Health Care Mandate Applies to All -- Except the Amish

I don't disagree with much of what you say about the health care bill and the unions. The difference is I view it as important to separate the Amish from that argument, theirs is one of religious freedom. I can't feel strongly enough that as Christians we should be very cautious of criticizing it when the government upholds religious freedom. I actually would be much more outraged and much more worried if the government was planning to force the Amish to go against their religious beliefs. This is something we should all stand against the government doing.

As far the issue you raise of others that are against insurance. If they are members of a church that has historically established that they don't believe in insurance, and have lived that way consistently I think they should be (and I am sure would be) included in the exception.

 

Churches can be independent - not part of large organization - and hold to these beliefs. Buy what means would the government make the decision to honor their exception as well if the law is, instead, written for a specific religious sect. This proposed law does not uphold religious freedom - it violates it grossly and for purely political reasons.

 

Most laws like this allow for others that can prove they believe the same to also benefit from it.

 

This, my friend, is not like "most laws" and, in fact, we haven't actually seen it since its been written in private. That's wrong!

We do know it specifically mentions the Amish which shows "respect" to that particular religious sect. That's wrong!

We do know that this legislation is all about trading our liberty for so-called "security" further forcing us to "trust" the government. That's wrong!

What we should do is be as strong a voice in objecting to this as Congress apparently fears that the Amish are. Then, perhaps, they would not think they can cram it down our throats.

 

I was just responding to your OP "Health Care Mandate Applies to All -- Except the Amish " But your arguments in this thread keep jumping all over the place and often center on everything else. I think at this point I will just agree to disagree.

 

The comments have, indeed, jumped around - I've tried to carefully respond to every point made - but I'm clearly focused on the original point.

Once again, the point is that exceptions to the payment of taxes for the proposed health care program should not given to the Amish - or any other group whether a religious sect, a working class, a racial group, or an economic class. Everyone should be treated the same under this law or the law should be thrown out all together which is exactly what we should all want.

Some just can't get over arguing for the Amish as if they're somehow above all other Christians in their "right" to chose not to participate - maybe because they have demonstrated "resolve" - and as if our Congress is passionately concerned about religious liberty! It's politics they're concerned about and they've got a lot of people fooled.

There are, by the way, a number of extant programs through which Christians can share their medical costs and avoid medical insurance. They're for all Christians - only Christians - and they are privately run. Those, of course, would have no purpose under the proposed law unless you happen to be Amish. Your federal government wants control and will take your liberty to get it if you let them!

 

Its okay if you can't understand.

I see the unions and government workers as getting an unfair advantage... paybacke for their votes and support..... bribes.

I see the Amish as a people who still have some success in getting exemptions ...... IOW ..... keeping their freedoms and rights..... because of well established principals and consistency of standing for them..... individualy and together.

How did this camel of health care get into OUR tent. It started with his getting his nose under the edge and we did nothing to stop him.... The rest just follows.

How do we get the camel out?..... The same way... We should be thanking God for every exception, like that of the Amish with health care..... because it may be the exception which breaks the rule and opens the door and gives us a way of kicking the camel out! Eventually! The Amish are certainly too small a group for us to be resentful of their circumstance and good fortune in a matter we would wish for ourselves.

Oh ye of little faith. Oh ye who compare yoursefves and are broken because you are imposed upon and find yourselves coveting others. Oh ye who have had i it so well and lost your ability to accept God's free gifts with thankfulness, and as though you are faithless, have chosen to bring forth your complaints to the alters of government (in stead of prayer and supplications and trust in the Lord of all); to complain and place unrealistic demands upon government to solve the problems which are your responsibilities and your difficulties to master....and were meant to be your training grounds of faith; yet you make impossible demands of government..... and you don't count the cost if government then sets the price? And you sell yourselves to dependancy on the temporal for a price which will always change in the sellers' favor, rather than trust the One who has made the promise that He changes not and will never fail.

 

The issue isn't the virtues of the Amish. That's where many are getting off track! It's the abuse of the government regulators who want to use them an exception - a token for political purposes - to avoid the conflict. It has nothing to do with being "resentful" of the Amish. It's being firm in our resolve that bad laws aren't foisted upon everyone else by such evil tactics. It has nothing to do with a "wish for ourselves" because most of us don't want anything like this from our government. We, rather, just want to be left alone to make our own choices. The only thing we expect from civil government is a means to attain justice when our fellow man wrongs us. The proposed law doesn't won't do that! To that extent we have a common virtue with the Amish. Preserving our liberty means avoiding such special exceptions especially when they're based on favors to a religious sect. This puts the government in the role of deciding which sect has merit and which does not. The only benefit I see to the exception being included is the opportunity to use it as a basis to have the entire law thrown out. Meanwhile, I praise God that the Democrats have one less seat in the Senate and hope this will ultimately lead to an end to the putrid legislation that has loomed over us for months.

 

Amazingly you started out right.....
The issue is not the virtue of the Amish.
But the issue is FREEDOM/ LIBERTY.............. and they are a group of people who may realize it in this exception.

Tell me this:
Do you right now have any fewer rights regarding your own choice of health care which you did not have at the end of 2009? No? Why? Because you still have choice like you did then... and will until something happens to take that choice away.

How are the Amish different from you at this point.... regarding health care? They are no different.
They have choices which they can make just like you do so currently there is no exemption..
........ so we've got it clear....
We are not discussing a problem in the present......
We're discussing a 'What might be....
and that based upon a 'What might pass' contained within health care legislation."
So what you're really concerned about is not that its giving the Amish anything.... but that it is taking away something you have.... your power of choice and it allegedly will not take it away from the Amish.
Can't you see the difference?

---------------------------------------
THIS IS IMPORTANT:

You can't be more free by taking from others.
If you go into bondage.... another's freedom may work to free you.... but your making them have to submit to bondage just so everyone is treated as equals..... gives you more company in your misery... but does nothing to set either or both of you free.
-------------------------------------------------

But have it your way.... as so many others also do.......
They advocate for the regulations and control over other people things and territories of choices/ rights/ property/ abilities etc..... until it turns and bites them. Then they complain about how badly their being treated. Oh pooooooooooooooor me...... and wonder .....Who toook my freeeeeeeeeedom? Not realizing .... while they were limiting the choices of others they were limiting their own rights!





Used to be....according to the old saying.... I can give a man a fish and feed him for a day..... or teach a man to fish ..... and he'll feed himself for a lifetime.... used to be true......

But because of our selfish, controling, and narrowminded ways and short sighted ness.... we've changed the propects on the man who we taught to fish:
He now must buy a license. He will be limited as to where he can fish. He'll be told what is permitted and what itsn't regarding lures and bait. He may need to be able to identify what he catches.... and measure weight and size..... and if he catches the wrong kind or any which do not meet the guidelines.... he'll have to starve and throw them back ..... even if they mortally swalllowed the hook line and sinker......or pay hugh and unmerciful penalties.

A child sets up a lemonade stand.... every one thinks its sweet and give patronage and protests when the ordanance police give a warning citation for lack of health dept inspection, failure to register with the dept of business, and permit as a street vendor..... and succeeds in getting the regulators to back off... not that the law was changed, but a published agreement 'not to enforce'..... remember.... even the state's attorney has discretonary powers of enforcement and prosecution. ........ But this guy, unemployed for months and with a family, unemployment benefits almost up, hits upon an idea which he launches just in time... which works for a while: He's gotten an old 55 gal drum and cut it in half. He's found discarded oven racks and has made a grate to cook on. With the owners permission, he sets up business making kabobs of onion, meat, and pepper and sales them for $2 ea. Along comes the state regulatory police.... this man must pay $500 to get a business license...... and jump through a bunch of other hoops....... before he can attempt to make a living and feed his family. ---------It has become that we're so protected and regulated, that it is hard for a 'free man' to find anything he can do with his God given skills that is within his power of choice. Those who exercise their choice.... will find that most agree that they are not cute and will not have much protest for the defense of their freedom and work of on behalf of their families.

 

I want the same liberty for all Americans. I don't want any special exceptions for any group. The reason has nothing to do with selfishness. The key principle is effectively embodied in the words "Liberty and justice for all". Each element of this phrase is important - independently and collectively. When we start accepting - or rationalizing - the idea that some can be included and others excluded we fail to understand what that liberty is really all about. A system that provides liberty for some is not a system of liberty at all no matter how worthy that "some" may be. We as Christians, and as American citizens, have a duty to aggressively defend our liberty for the benefit of all. What some can not see in this particular issue - the Amish exception issue - is that Congress is trying to decide who is worthy of an exception and who is not based on their religious beliefs. That's not the role of Congress. If the proposed law is that questionable then it should not be enacted at all. But, of course, you must know that I do not think it should be enacted at all. I have no desire for it! That's the reason this issue is yet more evidence to put it out with the trash where it belongs. The Amish will loose nothing by that but every other man will also gain by it. Building a case to defend the exception included by Congress merely gives false credence - what they hoped for by including it - to the revolting concept that they can provide for our security as if they have a solution no one else has yet to invent. Can't you see the difference?

 

And if the average American practiced forgiveness as was demonstrated by the Amish when their children were massacred at their school we would truly be seen as a Christian nation

 

I said I was done with this thread, but I am going to try again to better explain. It is not the right to "choose" we are talking about here, but instead their right to not be forced to go against their beliefs. Unless you don't and have never had insurance because of your religious beliefs you don't have the same argument. You would have the same argument if in this bill it required something of you that went against your religious beliefs. For example if in this bill it required everyone to have their daughters get the HPV vaccination, you might take exception to that because of religious grounds. That would be the same argument the Amish have.

It is not about ones right to "choose'. Although that is a valid argument it is a different one entirely and not the same argument as the Amish which have a history of this belief and practice.

As far as just putting in wording (Amish)for one group, again I will mention that laws that make exceptions as this have always given that exception to others that can prove they also qualify for the exception. The reason the Amish are mentioned is they are best known for the "example". I am certain there will be many old order Mennonites, Brethren etc that will qualify.

I liken this to allow conscientious objectors to not serve in the military back when there used to be a draft. The government and the people of this county respected that certain groups could not serve because of their religious beliefs, so instead there was an avenue that was created for them to serve in other ways, but not in the military.

 

I see no point to rehash all the previous comments in detail but in summary the case is very clear: Liberty is for all - not for some no matter how virtuous or non-virtuous they may be. All persons should pay the tax or none should pay it and, in no case, should Congress single out a particular religious sect for exception. It's a very simple concept and essential to greater goal of maintaining liberty of us all. Congress is seeking to use this exception for the Amish to build credence to the evil they wish to foist upon us. They hope people will think "Oh, isn't that nice of Congress to do that for the Amish after all they really deserve it." We need to be wise enough to see it for the typical "bleeding heart" liberal tactic that it is. The last thing we want is Congress deciding which group is virtuous and which is not. There is no end to where that might go!

As for conscientious objectors argument, keep in mind this was not an exclusion from payment of taxes or even from any and all service to the nation. From the view of the nation, it has more to do with recognizing that a conscientious objector put into a combat role is very likely to be a high risk or liability to the mission and his fellow troops. The exemption allowed them to serve in some other capacity of value to the nation albeit with potentially less risk.

 

We would all have the same liberty. The liberty and freedom to follow our religious beliefs without interference from the government. So unless you belong to a church that doesn't believe in insurance and have followed that path in life you really don't have a valid complaint.

As far as virtuous or not, it has nothing to do with this.

 

Congress would decide who gets exceptions and who does not if this legislation becomes law. That's not liberty! We all have a valid complaint. Whether we chose something or not doesn't have anything to do with our right to make the choice. Liberty gives us the right to chose and even to change our minds. We can Methodist today and Baptist tomorrow. We can decide what is virtuous and what is not. It does not appoint someone else to decide for us based upon our affiliations or our past decisions pro or con. It does not appoint someone else to reward or penalize us for those choices. Think about it! Do you want a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington telling you that you must pay the tax because you are not a member of a particular religious sect. If so you've opted out of your liberty and, in turn, that of all Americans.

 

Once again your are merging two arguments. Whether or not congress has the right to by law make everyone get insurance is a valid argument. But that is a second argument to infringing on ones religious beliefs. Basic civil rights are important, but so are our religious protection. For some reason you want to merge the two, which weakens our religious rights. I think it is extremely important for Christians to support all religious freedoms. The next church that might lose something could be your own, and everyone would just say, so what it doesn't apply to me.

I guess you don't believe that we as Christians or our churches should have any protection or exemptions that is not made available to everyone else in the country? Should our churches not be tax exempt?

 

Liberty demands that we all get the same treatment under the law and that no favoritism be given to one religious sect over another. That does not weaken our religious rights - it helps to preserve and protect them!

Tax exemption for churches is a separate topic in itself but, because you've brought it up, there is a particular angle of it does fit into this argument: This proposed law would, de facto, give the Amish a tax exemption that others do not get. That would weaken our religious rights.

I think it is important that we aggressively oppose all legislation that affords special rights to any particular religious sect because tomorrow's law may be one that favors a non-Christian religion in a way detrimental to all Christians.

Further, no, I "don't believe that we as Christians or our churches should have any protection or exemptions that is not made available to everyone else in the country". The law should apply equally to everyone whether Christian or not. The law should recognize the church as the church and keep its hands off it in so far as the church's domain is concerned. The general tax exemption for churches does not infringe upon this principle because it applies to all churches not just those of a particular sect.

This is fundamental to our liberty. It does not diminish the origin of our law which, I believe, is founded on minimum Christian principals knowing these will best serve all men. It does not diminish our need to acknowledge God as the source of all our blessings. Nor, does it mean that government should seek to destroy all references to Him in the public arena. All of that, of course, is also a topic unto itself!

 

Yes each should be afforded the same liberty to follow their beliefs without interference from the government. It doesn't mean each church must be forced into one set of beliefs in order to have equal religious freedom.

On the contrary I think it is exactly the topic.

You made these quotes in this thread and just a few post before you said:

Then you go on to say this"

But what about people that are not part of the church but would complain that churches should not be exempt and make the same argument you are now making against the Amish. You see you are admitting that it is OK for the Churches to be treated different and be exempt when you are on the side receiving the benefit, but when you are not part of a church that is receiving a exemption you cry foul.

 

Steven2006, I told you this was a topic unto itself and I have no interest in getting into a protracted discussion about that in this thread. With respect to the topic of this thread it is relevant only to the extent that the tax exemption should be the same for all churches. Therefore, giving the Amish a tax exemption from the health care program while not giving it to other churches would violate that principle. I made that point very clear and I think you understand it.

 

No suggestion has been made that they should be "forced into one set of beliefs" so this is irrelevant.