives, especially those who claim the moral high ground because of their religion as Rick Santorum does, cannot understand that simple truth. Jesus certainly understood it as he was always healing the sick, wherever he went, which showed his compassion for them and his understanding that they should not have to suffer or die from being sick.
Certainly, if so-called Christians like Rick Santorum truly followed in the path of the one they claim to follow, and then if they cannot display the power of Jesus to heal, they could at the very least, display his compassion.

As you know, Rick Santorum is a strict Catholic. He is NOT stating, don't provide health care, he is instead stating keep it a private matter out of the government's hands. I agree 100% with that. I am not looking forward to government sanctions and regulations dictating what is and what is not allowed health care. My non-profit health care was wonderful. The new world of medicine facing me is only a big question at this time as we enter the world of Obamacare. I am glad I no longer am a provider.

As you know Gerald, the commandments of Jesus are ALL individual mandates to each person. Even if you are in a government position, the mandates were to you in that position as an individual. Our accountability to the Lord is NOT collective, it is individual. Capitalism is indeed mentioned throughout the Bible, but with differences than what we see in the corporate greed of today. Once again, individual mandates to those no matter what position they hold. If you look at the year of Jubilee where all debts are forgiven every 50 years, the Bible's version of capitalism is quite different than that supported by secular humanism and social darwinism.

[Hemodoc]

Your post includes topics already addressed.  Apparently you prefer to ignore the factual actions supported by the Tea Party in favor of propaganda.  Further, the Bible does not mention socialism.  One might interpret Jesus throwing out the "money changers" as an act against capitalism, but I don't believe that interpretation either. 

Comparing what the Romans of the time of Jesus and the plethora of prophets roaming around the countryside did, is disingenuous and irrelevant.  The ACA and the Tea Party are now.  Yet, you claim the Tea Party follows the principles set out in the Bible.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  A little lesson in political science would demonstrate the Tea Party's choices of action are elements of fascism.  That you don't see this is disappointing.  Go Google "Corporatism" for a start.  I have covered everything else but you failed to check these things out, or ignored them.

I see that you do not respond with facts that are checkable, which means you are steeped in propaganda, blinded by the bright light of "what if", and will not permit yourself to be persuaded.  Therefore, my participation in this thread is over.

Let's see where to start:

1) When did I speak about the prophets and Romans? Lost me on that one Gerald. I did give the historical perspective of American history as evidenced in the 1892 SCOTUS decision, but I am not sure what you are referring to at all.

2) You keep calling the Tea Party fascist which is absurd beyond all imagination no matter how many left wing bloggers perpetuate that lie. Here, let's take a look at how National Socialism is described in one article:

National Socialism attempted to reconcile conservative, nationalist ideology with a socially radical doctrine. In so doing, it became a profoundly revolutionary movement—albeit a largely negative one. Rejecting rationalism, liberalism, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and all movements of international cooperation and peace, it stressed instinct, the subordination of the individual to the state, and the necessity of blind and unswerving obedience to leaders appointed from above. It also emphasized the inequality of men and races and the right of the strong to rule the weak; sought to purge or suppress competing political, religious, and social institutions; advanced an ethic of hardness and ferocity; and partly destroyed class distinctions by drawing into the movement misfits and failures from all social classes. Although socialism was traditionally an internationalist creed, the radical wing of National Socialism knew that a mass base existed for policies that were simultaneously anticapitalist and nationalist. However, after Hitler secured power, this radical strain was eliminated.

Tea Party values expressed many places are freedom, self reliance, work ethic, low government taxation, smaller government and patriotism. This is the exact opposite of subordination of the individual to the state which however is a hallmark of much of what Obama has done. I think Gerald, you need to check out your own team and where it is headed.

While Bush was in office, I believed fascism would come from the right, but he doesn't hold a candle to the usurpation of power Obama has attended to in his time in office. Not much to debate if all you are going to do is echo left wing media talking points.

Have a great night Gerald.

[G.Lively]

You are ignoring facts in favor of propaganda.  The paragraph you cut and pasted makes my point which is:  the Tea Party's actions lead us down the path to fascism.  Look at the highlight you posted.

[G.Lively]

I forgot to mention your debunking of Lincoln's description of government.  The day that is no longer true is the day we should begin the revolution.

[Hemodoc]

I forgot to mention your debunking of Lincoln's description of government.  The day that is no longer true is the day we should begin the revolution.

Well, that is exactly what they want as an excuse for martial law. They win, we lose.

[Hemodoc]

You are ignoring facts in favor of propaganda.  The paragraph you cut and pasted makes my point which is:  the Tea Party's actions lead us down the path to fascism.  Look at the highlight you posted.

First, there is no official Tea Party. The multitude of state and national organizations that claim that title of "Tea Party" have only ideology in common. At the grass roots level, support of a constitutional republic is the motivating factor.

Second, please detail how the highlighted portion above is fulfilled by Tea Party actions. The only aspect of similarity is rejection of liberalism. Otherwise, they are completely opposite movements.  I would love to hear your detailed explanation with explicit examples please.