Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ck4829

(35,076 posts)
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 12:40 PM Dec 2013

Why isn't it against anyone's religious freedom for people choosing between healthcare or poverty?

How come nobody's religion was under attack by the atheists and leftists when Tea Partiers said "YEAH!" to the question of letting an uninsured person die?

Isn't it weird that there are religious arguments against things such as tattoos or that the body is a temple; but yet when cancer, disease, or injury ravage a person's body, uninvited by the way, well, you have to pay to get it out or... TOUGH?

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why isn't it against anyone's religious freedom for people choosing between healthcare or poverty? (Original Post) ck4829 Dec 2013 OP
Its not really about religon Drale Dec 2013 #1
Because all those evil diseases are God's will.... Wounded Bear Dec 2013 #2
Or a superior woman and important. raging moderate Dec 2013 #3
It's comments like these GladRagDahl Dec 2013 #4
Suggesting you go plug some words into the google machine site search. Skidmore Dec 2013 #5
good point GladRagDahl Dec 2013 #6

Drale

(7,932 posts)
1. Its not really about religon
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 12:41 PM
Dec 2013

its about controlling women because it makes them feel like a big man and important

Wounded Bear

(58,656 posts)
2. Because all those evil diseases are God's will....
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 12:44 PM
Dec 2013

Medical science is thwarting God's will by keeping people alive when God has chosen them to die. And frankly, that loving God wants them to die in the most painful, dehumanizing way possible.

Don't you get it?

I guess that is but even I'm not so sure it is.

raging moderate

(4,305 posts)
3. Or a superior woman and important.
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 12:45 PM
Dec 2013

We also have the goody two shoes cellophane-wrapped pampered princesses at work here.

 

GladRagDahl

(237 posts)
4. It's comments like these
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 12:46 PM
Dec 2013

that drive me crazy. A good strong argument with facts goes a lot farther to make a point than just emotional ranting. I'm not saying you don't have a good point, but you should back up something like this with some solid examples. I know that you are mostly preaching to the choir here and a lot of people will just go "amen" to your sentiment -- but wouldn't your stance be stronger if you had some actual facts and figures attached? A news article? A real example of a tea partier screaming "Die! Die! Death to all uninsured people!"

Skidmore

(37,364 posts)
5. Suggesting you go plug some words into the google machine site search.
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 12:47 PM
Dec 2013

We have been having discussions about hypocrisy and religion since way back--like early Bush term as it applied to all sorts of issues including economic and social justice, civil rights, and war and peace. Religions are not under attack but are being asked to account for the inconsistency of words and deeds among their followers. This is only reasonable given that in several areas churches now receive tax funds to support their work. Personally, I think if churches want to play in policy development and implementation, they should lose their tax exempt status.

We need common rules in society and not be browbeat into a theocratic state.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why isn't it against anyo...