Sometimes stupid loses

"Peter N" photo.maven @fakeverizon.net wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:24:03 -0400, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
wrote:
"Peter N" photo.maven @fakeverizon.net wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:15:43 -0400, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
wrote:
It's about our freedom to choose which the president would
eliminate if he
could. If he could've shoved universal health care down our
throats he
would have but he was willing to admit that it wouldn't fly. But
many will
admit that this health care bill is a start and that they want to
"teak" it
as time goes by with the ultimate goal being universal halth
care.
It's the
same old argument, there are those that believe that government
should "take
care if us" and then there are those of us who want to take care
of
ourselves. Because there are some who can't take care of
themselves (and
many are in that camp due to their own choices), those of us who
can can't
be allowed to either.

Think of it as a governmental mandate of our moral obligation to
take care
of our fellow human beings. Certainly you don't object to that.


Yes I do object to that. Government cannot mandate my moral
obligation to
take care of other people. My moral obligations come from a higher
authority and He only asks for 10% of my income.

What stops me from saying my prayers in my house, or under the sky? That
would clearly leave more money to help the needy.

That is not a Christian concept, the scripture exhorts us to assemble
together. The "Church Fathers" like Paul and Peter established churches.
There are costs invloved. I can't speak for other churches I have not been
a part of, but oof those I have been a part of, part of the offerings go
directly to helping others, whether they are members or not.