How secularism defies common sense

[4gold]

In the United States of America, our tax dollars are used to pay for abortions, sex-change operations, and boob jobs.

But if a Christian organization wants taxpayer funding to provide faith-based healthcare, THAT's crossing the line?!

Can't we have a system of laws that rewards religious organizations for doing what is right, while prohibiting them from using the government to advance their doctrine or theology on the rest of us?

[opus49]

Did you even bother to read the sites you've linked? The Hyde Ammendment prevents Medicare from being used for abortions. And since when do U.S. tax dollars fund the Australian Navy?

[4gold]

Did you even bother to read the sites you've linked? The Hyde Ammendment prevents Medicare from being used for abortions. And since when do U.S. tax dollars fund the Australian Navy?

Heh! Sorry, I gave the wrong link. Here's the link to the US military giving free boob jobs.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/0 ... lk_schaler

And the Hyde Amendment only prevents federal Medicaid from being used for certain kinds of abortions, but still funds others. If you read the rest of that link, you will see that 17 states use Medicaid dollars for funding abortions.

[McCulloch]

In the United States of America, our tax dollars are used to pay for abortions, sex-change operations, and boob jobs.

Abortions are legal medial procedures provided to those who do not have a religious objection, why should a secular government not pay for them?
Persons born with ambiguous genders have often been fixed shortly after they were born to be the gender that seemed most correct to the doctor at the time. If they had been subsequently shown to have made a mistake, should the correction not be covered?
Breast reduction surgery is often medically necessary.

But if a Christian organization wants taxpayer funding to provide faith-based healthcare, THAT's crossing the line?!

Praying that demons go away has not been shown to be an effective medical practice. Why should a secular government pay for it?

Can't we have a system of laws that rewards religious organizations for doing what is right, while prohibiting them from using the government to advance their doctrine or theology on the rest of us?

Yes, if you revoke the first amendment and set up a theocracy.

[4gold]

Abortions are legal medial procedures provided to those who do not have a religious objection, why should a secular government not pay for them?
Persons born with ambiguous genders have often been fixed shortly after they were born to be the gender that seemed most correct to the doctor at the time. If they had been subsequently shown to have made a mistake, should the correction not be covered?
Breast reduction surgery is often medically necessary.

First of all, I am talking about common sense, not legal reasoning. Second of all, the link was for breast implants, not breast reductions.

Praying that demons go away has not been shown to be an effective medical practice. Why should a secular government pay for it?

But they weren't praying for demons to go away. Is that a strawman?

Yes, if you revoke the first amendment and set up a theocracy.

Is that the only way? It's either a theocracy or nothing at all?

[McCulloch]

Abortions are legal medial procedures provided to those who do not have a religious objection, why should a secular government not pay for them?
Persons born with ambiguous genders have often been fixed shortly after they were born to be the gender that seemed most correct to the doctor at the time. If they had been subsequently shown to have made a mistake, should the correction not be covered?
Breast reduction surgery is often medically necessary.

First of all, I am talking about common sense, not legal reasoning.

OK, I don't know of any common sense reasons why secular governments should not pay for certain medical procedures.

Second of all, the link was for breast implants, not breast reductions.

I have not seen any convincing case for breast implants as a medically necessary procedure, except in the case of post-mastectomy patients.

Praying that demons go away has not been shown to be an effective medical practice. Why should a secular government pay for it?

But they weren't praying for demons to go away. Is that a strawman?

Have there been any studies that show that faith is a part of successful medical treatment?

Yes, if you revoke the first amendment and set up a theocracy.

Is that the only way? It's either a theocracy or nothing at all?

Since the first amendment prevents the state from activities which advance and endorse religion then it seems that revoking the first amendment would be the only legal way to do what you ask.

[ShadowRishi]

In the United States of America, our tax dollars are used to pay for abortions, sex-change operations, and boob jobs.

But if a Christian organization wants taxpayer funding to provide faith-based healthcare, THAT's crossing the line?!

Can't we have a system of laws that rewards religious organizations for doing what is right, while prohibiting them from using the government to advance their doctrine or theology on the rest of us?

In how many ways does this premise violate logic?

Firstly, it is a non-sequiter. The fact that the government pays for some really odd procedures is direct result of socialist policies that have become prevalent in the USA. The fact that socialism gets bit odd sometimes does not make secularism --solely a policy on religious preference in government-- "against common sense."

Secondly, common sense is useless. Logic, reasoning, and analysis are what normal people call much more rational than "I feel this is wrong because... I feel it is." And yet, that is what common sense founded upon. Useless human emotions; therefore I would suggest that you place less stock in "common sense" and put more in reason.

Thirdly, assuming that the most crazy things have been allowed under secular governments... That still doesn't make it magically right to assert that I should have to pay for your religion, too.

"Oh yes, all these other cases are complete bollucks; I have no idea why I should have to pay for that"
"What about your causes?"
"Oh yes of course people should have to pay for that! How silly!"

[4gold]

I have not seen any convincing case for breast implants as a medically necessary procedure, except in the case of post-mastectomy patients.

Have there been any studies that show that faith is a part of successful medical treatment?

You're missing the point, I believe. The point is that faith-based centers provide successful medical treatment, but they're not allowed to receive tax dollars because they are faith-based.

Meanwhile, non-necessary medical procedures do receive tax dollars. Does that make any sense to you?

Since the first amendment prevents the state from activities which advance and endorse religion then it seems that revoking the first amendment would be the only legal way to do what you ask.

Or all it would take is one more Supreme Court justice, not a revocation.

[4gold]

In how many ways does this premise violate logic?

Firstly, it is a non-sequiter. The fact that the government pays for some really odd procedures is direct result of socialist policies that have become prevalent in the USA. The fact that socialism gets bit odd sometimes does not make secularism --solely a policy on religious preference in government-- "against common sense."

Secondly, common sense is useless. Logic, reasoning, and analysis are what normal people call much more rational than "I feel this is wrong because... I feel it is." And yet, that is what common sense founded upon. Useless human emotions; therefore I would suggest that you place less stock in "common sense" and put more in reason.

Thirdly, assuming that the most crazy things have been allowed under secular governments... That still doesn't make it magically right to assert that I should have to pay for your religion, too.

"Oh yes, all these other cases are complete bollucks; I have no idea why I should have to pay for that"
"What about your causes?"
"Oh yes of course people should have to pay for that! How silly!"

I think you missed the premise, no offense.

The point was that non-necessary medical procedures receive taxpayer funding, but necessary medical procedures do not, only because they are faith-based. That defies common sense!

I'm not sure if you wanted to try your response again, or not.

[ShadowRishi]

I think you missed the premise, no offense.

The point was that non-necessary medical procedures receive taxpayer funding, but necessary medical procedures do not, only because they are faith-based. That defies common sense!

I'm not sure if you wanted to try your response again, or not.

Faith-based medical practices... Care to it expound upon this?

Most medical institutions have the name "St. blah blah blah's Hospital." They receive plenty of government funding. So clearly, in order for the hospital to get pushed onto the list of excessive religious entanglement, they are doing something more than just "having a religious foundation." They have to actively be involved in the promotion of religion and financially help religion.


Perhaps you view this as an irony; I do not.