Long before you talk about the Crusades, you can talk about the Hebrews taking Egypt from the prior inhabitants after leaving Egypt. All of these movements are more or less violent and, to some extent, all should get a bad rap for that reason. More recent examples tend not to be recognized for what the really are which is violent human responses to environmental and social pressures. E.g., settlers leave Europe for North America and more or less exterminate indigenous peoples from 1492 to the 20th century. Jews, fleeing the genocide perpetrated in Europe in WWII return to their "homeland" which they lost to the Assyrians roughly 2700 years ago.
In my mind, the best counterargument to the "enlightened Christian" thesis is obviously the invasion of Iraq. U.S. politicians did a bunch of fear mongering about non-existent WMDs and "religious extremism" to stir up some home-grown religious extremism which lent political support to a cynical war. There was nothing noble about the Iraq war. It's just too recent for us to admit this.
I think the more potent response on your part would be to provide examples to back up your assertion. I'm still winning inasmuch as I have provided at least one.
I mentioned the Crusades mostly because they were an utterly cynical attempt to extract treasure from the Middle East while using a religious justification. The Gulf War is not really that different. Because the Crusades were so long ago, people are more willing to admit to the fairly cynical, selfish -- and evil -- motivations for it.
I compared the United States to Saudi Arabia. Last time I checked, they are both countries. What's more, and somewhat interestingly, the United States sells an enormous amount of weaponry to Saudi Arabia and doesn't really give them a hard time about the human rights issues. We are complicit in the hegemony of the Saudi Royal family more than any other country in the world. One might say the US and SA are thick as thieves. My comparison of the two is meant as an analog to the religious issue because the United States is arguably the most Christian nation in the world and Saudi Arabia the most Islamic. The US is somewhat more diverse religion-wise, but is predominantly Christian. I believe the comparison is a fair one and the similarities (and political ties) are too extensive to be dismissed so easily.
But, if you want to get technical, you have to admit that US Citizens can also be killed by the US government without any trial whatsoever. If you are not a US Citizen but happen to live in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Yemen or Sudan or a variety of other places the United States has targeted, you can also be killed there via drone attack. Your flimsy assertion that one can only be killed "primarily by lethal injection" conveniently ignores the entire scope of death dealt out by agents of the United States government. Also, if you insist on focussing arbitrarily on the means of death meted out by our judicial system in the United States, then you must acknowledge that you can opt to be killed by lethal injection, hanging, electric chair, or firing squad in various US states. There is also some debate as to how painful (or terrifying) death by lethal injection might be. Until recently in Arkansas, the components of this deadly cocktail were determined at the discretion of the Department of Corrections and not by any objective standard of human decency or medical expertise.
The war in Iraq was never a crusade
What the hell does that mean to you exactly? The word "crusade" is infested with conflicting connotations. Most connotations I can discern seem entirely apt. I would argue it is remarkably similar to the original Crusades both in its rationale, its conception, and its results.
Totally! Thank God we put them to the sword. Had we not done such a good job, they might still plague us today -- like those pesky frogs and locusts and stuff.
My assertion is that Christianity has not learned from its mistakes as illustrated by increasingly destructive modern wars. While wars against people similar to us tend to be justified by ideological or political ideas, religion works just fine when they are sufficiently different. The invasion of Iraq was justified with a lot of rhetoric that blamed "religious extremism." Who is being more extreme? Iraq, who has no proven link to September 11 (an isolated event) or the United States who invades them while blaming religious extremism? Granted, the US is not uniformly Christian, but it was the Christian constituencies who were bellowing for the war. The US Muslims certainly weren't, so we mistrusted them and rounded them up.
And, on a totally tangential note, what the hell is with the Catholic church continuing to ban birth control? Has it not occurred to anyone that populations that grow faster than their ability to support themselves tend to go to war?
Christianity hasn't learned a thing. Everyone is still looking back to the Bible for all the answers and this book hasn't changed materially in a thousand years.
Last time I checked, the United States allows capital punishment. Let's start with that atrocity and all those innocent men that have been exected in Texas. That sounds a bit like Saudi Arabia.
Then let's move from that to the invasion of Iraq. I seem to recall that they named one of the invasions "Operation Just Crusade". That sounds like holy war stuff to me and we killed a hell of a lot more innocent people than were killed on 9/11.
But obviously you aren't working from a reasoned viewpoint here. You are trying to back up your xenophobic convictions with some poor rhetoric and non-facts. Try again.
Having been raised Christian, I would like to agree that my inherited religion is the nobler one, but I feel it is necessary to point out that a) there is a lot of equally ludicrous effort in the United States [q.v. young-earth creationism, Sarah Palin who does the speaking-in-tongues bit, anti-evolution activities, etc.] and b) supposedly Christian nations have perpetrated warfare and genocide on other people at the behest of their holiest teachings [q.v. Deuteronomy chapters 7 and 20, The Crusades, and the invasion of Iraq]. Conflating the two is not ridiculous at all. On the contrary. As an exercise in introspection, it should trigger some soul searching in terms of teaching and foreign policy.
You are obviously making a gross generalization and know nothing about it really. That's like saying all Christians agree on what the Bible means which is obviously not true.
Allah is not the only god in whose name atrocities have been committed and the Koran is not the only poorly written, poorly translated, self-contradictory book purportedly containing the One True God's Word that has been used to justify atrocities. I would agree that religions are usually silly and find it laughable that someone might single out Islam as the silliest one. Christianity -- with so much lip service given to peace and forgiveness -- is every bit as silly. Anyone remember the Crusades?
Well, and that's the start of the problem. I had severe food poisoning while traveling. I went to a local family doctor (in Europe), he checked me over, prescribed something, and the whole thing cost less than $100, which I paid out of pocket. You unnecessarily went to an emergency room, they charged you an excessive amount of money, and you didn't care because you didn't have to pay for it.
You have no idea what you are talking about. I had blood coming out of my ass. When I finally got a real doctor on the phone he told me I might have a segmented bowel and that I should go to the emergency room. It was e. coli poisoning. Quite aside from a potential risk to my very life, there was an enormous amount of pain involved. I was unable to sleep for three days. Please don't fucking act like you can tell me what kind of health care I need.
A laudable goal, but Obamacare is not insurance. Insurance means that unexpected high expenditures are taken care of. Obamacare pays for everything, cradle to grave. Furthermore, you don't pay for yourself, you pay for whatever the old and sick can extract from the system right now, and by the time you actually need health care, you're likely to get a lot less of it.
It's true that Obamacare is not insurance but it mandates that individuals must have insurance and when they don't, they pay a fine on a sliding scale based on income. Additionally, there are taxes on unnecessary "cadillac" health care plans to discourage the frivolous use of medical services that you were attempting to moan about. There's also a tax on pharmaceuticals which will discourage frivolous prescriptions. And finally, there's a tax on wealthy folks (over $200,000 pear year). All of this will result in more money flowing to insurers and to health care providers.
As for your assertion that we'll suddenly be unable to get health care, I disagree. Your experience in Europe is likely the product of the (much) more highly socialized health care that is the norm in Europe. You didn't offer anything remotely resembling a fact to backup your assertions so neither will I. It's pretty apparent that you are just spouting uninformed opinions you learned from Fox news or conservative radio.
A constitutional scholar to the rescue! Allah be praised!
you are under a silly impression indeed, government isn't there to govern people, it's there to protect people's freedoms, but that fine point has been lost on you and many others long ago. Gov't is not supposed to be your ruler under the Constitution, it's supposed to be your servant. Well, long live that idea.
Yes I totally agree that the government is not mean to govern. That would be a total perversion of the English language I hold so dear. It's so much more accurate to equate the word government with servant. Thanks for disabusing me of all those silly connotations that I was getting all backwards!
And thanks so much for providing such utter clarity in distinguishing the welfare of the individual and the the welfare of the nation. Lord knows they are not the same thing at all. And thanks so much for providing so much context so that I better understand the Constitution. And thanks so much for explaining to me how IBM and Microsoft and General Motors (i.e., "businesses") are just like me and you (an individual).
I'm so glad the Constitution means I can summon the government (i.e., my servant) to drive me to your house, eliminate any barriers to me crossing into your state, and then protect my freedom to poke you in the eye with a sharp stick. I'm further glad the government (in the form of my beloved servant, Blanche Lincoln) is going to protect the right of Tyson Chicken to dump chicken shit in the Arkansas river without the threat of any pesky toxic waste lawsuits. These are, after all, the freedoms on which our nation was founded.
Health insurance is horribly expensive for anyone who doesn't get it through work
That's a pretty broad generalization now, isn't it? As a freelancer, I pay my healthcare myself and it's not great, but to say it's "horribly expensive" seems an exaggeration. It's about 3 times my phone bill.
There are exceptions to the mandate fine for low-income folks. According to wikipedia:
Low income persons and families above the Medicaid level and up to 400% of the federal poverty level will receive federal subsidies on a sliding scale if they choose to purchase insurance via an exchange (persons at 150% of the poverty level would be subsidized such that their premium cost would be of 2% of income or $50 a month for a family of 4).
Mod parent up. People love to grandstand on incorrect assertions and obfuscate the point when competition is what it's really all about. Do we help our fellow human or do we fight tooth and nail to keep every last dime? Are we a social species or an individual species?
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Source, please?
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
Actually, it's not a tax on me. I have health care so I don't pay the fine. I don't make over $200k per year so the taxes don't apply. I don't have a "cadillac" health care plan so that's not taxed either. Nor do indulge in indoor tanning or take any prescription drugs for the time being.
Unfortunately the federal gov't not only failed to uphold and protect the Constitution at least since 1900, but it also is clearly incapable of carrying out its direct duties - preventing States from erecting barriers to entry to businesses.
Please remind me again which part of the Constitution states that the whole point is to prevent States from erecting barries to entry to businesses? I was under the silly impression that it was intended to govern people, not businesses.
No, this whole legislation takes a lot of free market pressure off of providers, insurers and the drug companies because you have to pay them regardless and you can't go anywhere else.
I call shenanigans. While the bill may raise demand relative to a perfectly free market, it has has no provisions that reduce competition. On the contrary. If it increases costs as you say it will (a distinct possibility) the one would think that more companies might want to get in on the action. Healthcare insurance has an enormous number of competitors. And, ultimately, you still have a choice: pay the fine rather than buying insurance.
there's a litany of other little tidbits in the ACA that most Americans have glossed over.
Have you had any relatives visit the emergency room recently? I have health care through a PPO and my recent visit (severe food poisoning) cost me nearly $2,000. If the PPO hadn't negotiated that favorable rate on my behalf, the cost might be from 2-10 times as expensive. My nephew had an allergic reaction to something and the e-room bill was something like $50,000.
I agree that the existence of insurance results in more money being spent on health care in total, but must point out that the point of insurance is to mitigate the risk that you will be surprised by an accident that may happen before you have the money to pay for it.
As for "locking it in even tighter", I don't really think that's the case. Health care companies are required to insure people with previously existing conditions and part of the funding for Obamacare comes from a tax on drug companies and a tax on "cadillac" insurance plans. Insuring people with prior conditions is not something insurance companies want to do (costs $$$) and a tax on their most profitable services is likely to reduce demand for those services.
Slashdot Mirror
Long before you talk about the Crusades, you can talk about the Hebrews taking Egypt from the prior inhabitants after leaving Egypt. All of these movements are more or less violent and, to some extent, all should get a bad rap for that reason. More recent examples tend not to be recognized for what the really are which is violent human responses to environmental and social pressures. E.g., settlers leave Europe for North America and more or less exterminate indigenous peoples from 1492 to the 20th century. Jews, fleeing the genocide perpetrated in Europe in WWII return to their "homeland" which they lost to the Assyrians roughly 2700 years ago.
In my mind, the best counterargument to the "enlightened Christian" thesis is obviously the invasion of Iraq. U.S. politicians did a bunch of fear mongering about non-existent WMDs and "religious extremism" to stir up some home-grown religious extremism which lent political support to a cynical war. There was nothing noble about the Iraq war. It's just too recent for us to admit this.
I think the more potent response on your part would be to provide examples to back up your assertion. I'm still winning inasmuch as I have provided at least one.
I mentioned the Crusades mostly because they were an utterly cynical attempt to extract treasure from the Middle East while using a religious justification. The Gulf War is not really that different. Because the Crusades were so long ago, people are more willing to admit to the fairly cynical, selfish -- and evil -- motivations for it.
I compared the United States to Saudi Arabia. Last time I checked, they are both countries. What's more, and somewhat interestingly, the United States sells an enormous amount of weaponry to Saudi Arabia and doesn't really give them a hard time about the human rights issues. We are complicit in the hegemony of the Saudi Royal family more than any other country in the world. One might say the US and SA are thick as thieves. My comparison of the two is meant as an analog to the religious issue because the United States is arguably the most Christian nation in the world and Saudi Arabia the most Islamic. The US is somewhat more diverse religion-wise, but is predominantly Christian. I believe the comparison is a fair one and the similarities (and political ties) are too extensive to be dismissed so easily.
But, if you want to get technical, you have to admit that US Citizens can also be killed by the US government without any trial whatsoever. If you are not a US Citizen but happen to live in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Yemen or Sudan or a variety of other places the United States has targeted, you can also be killed there via drone attack. Your flimsy assertion that one can only be killed "primarily by lethal injection" conveniently ignores the entire scope of death dealt out by agents of the United States government. Also, if you insist on focussing arbitrarily on the means of death meted out by our judicial system in the United States, then you must acknowledge that you can opt to be killed by lethal injection, hanging, electric chair, or firing squad in various US states. There is also some debate as to how painful (or terrifying) death by lethal injection might be. Until recently in Arkansas, the components of this deadly cocktail were determined at the discretion of the Department of Corrections and not by any objective standard of human decency or medical expertise.
The war in Iraq was never a crusade
What the hell does that mean to you exactly? The word "crusade" is infested with conflicting connotations. Most connotations I can discern seem entirely apt. I would argue it is remarkably similar to the original Crusades both in its rationale, its conception, and its results.
Totally! Thank God we put them to the sword. Had we not done such a good job, they might still plague us today -- like those pesky frogs and locusts and stuff.
Does that mean it's open season on dicks? If so, Donald Trump is first on my list.
My assertion is that Christianity has not learned from its mistakes as illustrated by increasingly destructive modern wars. While wars against people similar to us tend to be justified by ideological or political ideas, religion works just fine when they are sufficiently different. The invasion of Iraq was justified with a lot of rhetoric that blamed "religious extremism." Who is being more extreme? Iraq, who has no proven link to September 11 (an isolated event) or the United States who invades them while blaming religious extremism? Granted, the US is not uniformly Christian, but it was the Christian constituencies who were bellowing for the war. The US Muslims certainly weren't, so we mistrusted them and rounded them up.
And, on a totally tangential note, what the hell is with the Catholic church continuing to ban birth control? Has it not occurred to anyone that populations that grow faster than their ability to support themselves tend to go to war?
Christianity hasn't learned a thing. Everyone is still looking back to the Bible for all the answers and this book hasn't changed materially in a thousand years.
Last time I checked, the United States allows capital punishment. Let's start with that atrocity and all those innocent men that have been exected in Texas. That sounds a bit like Saudi Arabia.
Then let's move from that to the invasion of Iraq. I seem to recall that they named one of the invasions "Operation Just Crusade". That sounds like holy war stuff to me and we killed a hell of a lot more innocent people than were killed on 9/11.
But obviously you aren't working from a reasoned viewpoint here. You are trying to back up your xenophobic convictions with some poor rhetoric and non-facts. Try again.
OH right! Which variable do we define first? God or His Word?
Mod parent up.
Having been raised Christian, I would like to agree that my inherited religion is the nobler one, but I feel it is necessary to point out that a) there is a lot of equally ludicrous effort in the United States [q.v. young-earth creationism, Sarah Palin who does the speaking-in-tongues bit, anti-evolution activities, etc.] and b) supposedly Christian nations have perpetrated warfare and genocide on other people at the behest of their holiest teachings [q.v. Deuteronomy chapters 7 and 20, The Crusades, and the invasion of Iraq]. Conflating the two is not ridiculous at all. On the contrary. As an exercise in introspection, it should trigger some soul searching in terms of teaching and foreign policy.
I call Shenanigans. Galileo is the obvious counterexample.
It's hard enough to imagine bringing any logic to the situation. You'd have to start with this one:
10 - The Bible is the word of God
20 - How do you know the Bible is the word of God
30 - I have faith. Goto 10
You are obviously making a gross generalization and know nothing about it really. That's like saying all Christians agree on what the Bible means which is obviously not true.
Try actually reading the Bible. It's not hard to find passages where the Christian God is calling for the extermination of people. Try Deuteronomy 20:16. Then shut your xenophobic mouth.
Allah is not the only god in whose name atrocities have been committed and the Koran is not the only poorly written, poorly translated, self-contradictory book purportedly containing the One True God's Word that has been used to justify atrocities. I would agree that religions are usually silly and find it laughable that someone might single out Islam as the silliest one. Christianity -- with so much lip service given to peace and forgiveness -- is every bit as silly. Anyone remember the Crusades?
Well, and that's the start of the problem. I had severe food poisoning while traveling. I went to a local family doctor (in Europe), he checked me over, prescribed something, and the whole thing cost less than $100, which I paid out of pocket. You unnecessarily went to an emergency room, they charged you an excessive amount of money, and you didn't care because you didn't have to pay for it.
You have no idea what you are talking about. I had blood coming out of my ass. When I finally got a real doctor on the phone he told me I might have a segmented bowel and that I should go to the emergency room. It was e. coli poisoning. Quite aside from a potential risk to my very life, there was an enormous amount of pain involved. I was unable to sleep for three days. Please don't fucking act like you can tell me what kind of health care I need.
A laudable goal, but Obamacare is not insurance. Insurance means that unexpected high expenditures are taken care of. Obamacare pays for everything, cradle to grave. Furthermore, you don't pay for yourself, you pay for whatever the old and sick can extract from the system right now, and by the time you actually need health care, you're likely to get a lot less of it.
It's true that Obamacare is not insurance but it mandates that individuals must have insurance and when they don't, they pay a fine on a sliding scale based on income. Additionally, there are taxes on unnecessary "cadillac" health care plans to discourage the frivolous use of medical services that you were attempting to moan about. There's also a tax on pharmaceuticals which will discourage frivolous prescriptions. And finally, there's a tax on wealthy folks (over $200,000 pear year). All of this will result in more money flowing to insurers and to health care providers.
As for your assertion that we'll suddenly be unable to get health care, I disagree. Your experience in Europe is likely the product of the (much) more highly socialized health care that is the norm in Europe. You didn't offer anything remotely resembling a fact to backup your assertions so neither will I. It's pretty apparent that you are just spouting uninformed opinions you learned from Fox news or conservative radio.
A constitutional scholar to the rescue! Allah be praised!
you are under a silly impression indeed, government isn't there to govern people, it's there to protect people's freedoms, but that fine point has been lost on you and many others long ago. Gov't is not supposed to be your ruler under the Constitution, it's supposed to be your servant. Well, long live that idea.
Yes I totally agree that the government is not mean to govern. That would be a total perversion of the English language I hold so dear. It's so much more accurate to equate the word government with servant. Thanks for disabusing me of all those silly connotations that I was getting all backwards!
And thanks so much for providing such utter clarity in distinguishing the welfare of the individual and the the welfare of the nation. Lord knows they are not the same thing at all. And thanks so much for providing so much context so that I better understand the Constitution. And thanks so much for explaining to me how IBM and Microsoft and General Motors (i.e., "businesses") are just like me and you (an individual).
I'm so glad the Constitution means I can summon the government (i.e., my servant) to drive me to your house, eliminate any barriers to me crossing into your state, and then protect my freedom to poke you in the eye with a sharp stick. I'm further glad the government (in the form of my beloved servant, Blanche Lincoln) is going to protect the right of Tyson Chicken to dump chicken shit in the Arkansas river without the threat of any pesky toxic waste lawsuits. These are, after all, the freedoms on which our nation was founded.
My bad...you were making the same point I tried to make and I just didn't read carefully. Sorry about the snarky/pedantic spelling correction.
Health insurance is horribly expensive for anyone who doesn't get it through work
That's a pretty broad generalization now, isn't it? As a freelancer, I pay my healthcare myself and it's not great, but to say it's "horribly expensive" seems an exaggeration. It's about 3 times my phone bill.
There are exceptions to the mandate fine for low-income folks. According to wikipedia:
Low income persons and families above the Medicaid level and up to 400% of the federal poverty level will receive federal subsidies on a sliding scale if they choose to purchase insurance via an exchange (persons at 150% of the poverty level would be subsidized such that their premium cost would be of 2% of income or $50 a month for a family of 4).
Mod parent up. People love to grandstand on incorrect assertions and obfuscate the point when competition is what it's really all about. Do we help our fellow human or do we fight tooth and nail to keep every last dime? Are we a social species or an individual species?
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Source, please?
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
Actually, it's not a tax on me. I have health care so I don't pay the fine. I don't make over $200k per year so the taxes don't apply. I don't have a "cadillac" health care plan so that's not taxed either. Nor do indulge in indoor tanning or take any prescription drugs for the time being.
Unfortunately the federal gov't not only failed to uphold and protect the Constitution at least since 1900, but it also is clearly incapable of carrying out its direct duties - preventing States from erecting barriers to entry to businesses.
Please remind me again which part of the Constitution states that the whole point is to prevent States from erecting barries to entry to businesses? I was under the silly impression that it was intended to govern people, not businesses.
No, this whole legislation takes a lot of free market pressure off of providers, insurers and the drug companies because you have to pay them regardless and you can't go anywhere else.
I call shenanigans. While the bill may raise demand relative to a perfectly free market, it has has no provisions that reduce competition. On the contrary. If it increases costs as you say it will (a distinct possibility) the one would think that more companies might want to get in on the action. Healthcare insurance has an enormous number of competitors. And, ultimately, you still have a choice: pay the fine rather than buying insurance.
there's a litany of other little tidbits in the ACA that most Americans have glossed over.
Name 3 tidbits if you can. I'm genuinely curious.
Have you had any relatives visit the emergency room recently? I have health care through a PPO and my recent visit (severe food poisoning) cost me nearly $2,000. If the PPO hadn't negotiated that favorable rate on my behalf, the cost might be from 2-10 times as expensive. My nephew had an allergic reaction to something and the e-room bill was something like $50,000.
I agree that the existence of insurance results in more money being spent on health care in total, but must point out that the point of insurance is to mitigate the risk that you will be surprised by an accident that may happen before you have the money to pay for it.
As for "locking it in even tighter", I don't really think that's the case. Health care companies are required to insure people with previously existing conditions and part of the funding for Obamacare comes from a tax on drug companies and a tax on "cadillac" insurance plans. Insuring people with prior conditions is not something insurance companies want to do (costs $$$) and a tax on their most profitable services is likely to reduce demand for those services.