Thursday, March 27, 2008

Giving: Left and Right

In my last post I mentioned that Obama, like many Democrats just like to help the poor with your money. This was supported today by an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune written by George Will. The article points out that :
•Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

•Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

•Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George W. Bush.

Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

•In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

•People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Please read the entire article at Star Tribune, if for no other reason than to read the bumper sticker quotations! (Hat tip: John W.)

7 comments:

L'oiseau said...

I wanted to comment on this, and so I thought about it for a little while. I don't want this to come off as a personal attack on you, because as you said before, you've done charity giving and whatnot. I am just trying to share a view of Christian conservatives in general that confuses me.

When people say things like, "...Democrats just like to help the poor with your money" and yet support OUR government banning things like homosexuality and abortion, it confuses me.

So, basically what they're saying is, the government can wiggle its way into my life when it comes to

1. Protecting us with the military.
2. Protecting us from crime (abortion included, which I agree with, by the way).
3. Protecting us from sin.

But when the Democrats want the government to

1. Protect us from disease (health care).
2. Protect us from extreme forms of poverty for the sake of the entire nation, not just the povertous (welfare programs, state programs, etc.).
3. Protect our environment and us by extension.

Christians cannot support these things because "it's MY money and the government can't take it". THe government can take our children over to a war, but they can't take our money to help other people's children get health care. I believe Jesus is saddened by this logic. I don't understand it, but it makes me sad, too.

I don't think it matters ONE BIT how much each individual person responds back and says that they've donated. You are against the fact that our government wants to help the poor, needy, afflicted, widows, orphans, etc. That is WRONG.

Dennis said...

l’oiseau,

I think you have an excellent point.

As much as I rant and rave against “The Left” as if they were some kind of unified whole, I really don’t see things in black and white. I tend to view things on a spectrum.

Generally speaking, on a spectrum, Democrats tend to lean more toward socialism and emphasize more and more government involvement in our lives; while Republicans tend to lean more toward free-market economy and getting government out of our lives.

But Democrats don’t want government running every aspect of our lives any more than Republicans want government completely out of our lives. Having said that, let me address your concerns.

First, most Republicans (and probably most conservative Christians) are not interested in “banning homosexuality” any more than we would “ban” adultery.

We are very concerned, however, when our kids are increasingly being forced to sit through indoctrination in public schools that tells them that sex with people of the same sex is just a normal lifestyle and must be accepted, and that anyone who doesn’t agree is a hateful bigot!

We are also very concerned that the very hate-crimes laws that have been used to put Christians in jail for criticizing homosexual lifestyles in Australia, England and Canada, will be implemented in the United States.

You might think that could never happen because we have freedom of speech, but our “freedom of speech” doesn’t seem to protect Christian teachers’ right to talk about their faith in a public school. Unfortunately, the homosexual lobby, the media and public school system spin this whole issue in such a way that even-open minded people like you honestly think that Conservative Christians want to make homosexuality illegal and I don’t think that is generally the case.

Second, on protecting us with the military. Yes, this is a strong Republican/Right wing ideal. It was once a strong ideal by some Democrats too. Quite frankly, I really can’t understand the radical left, anti-military crowd like Code Pink etc. Do they really think we would remain a free country very long if we eliminated our military? If so, they are delusional!

Third, on banning abortion: Yes, you’re right on this one. You’ll have to forgive us, but we think it is wrong to kill innocent human beings—and it is a scientific fact that unborn babies are human (they certainly aren’t animal, vegetable or mineral) and they are alive!

We think that redefining them as something not human (e.g. tissue or "products of conception") just so we can kill them is no different than redefining black people as not human so we could enslave them! (this is actually one of the ways slavery was once justified)!

When it is a matter of protecting innocent human life, the government needs to be involved.

Fourth, on protecting us from sin. On my spectrum of Left/Democrat and Right/ Republican, Republican’s do tend to want government to step in more when it comes to “sin.” We want government to protect us from murderers, rapists, robbers, thieves, muggers, scam artists, child abusers, drunk or reckless drivers and so on—but I think Democrats what government to protect us from sin like this too.

I suspect that the sin to which you are referring is sexual sin. Republicans often want laws against things like pornography, child pornography, polygamy, or prostitution while many Democrats seemingly want these things to be entirely legal.

Democrats apparently think these sins are victimless. They ignore all the evidence to the contrary (for example, the surgeon general's study on pornography that came out several years ago)

Fifth, regarding health care and protection from disease. I think most Christians and Republicans want a better health care system.
We disagree over how to get it.

What the government funds, the government controls. When I was in the Air Force, it was actually illegal for us to get a sunburn. It was considered destruction of government property and we could actually get court-marshalled for it if it was severe! That’s because the government paid for our health care.

If government runs our health care they will began to regulate more and more of our private health lives. That may be OK with Democrats, but Republicans generally like freedom.

Also, Republicans can’t understand how the Democrats can scream so loudly about how terribly the government botched Hurricane Katrina, but then the same Democrats want to put government in charge of our health care system! How can we be so na├»ve as to think that even though our government has messed up Social Security or Medicare or public housing or every other program they touch—they will get healthcare right?!

What makes the Left think that our government health care system will be any better than the broken health care system in England or Canada?

Sixth, on protecting us from extreme forms of poverty. If you want to look at the cause of extreme poverty—look to the Democrats. When I was in High School there were state mental hospitals all over the country. I once did volunteer work in one of them (one of their big problems was that some people got too comfortable and didn’t ever want to leave)!

But “progressive” Democrats, influenced by horror stories of a few bad mental hospitals, assumed that all mental hospitals were like the bad examples they cited, and closed them down. The mentally ill and drug addicted patients had nowhere to go, so they filled the streets! Some compassion!

Republicans and Christians want to help those who cannot help themselves. We are against taking money from hard-working families to support lazy people who don’t want to work.

The Great Society program of Lyndon Johnson gave so many free government hand-outs it actually hurt more people than it helped, entrapping them into a cycle of poverty, promoting irresponsibility rather than responsibility.

People would get free housing and trash it! Some women were actually having more and more children because the government would give them more money for each child!

It was actually Bill Clinton who helped to correct the welfare problem by insisting that able-bodied welfare recipients look for work (on the far Left attacked him for it).

Seventh, we’re not against protecting the environment. We just think there needs to be some common sense involved.

Democrats scream about how our wars are all about oil, but when we want to pump oil from Alaska or off shore, they yell about the environment.

When we want to use more coal, they complain about the environment.

When we want to build nuclear power plants they complain about the environment.

Some environmentalists think more of spotted owls or snail darters than they do of people’s homes and livelihood!

I once lived in a trailer park next to a swamp. My next door neighbor went away for several weeks leaving her trailer vacant. When she came back, snakes from the swamp had infested the walls of her trailer. She couldn’t find anyone to exterminate the snakes due to environmental wildlife regulations!

Republicans are not against environmentalism—we just think there needs to be a balance.

Eighth, you wrote, “The government can take our children to a war, but they can’t take our money to help other people’s children get health care.”

First, the government didn’t take your children to war. There is no draft. They signed up for it of their own free will (just like I once did). And the last I heard, the reenlistment rate was high.

It is generally not the average soldier, sailor or airman who is having a problem with this war. It is some of those on the Left—many of whom have never served a day in the military.

And again, we’re not opposed to children’s health care. We just don’t want the government running it!

Ninth, you wrote, “I don’t think it matters one bit how much each individual person…says they’ve donated.”

You’re probably right, but I think you're missing the point. What angers many of us on the Right is how the Left has self-righteously portrayed themselves as compassionate and accused those us on the Right with being uncompassionate, when in fact, according to the statistics, it is the Right who are most compassionate when it comes to personal giving.

If the Left is so compassionate, let them show it by leading the way in personal giving

Finally, you wrote, “You are against the fact that our government wants to help the poor, needy, afflicted, widows, orphans, etc. That is wrong.”

As I wrote above, I’m not against the government helping those who cannot help themselves. For example, I think government should dramatically increase help for the mentally and physically disabled.

I think government should do more to provide medical insurance for the “working poor”, i.e. those who work full-time but can’t pay their medical bills.

My real concern is that we don’t go back to giving free handouts to able-bodied people who will not work.

I think that just results in laziness, demoralization, and a sense that society owes them something.

I have no problem with government provided housing, food, medical care, etc. to the poor as long as the government makes people work for it (just like everyone else in society has to work for what they get)—even if the work is just cleaning up graffiti or picking up trash on the streets.

The Left always portrays this debate as if it is about the compassionate Left vs the uncompassionate Right. For the most part, this is just political spin (read, lie)! It is really more about who to help and how best to do it.

L'oiseau said...

Well, I should start off by clarifying that I don't disagree with the three points that I originally made about Republicans. I ,myself, am just an independent leaning to the left :) I believe the government should protect us with the military, from crime, and from sin, etc. I am pro-life (I was really unclear, I meant I agree with the fact that abortion is a crime).

I just wanted to use those three things as examples of the hypocrisy in not supporting the next three things.

"But Democrats don’t want government running every aspect of our lives any more than Republicans want government completely out of our lives."

I agree with you there.

"our “freedom of speech” doesn’t seem to protect Christian teachers’ right to talk about their faith in a public school."

I understand where you are coming from, as a Christian, however, with the separation of church and state, should state schools really be supporting any religion? Would you feel comfortable if radical Muslims were allowed into the public schools for "devotion time"? No.

"you honestly think that Conservative Christians want to make homosexuality illegal and I don’t think that is generally the case."

I guess I'm confused again, then. If you don't want to make it illegal, then why are you frustrated that it is part of the American life, whether that be in schools, etc? Basically, you are saying that it can be legal, but segregated?

Many of the things you cited that Democrats believe are only believed by extremists, such as

"Do they really think we would remain a free country very long if we eliminated our military?"

I don't know anyone who wants to eliminate the military. Even extreme idealogical pacifists understand the necessity of military action, even if they view it as a horrible, but necessary evil.

And,

"Republicans often want laws against things like pornography, child pornography, polygamy, or prostitution while many Democrats seemingly want these things to be entirely legal."

Excluding pornography, I don't know any person (other than Mormons on the polygamy point) who wants these things to be legalized.

"I think most Christians and Republicans want a better health care system.
We disagree over how to get it."

Democrats disagree with Republicans on how to get it because for the last eight years, millions of children have gone uninsured under a Republican President. (The last 16 years if you want to count the quasi-neocon Clinton years where Hillary was too polarizing to get her health care plan passed.)

The reason why I love Obama's health care plan is because it is not similar to Canada's or a European universal health care. It is not a socialized plan, but a subsidized one.

"If government runs our health care they will began to regulate more and more of our private health lives. That may be OK with Democrats, but Republicans generally like freedom."

Well, there are different definitions of freedom. Obviously, you don't subscribe to anarchy, so you understand this.

"But “progressive” Democrats, influenced by horror stories of a few bad mental hospitals, assumed that all mental hospitals were like the bad examples they cited, and closed them down. The mentally ill and drug addicted patients had nowhere to go, so they filled the streets! Some compassion!"

Well, I didn't know about that, but because of that, now mentally disabled persons are able to live at home with their families. I have also personally worked with these people and I can't imagine them living away from their families in a hospital environment. Also, many mentally and physically disabled people are able to live in group homes (my aunt included), supervised by medical and care staff in a much more homey environment and with many more freedoms than they would have in a hospital. I know the concerns that were voiced over mental institutions back then, and they were valid, and they have led to better lives for mentally and physically disabled people.

"It was actually Bill Clinton who helped to correct the welfare problem by insisting that able-bodied welfare recipients look for work (on the far Left attacked him for it)."

You are correct when you cite this problem "corrected". Welfare programs now require people to be employed or they become employed by a government program before they are given welfare options. So, any help the government is now giving, is to the "working poor".

"Democrats scream about how our wars are all about oil, but when we want to pump oil from Alaska or off shore, they yell about the environment.
When we want to use more coal, they complain about the environment.
When we want to build nuclear power plants they complain about the environment."

This is because there are clean, green energy solutions to these problems.

"First, the government didn’t take your children to war. There is no draft. They signed up for it of their own free will (just like I once did)."

First of all, I didn't mean my children literally (I'm not that old:). Secondly, there have been drafts in the past, so that point would be relevant if it was the one I was making. However, I was trying to point out that, our tax dollars pay for the war, so why shouldn't our tax dollars pay for health care for our citizens? Both things protect American lives.

"It is really more about who to help and how best to do it."

I agree with you there, and I appreciate you taking the time to explain your views to me. At least I understand how you are seeing things now, even though we still disagree on some things.

Dennis said...

L’oiseau,

You wrote, “Would you feel comfortable if radical Muslims were allowed into the public schools for "devotion time"? No.”

No, of course not. I’m not talking about having public school devotion time. But atheists can talk about their religion all day long in public schools. They can even deliberately undermine the views of religious students. Public schools are also free to deliberately undermine religious morality. But if Christian teachers tried to respond in class, or if they tried to integrate Christianity into their literature, history, or science classes, for example, they would probably be shown the door.

That is not right. Either religious people need to be able to talk about how their religion interacts with the discipline they are teaching, or public schools need to be as value free as humanly possible. It is not right that religious views should be undermined in public schools and religious people are not free to respond.

L’oiseau wrote, “I guess I'm confused again, then. If you don't want to make it illegal, then why are you frustrated that it is part of the American life, whether that be in schools, etc? Basically, you are saying that it can be legal, but segregated?

I’m saying most Christians do not want to re-establish laws that will put people in jail for having homosexual sex.

But for numerous reasons (which I’ve discussed extensively on this blog—see “homosexuality” under the subject index in the left column of this blog) we don’t want marriage re-defined to include same-sex relationships either.

Nor do we want children taught in public schools that same-sex relationships is a perfectly normal and acceptable lifestyle. We live in a pluralistic society in which most of us still do not believe that same-sex sex should be encouraged. It is fascism for us to have to have our values undermined by a public school system our children are practically forced to attend.

If we’re going to teach that same-sex sex is normal, then the other side of this issue needs to be given equal time in public schools as well. But the climate in America is rapidly becoming such that even suggesting that same-sex sex is problematic is seen as bigoted and hateful.

L’oiseau wrote, “Many of the things you cited that Democrats believe are only believed
by extremists….I don't know anyone who wants to eliminate the military.”

I agree that we’re only talking about the radical Left, but if no one wants to eliminate the military why are there so many protests—even attacks against the military? I read yesterday that Berkeley CA is having to spend ten of thousands of dollars on extra police protection to protect against all the Leftist radicals who are against having recruiters in their city.

In New York City recently, a recruiting station was even bombed. It sounds to me like they don’t want us to have a military at all.

L’oisesu wrote, “Excluding pornography, I don't know any person (other than Mormons on the polygamy point) who wants these things to be legalized.”

Actually, the ACLU and American Library Association are just two examples of powerful lobbies that have fought hard to stop any restrictions on pornography—even child pornography!

I believe the ACLU and gay rights groups have argued for polygamy. And I’ve heard of numerous people on the Left argue for the legalization of prostitution.

L’oiseau wrote, “Democrats disagree with Republicans on how to get it because for the last eight years, millions of children have gone uninsured under a Republican President. (The last 16 years if you want to count the quasi-neocon Clinton years where Hillary was too polarizing to get her health care plan passed.)

I hardly think Bill Clinton qualifies as a "quasi-neocon." And Hillary's plan was so polarizing because most Americans do not want to replace our healthcare system with something similar to that in Canada or England.

L'oiseau wrote, "The reason why I love Obama's health care plan is because it is not similar to Canada's or a European universal health care. It is not a socialized plan, but a subsidized one."

OK, let’s look at Obama’s plan (phrases in quotes are from Obama’s website):

Obama will require “Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.”

Wonderful! How will we pay for it?

Obama says, “The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.”

Fantastic! I, along with other baby boomers are getting older. Its good to know the government will make sure all of our ailments and illnesses are covered no matter how catastrophic. Great promise. But how is Obama going to pay for it?

Obama says he will require, “Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.”

Outstanding! Not only will the government require insurance
companies to pay for every conceivable medical condition I and all other baby boomers might have—regardless of how expensive or catastrophic—but the government will force private insurance companies to keep my premiums, co-pays and deductibles affordable too! I love it! But who is going to pay for it?

Obama says, “Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy.”

Wow! A dream come true. The government will pay for the health insurance of everyone in America who can’t afford it. But how will Obama pay for it?

Obama says, “The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group…”

In other words, this government watchdog group will regulate insurance companies to make sure they are covering everyone at low rates even if the companies have to go bankrupt, close down, or move to other countries.

Obama says, “Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan.”

Just what we need. More government interference telling private companies what they have to pay. Of course, many little companies may go out of business. The big ones can just do business in other countries that are not so regulated (the health care equivalent to all the American jobs that have been outsourced to other countries).

Obama says, “Obama will require that all children have health care coverage”

I love this one. Who doesn’t want children to be covered. But how will Obama pay for it? Are you noticing a theme here? Obama makes a lot of promises but very little on how he will actually pay for it.

Obama says, “Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs.”

Fantastic! I certainly want to make sure I—and all my other fellow babyboomers--qualify for Medicaid when we need it. But how will Obama pay for it?

Obama says, “The Obama plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur.”

Great! But where is the government going to get the money to pay for thousands of catastrophic health care cases—especially as the baby boomers get older?

Obama says, “Obama will require hospitals and providers to collect and publicly report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable medical errors, nurse staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care. Health plans will also be required to disclose the percentage of premiums that go to patient care as opposed to administrative costs.”

Sounds good. We certainly want more government accountability. I can only imagine all the extra staff hospitals will have to hire to do all this tracking and reporting. Just what hospitals need--More government mandated paper pushers. More paper pushers, however, probably means fewer nurses since hospitals, unlike the federal governemnt, still have to stay within a budget.

Obama says, “Barack Obama will prevent companies from abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases.”

And of course, government bureaucrats get to decide what is unjustified.

L’oiseau, all these promises sound wonderful but there is a reason former Republican and Democratic Presidents and congresses haven’t been able to do all this---and it’s not because they were uncompassionate!

Barack Obama is just promising everyone the moon in order to get elected!

Although Obama’s medical plan is not directly government run, socialized medicine, it may actually be worse. It’s like telling hospitals, insurance companies and employers, you’re going to cover every American (and probably illegal immigrants as well) for every conceivable illness and you’re going to do it at an affordable cost because we are going to make sure you don’t charge too much.

Beware of politicians bearing gifts they can’t possibly deliver.

L’oiseau wrote, “well, I didn't know about that, but because of that, now mentally disabled persons are able to live at home with their families.”

They could live with their families before also. The government was not going house to house to round up the mentally disabled to involuntarily commit them to hospitals.

When people were committed, it was usually because they were so mentally disabled they could not cope with life, and their families could no longer help them. At least then they had a place to go. Now, thanks to the Democrats, we just throw them on the street like so much trash.

L’oiseau wrote, “You are correct when you cite this problem "corrected".

What I meant was that Bill Clinton should be commended for taking a step in the right direction. The problem has not by any means been completely corrected. There is a long way to go. But as long as Democrats regard Bill Clinton as a 'quasi-neocon' :-) I don't have much hope that his progress in this area will be continued under a Democratic administration.

L’oiseau wrote, “This is because there are clean, green energy solutions to these problems.”

Maybe one thing we can agree on is that our politicians need to put politics aside and find these green solutions and use them to get off of foreign oil as soon as humanly possible.

Where we may disagree is that I think we need to get off foreign oil even if the solutions are not immediatly or entirely "green." We don't seem to mind endangering the environments of Middle-Eastern countries with our oil imports, but we just don't want to put our environment at risk. That doesn't seem fair, does it?

Good discussion. Even though we continue to disagree on several areas, I appreciate your thoughtful insights.

L'oiseau said...

Thanks for responding, this is a good discussion, I feel like I'm learning a lot.

"But atheists can talk about their religion all day long in public schools."

I want to address this issue, because I feel that it is important and that it has been blown out of proportion by Christian conservatives. Teachers do not address the issue of religion in schools, (other than maybe in history classes) whether they be for or against it. Teaching about evolution is not teaching about atheism. Teaching about the big bang theory is not teaching about atheism. Teaching about homosexuality, which is a legal action in our country, is not a purposeful attempt to be "anti-christian".

Students, however, are perfectly free to express their views in the classroom, in school papers and projects, and in the school newspaper. No Christian student is silenced about their beliefs if they don't want to be.

Teachers who are hired by a government that has separated church from state should not be bringing up religion in school, period.

"I’m saying most Christians do not want to re-establish laws that will put people in jail for having homosexual sex."

So, again, you're fine with this being legal, you just want it segregated from schools and other public things. It doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying, I'm fine with not having slaves, but black people can't go to school with my white children. It seems like it should either be wrong or right.

"Actually, the ACLU and American Library Association are just two examples of powerful lobbies that have fought hard to stop any restrictions on pornography—even child pornography!"

Just to be clear, I am not saying this in support of the ACLU or any type of pornography, however, you need to let your readers in on the entire truth. The ACLU does oppose child pornography that includes pictures or video of real children; they are not opposed to virtual child pornography. http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/14793leg20020508.htmlNow,

I know that opens a lot of doors that we don't need to discuss, because we will agree, but the point is that you need to be perfectly clear when citing something. You would do well to read the actual letters of opposition to the bills that they oppose, because sometimes there are some good solid reasons for their opposition, such as the creation of new federal death penalties and the allowance of juvenile offenders into adult prisons.

"I hardly think Bill Clinton qualifies as a "quasi-neocon.""

Well, no, a Republican wouldn't think that, would they? :)

"Wonderful, fantastic, outstanding, I love it, a dream come true, Great!"

All your reactions to Obama's plan. Sounds like Democrats and Republicans agree on everything except the question you asked seven times, "How will we pay for it?"

I'm so glad you asked! Because this addresses my initial concern entirely.

How do we pay for police officers? Soldiers? Fire trucks? Highways?

Taxes, obviously, is the answer to all these questions. Now here is my question that I would really, really like answered.

Why is health care any different than police care or military care for our citizens? Why are the atheists and agnostics in the Democratic party more willing to give up part of their paycheck for un-insured Americans than Christians in the Republican party? I can tolerate a crude, snobbish, rich non-Christian Republican telling me that he earned his money and the government can't take it away to help people that should get their own jobs but I can't tolerate a Christian saying those things. I want a good solid reason why Christian Republicans oppose this.

"Barack Obama is just promising everyone the moon in order to get elected! "

I am not so naive as to think that his plan will pass through Congress untouched, but I would rather have a form of his plan than no plan at all. If you were going to not vote for someone based on the fact that their plan isn't going to end up identical to the one in their campaign platform, then no one would ever vote.

"They could live with their families before also. The government was not going house to house to round up the mentally disabled to involuntarily commit them to hospitals."

I know, but didn't this process lead to more in-home medical care? Before, wasn't it either no medical care, or a hospital? Also, group homes are a much better environment than a hospital, which I already mentioned.

"Where we may disagree is that I think we need to get off foreign oil even if the solutions are not immediately or entirely "green." We don't seem to mind endangering the environments of Middle-Eastern countries with our oil imports, but we just don't want to put our environment at risk. That doesn't seem fair, does it?"

No, I don't disagree with that, it seems fair. But I'm still voting for Obama! ;)

Thanks, again, for your responses, I appreciate it.

Robert said...

If I may chime in –

There clearly is a double standard being perpetuated in schools where Christianity is firmly in the crosshairs of some people. For example, a student in Wisconsin is suing after being denied the ability to integrate Christianity into his art project after classmates were allowed to integrate demonic imagery and the school and faculty advertised Hindu beliefs. At the University of Michigan, Muslims were built footbaths and other accommodations. Obviously there is a double standard.

Opposition to this double standard isn’t often met with reasoned arguing. Critics are labeled “right wing extremists”, “Jesus nuts”, or “hate mongers.” In an effort to silence opposition of homosexuality, critics are called “homophobes”, “racists”, or likened to back-water hillbillies. This isn’t balance or fair. It’s a clear sign that schools are showing preferences. They’re indoctrinating not teaching children if they're not allowing alternative arguments.

L’oiseau made the analogy of homosexuality and slavery. This is EXACTLY what I mean. Therefore, when I disagree with homosexuality and I believe it to be a sin, in that worldview, I am made to look like a racist. It’s not a good analogy nor does it fit the situation.

A better example would be adultery. Adultery is a sin and I’d hope schools would never speak glowingly about it. In schools today, people are made to think that homosexuality comes without consequences and that it is a perfectly acceptable and normal choice. Opposition to this viewpoint is met harshly. However, if you replace the word “homosexuality” with “adultery” you’ll get a picture of how many Christians view it. We would not place you in jail for it, but we don’t think it should be met with approval or pushed on our children.

Finally, comparing health care with fire and police are not equivalent. Without going into details, it is much easier to provide a cheaper and better alternative to government controlled healthcare through private enterprise. When I think of the way the government has managed social security or even my local DMV, I’ve got a strong motivation to keep them from managing healthcare.

L'oiseau said...

Robert,

Thanks for your response.

"L’oiseau made the analogy of homosexuality and slavery. This is EXACTLY what I mean. Therefore, when I disagree with homosexuality and I believe it to be a sin, in that worldview, I am made to look like a racist. It’s not a good analogy nor does it fit the situation.

A better example would be adultery. Adultery is a sin and I’d hope schools would never speak glowingly about it."

This is my point. To YOU homosexuality is a sin, and so to compare it to adultery or child molestation seems accurate. To OTHER PEOPLE it is not a sin, so comparing your disdain for it to people who own slaves seems justified.

That being said, no one was calling anyone a racist, that was just a metaphor.

I'd like to ask you when the last time was that you were "in schools today"? I'm going to bet that you are basing your argument off of the few and far between situations like the one you mentioned where the boy is suing. And I'm sorry but I'm going to have to LOL at your University of Michigan example. That school has loads of Christian groups and a chapel. My high school experience (which ended five years ago) was much different than the baby boomer Christian conservatives like to make it out to be. I attended a Bible study in a classroom every Monday morning before class, my choir director gave us primarily religious and Christian music to sing, I wrote about my faith in numerous occasions in the school newspaper, and most of my creative writing and english papers were centered around Christianity, my health class taught abstinence as the best form of birth control, and I was never "taught" anything about homosexuality, good or bad. I believe you would find this to be similar to the majority of students experiences in the US today.(I live in a MN, btw, a very liberal state/school system).

Bottom line, homosexuality is something that is acceptable in our society. Therefore, people are going to think it's acceptable. If you want people to stop thinking this way, either witness to them, or get it unlegalized.

I'm not sure how closely you've read my posts because you seem to be assuming that I'm not a Christian, when in fact I am. That's my whole premise for posting about these things.

I respect, but disagree with, your health care opinions. Thanks again for responding!