Can someone explain?

[Guest]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are trying to say that, in a representative government, the laws should be a reflection of the morals of the majority of it's people. I agree, as long as those laws do not trample on the rights of the individual.

Boyando, sorry, that is not what I was saying at all. I apologize that I wasn't clear. I sometimes have a hard time trying to choose the right words to express what's in my head.

What I'm trying to say is, in a representative government, it is dangerous to make laws because of some moral leanings. And it is exactly as you stated above - individual rights (whether liberal or conservative in application). The individual's moral code should be a product of the SOCIETY, not the GOVERNMENT. Whether the laws reflect the moral code of the majority is nothing but incidental. Make sense?

[boyando]

Boyando, sorry, that is not what I was saying at all. I apologize that I wasn't clear. I sometimes have a hard time trying to choose the right words to express what's in my head.

What I'm trying to say is, in a representative government, it is dangerous to make laws because of some moral leanings. And it is exactly as you stated above - individual rights (whether liberal or conservative in application). The individual's moral code should be a product of the SOCIETY, not the GOVERNMENT. Whether the laws reflect the moral code of the majority is nothing but incidental. Make sense?

I believe that it is I who owe you an apology, for being to eager to agree with you and not understanding your full point.

Having said that, I would disagree with your statement, because society is a product of individuals, all with different morals, but coming together on some moral issues.

Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We still agree that the government should not dictate what the morals of any society should be, but service the true needs of a society, including it's morals, while not forgetting the rights of the individual.

b

[Guest]

Having said that, I would disagree with your statement, because society is a product of individuals, all with different morals, but coming together on some moral issues.

I can agree with you on this one. I was looking into it from the perspective of a child being "raised by the village" which was a quote used by Hilary Clinton in the last Presidential election, and that the village is society, not government. But you are right, a society is formed by a group of individuals - whether similar or different - banding together for mutual benefit and whose collective moral code is a product of each individual's contribution.

[Maya]

In many ways the laws or bills of the country reflect the state of the socitety. A scandianvian country that allows devorce, gaymarriages aso is socially completely different from a country where this is not allowed. In my country there even is a religious party... it is dying but stil excists; the pattern of society is altering and its values are altering. Before it was always said "Home, religion and native country" (which we call fathers country). We have always had a statechurch (lutheran) So in my country religion HAS played a huge role in politics. How ever today it is not any more as state and Church are possibly separated too. So we have had morals mixed in our governement always. Even the gay marriage law came to as it was morally wrong to deny marriage from anybody. So we have a governement that rules what is "moral".

When going to wote I think one CAN ask oneself ; what would Jesus vote for!? And that is what LDS should ask themselves.

[Moksha]

And you honestly think that forcing the rich to give to the poor will help anyone?

Yes

Other than separating the rich from the rewards of their labors?

What does it profit a man to gain the world but lose his soul?

[Moksha]

But don't come into the discussion saying - WHAT WOULD JESUS DO? That has no place in this debate.

Give Us the Philosophies of Men, eh?

[john doe]

Yes

What does it profit a man to gain the world but lose his soul?

I'm not sure you understand the difference between giving charity as opposed to forcing charity. The more a government takes by force from its citizens in the name of its poor, the less the citizenry will give on their own.

[Dravin]

What does it profit a man to gain the world but lose his soul?

Are you trying to suggest that if we take someone who lacks charity and force him to help the poor that it profits him spiritually? You can make arguments for taxation for social services, that taxes force people to develop charity (the spiritual trait) is not one of them.

[Guest]

Give Us the Philosophies of Men, eh?

Of course government is Philosophies of Men. That's why Jesus said to give to Cesar what is Cesar's and give to God what is God's. Modern societies have proved time and time again that a diverse society like the United States of America thrive better when government and religion are separate from each other. You need to recognize where government domain ends.

Edited February 20, 2010 by anatess

[Moksha]

It's just difficult to discuss opposing political views when the other person is not even engaged in the politics of a discussion but something completely out of the ball park.

As to your thought that religious values should not enter political discourse, I agree and disagree. I would agree that we should not make our religious views mandatory for other to believe. I would disagree in that whatever we do in the public sphere, we should do based on what values we have, that address the public good.

You may see yourself down in the box seats, and not realize those up in the bleachers are watching the same game from a different angle or across the field.

[Guest]

As to your thought that religious values should not enter political discourse, I agree and disagree. I would agree that we should not make our religious views mandatory for other to believe. I would disagree in that whatever we do in the public sphere, we should do based on what values we have, that address the public good.

You may see yourself down in the box seats, and not realize those up in the bleachers are watching the same game from a different angle or across the field.

Point taken. (By the way, I edited my post because I thought it was too contentious even with the careful wording. I am grateful that you didn't wag your fingers at me even if I highly deserved it!).

But, at the same time, the rules of the game controls all the players' actions regardless of what we all believe it should be and what values we all have. It is what keeps the game from going berserk with all these different players of differing social strata involved. It is these rules that we need to be very careful of changing without extensive study of what these changes could possibly do to the game itself and not just the benefit/disadvantage it could provide to each individual player. Because, one rule change could benefit a group of players but it could drastically impact the game itself so that it becomes unviable even if such a rule is based on high moral standards. What benefit can any player get if the game itself becomes unplayable (is that even a word, lol!)? Do you understand what I'm getting at?

[Maya]

The more a government takes by force from its citizens in the name of its poor, the less the citizenry will give on their own.

I disagree... But there is a factum... MOORE governement takes from its citisents LESS they have, to give to charity. But also the governement is acting as the giver instead. So you give to governement that gives to others... like redcross or Humilitarian services. The only difference is that you have agreed on the congress ... voted people there who will take best care of YOUR interests. That is why we vote people to congress or such and not just have well payed specialists there for years, like in a usual work place.

Why should we elect people to congress if they dont work for us there. An other thing is that if the society we live in is very different from what we want we dont "win" cases in congress.

I thinkt Norway is a good exemple of a country where the state has fored the citients to donating. You can check Norways numbers for charity, they are not small to a small country like us. We as a country donate a LOT /citien by the governement and I dont feel forced at all. Money that could have been used to built this country to get our hospitals, shools, old people care even better, (NO road taxation!! ) but we allow the state to donate for us. (State here denyes poverty, but it is a factum also here, there are people who fall in between. People may go hungry, but they dont starve.)

Stil they gather donations for millions in door to door or phone aso charity, fex for Haiti. From the 40 % I pay taxes from my salary I am happy to know some of it goes to charity. Only a few years ago they started giving taxes back for donating to Church, but if you donate elswhere like red cross there is no payback of taxes for donating.

The ONLY thing that is not so good about state donating instead of you yourself is that you can not earmark your money to anywhere special. But it is the same in Church you cant earmark your dontaions, you just give to the humilitarian services and hope it will be used to waht you would like it to be used. Ofcourse sometimes you feel you WANT to donate to a special case.. it is getting more and more difficult anyway.

Ofcourse congress her may use my money to wrong things like getting more salary to themselves, but then it is also my task to see taht the person I vote for WILL take care of what I think is important... hmm actually I cant wote for congress in this coun try as I have not changed my citizenship . The problem here is more the passivity of people, they feel they can not fight against the deitions of the ongress, they just let things silide til next election. The gaymarriage law went in from backdoor without anyone notising it. Now they want to cahnge it...

My c is making troubles have to fix my keyboard...

[Guest]

But it is the same in Church you cant earmark your dontaions, you just give to the humilitarian services and hope it will be used to waht you would like it to be used. Ofcourse sometimes you feel you WANT to donate to a special case.. it is getting more and more difficult anyway.

This is not quite accurate - at least not in the US. The tithing slips have an area where you can specify where your charitable giving goes. Tithing goes to building temples and running of the church. That's what tithing is for. Fast offerings and all other donations go to humanitarian services - you can specify where they go.

[applepansy]

This is not quite accurate - at least not in the US. The tithing slips have an area where you can specify where your charitable giving goes. Tithing goes to building temples and running of the church. That's what tithing is for. Fast offerings and all other donations go to humanitarian services - you can specify where they go.

It can get more specific than that. If you donate to the Missionary fund you can specify a missionaries name. I'm sure there is a mechanism for specifying which Humanitarian service you want your donation to go to, also. It would be worth looking into if someone felt sgrongly about it.

[applepansy]

I disagree... But there is a factum... MOORE governement takes from its citisents LESS they have, to give to charity. But also the governement is acting as the giver instead. So you give to governement that gives to others... like redcross or Humilitarian services. The only difference is that you have agreed on the congress ... voted people there who will take best care of YOUR interests. That is why we vote people to congress or such and not just have well payed specialists there for years, like in a usual work place.

Why should we elect people to congress if they dont work for us there. An other thing is that if the society we live in is very different from what we want we dont "win" cases in congress.

I thinkt Norway is a good exemple of a country where the state has fored the citients to donating. You can check Norways numbers for charity, they are not small to a small country like us. We as a country donate a LOT /citien by the governement and I dont feel forced at all. Money that could have been used to built this country to get our hospitals, shools, old people care even better, (NO road taxation!! ) but we allow the state to donate for us. (State here denyes poverty, but it is a factum also here, there are people who fall in between. People may go hungry, but they dont starve.)

Stil they gather donations for millions in door to door or phone aso charity, fex for Haiti. From the 40 % I pay taxes from my salary I am happy to know some of it goes to charity. Only a few years ago they started giving taxes back for donating to Church, but if you donate elswhere like red cross there is no payback of taxes for donating.

The ONLY thing that is not so good about state donating instead of you yourself is that you can not earmark your money to anywhere special. But it is the same in Church you cant earmark your dontaions, you just give to the humilitarian services and hope it will be used to waht you would like it to be used. Ofcourse sometimes you feel you WANT to donate to a special case.. it is getting more and more difficult anyway.

Ofcourse congress her may use my money to wrong things like getting more salary to themselves, but then it is also my task to see taht the person I vote for WILL take care of what I think is important... hmm actually I cant wote for congress in this coun try as I have not changed my citizenship . The problem here is more the passivity of people, they feel they can not fight against the deitions of the ongress, they just let things silide til next election. The gaymarriage law went in from backdoor without anyone notising it. Now they want to cahnge it...

My c is making troubles have to fix my keyboard...

Our USA Congress and Senate have not been managing our taxes well for decades. That is why we are so against this healthcare bill. They have bankrupted Social Security. The Postal Service is running in the red. There is so much greed that most government agencies are just big dark deep holes where money gets burned and not much good comes back out.

[bytebear]

Compare any government program against a private equivalent, and you will see how incredibly inefficient the government is. When a company runs out of money, they change their process to improve things. When the government runs out of money they just raise taxes. Here in California, unemployment is nearing 10% and companies are being forced to downsize, yet, not one government job has been lost. NOT ONE.

[Moksha]

Compare any government program against a private equivalent, and you will see how incredibly inefficient the government is. When a company runs out of money, they change their process to improve things.

Just like Lehman Brothers, AIG and Chrysler. And with a little extra change in their pockets from the Gov't, AIG was able to have extra nice networking vacations, without cutting out any unnecessary frills.

Can we afford the overhead to pay for this "efficiency"?

When the government runs out of money they just raise taxes. Here in California, unemployment is nearing 10% and companies are being forced to downsize, yet, not one government job has been lost. NOT ONE.

In Utah there has been the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth when schools and mental health have had to fire their workers. Sad times when depression hits as a result of unregulated "efficiency".

[Palerider]

Just like Lehman Brothers, AIG and Chrysler. And with a little extra change in their pockets from the Gov't, AIG was able to have extra nice networking vacations, without cutting out any unnecessary frills.

Can we afford the overhead to pay for this "efficiency"?

In Utah there has been the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth when schools and mental health have had to fire their workers. Sad times when depression hits as a result of unregulated "efficiency".

are you saying we need more Gov't???....they can't manage anything to begin with....and you want more???? The gov't cannot solve your problems...

[rameumptom]

AIG and the other banks and companies should have been allowed to fail. Period. That is part of the efficiency of the market - getting rid of the cheaters and deadwood.

It is the government with new regulation that keeps such alive. Fannie Mae now wants more billions to survive. Why? Let them die before they squander more of our money.

Ford is doing just fine. They played it smart and careful, and they deserve to benefit from their wise efforts. But that won't happen as long as the Feds are bolstering up GM and Chrysler with tax money.

When companies know they have to play smart or go bankrupt, they play smart or go bankrupt. When companies know the feds will bail them out, they don't worry about using any protection or care. So what if they gamble away billions on housing mortgages? As long as the feds bail them out, there is no risk to them.

That is government regulation at its worse. In a truly efficient and free economy, many of the big banks would have died. Individuals would have been bailed out by the Feds because of FDIC, but the banks would have gone away. This would have cleared the way for smaller and smarter banks to step in and take the place of the cheaters.

France and other strongly regulated economies prove that the more regulation, the more unemployment and the fewer jobs created. India also proves it. They once were heavily regulated, and it kept business from starting up there. In the last 15 years, however, they have opened up to free markets, and their economy has been booming like never before.

[marts1]

I DONT want to open a can of worms.. please dont get agitated, I am just a foreighner, but I would like to understand a point of wiev may of you have, that seems weird to me adn I just can not understand the way some of you think. So forgive this thread... and Pam has all teh authority... as many others , even me to close thsi thread ANY time it seems messessarry. I know this is a hot question and me beeing at least now on teh opposite site is not helpin.

Ok here we go...

I can not understand WHY so many of LDS are against Obamas health bill I think you call it? Isnt it so that we as LDS should wish all good to our fellow citisents? Is there any alternative those against have for this os suggestion? HOW would others help those less fortunate to get the medical treatment they need. Fact is NOT everyone HAS money to pay the insurance from their own poket.

Ok there may be a free hospital stuff but IS that as good as for those who pay the insurance. If not why not? Is it so that if you are for some reason fallen off the society by unemployment or sickness that you should not have the equal rights for health care, or as those who can pay the insurance better people and thus should be taken better care of?

I am sorry I just cant kind of get this.

Is there an alternative like people donating for others insurance payments? Could not people think they kind of donate health to someone who can not afford it by paying the needed amount of more taxes... the healthcare is taken care of by donation, taken directly from your salary. Why not? Is the problem that you can not SEE where it goes who it helps? Maybe some pictures of happy children who have got really good healtcare free could change your opinion?

Someone says it is communism to do it that way? When has communism become the good helping the needy? I just feel that you guys, who can, have to start donating a LOT more freely than you have done to healthcare in order to help those less fortunate in your own country. With so many loosing their jobs and all I cant see how they mange to continue paying the insurance... have they fallen out of the system all together? Sorry I really dont understand the system.

In my country the healtservices are not completely free, but they are 100 times less than they would be if we would not have taken the money from everyone in taxes. Stil people DO die in waiting for treatment. But at least everyone gets the basic healthcare very cheep. And also continuenly, if needed and if there is enough capasity.

The only thing here that needs to get in the free healthcare are teeth.... you get refound for pulling the teeth, but not setting newones in your mouth. New ones cost 1500$ a peace....

Anyway it kind of suprises me that so many LDS are against making the good health servies awailable to those less fortunate too. Just wondering.... maybe someone can explain this to my small brain. There still could be the super healthcare for the rich... if they feel too good to be with the common folks.

I might not like the health system we have here in Ontario all that much, however I would be much worse off without it. A major part of the plus side is I don't have to worry as much. Perhaps I should have more faith in God's protection and maybe I would without the health program we have here, or maybe I wouldn't. Even Job, who is described as being a good man worried that God would not protect him from disaster.

[Moksha]

The gov't cannot solve your problems...

Sounds more like a conservative mantra than anything else. Governments are instituted by men, and in our case, are charged with providing for the general welfare for us and our posterity.

Wait for the air raid siren before heading to the caves.

[Palerider]

Sounds more like a conservative mantra than anything else. Governments are instituted by men, and in our case, are charged with providing for the general welfare for us and our posterity.

Wait for the air raid siren before heading to the caves.

no not conservative mantra.....I think of it as the truth, if we are looking to the gov't to solve our problems we are all in trouble. They can't even resolve their own issues....

[Palerider]

Just like Lehman Brothers, AIG and Chrysler. And with a little extra change in their pockets from the Gov't, AIG was able to have extra nice networking vacations, without cutting out any unnecessary frills.

Can we afford the overhead to pay for this "efficiency"?

You forgot to mention GM in there....don't forget the car companies after getting gov't money they sent all those jobs out of the country. However, our Gov't saved the UAW union.

Don't forget one guy called for the car makers to go belly up and get rid of the upper management and start over.

[bytor2112]

Sounds more like a conservative mantra than anything else. Governments are instituted by men, and in our case, are charged with providing for the general welfare for us and our posterity.

Wait for the air raid siren before heading to the caves.

The government wasn't designed to provide cradle to the grave. Smaller, more effective government. What are YOU willing to sacrifice or eliminate to have government provided health care benefits? Let's slash and then talk.......

What the government is providing to us and our posterity is a mountain of debt.......

[bytor2112]

I'm all for helping those who need help.

I'm not for "helping" those who don't need it.

My friends brother and his wife have been living rent free because my friend is too nice to give them the boot. He has been drawing unemployment and refuses to look for a job, his wife works....they are getting over $5000.00 in tax refund.