Your comment does not make sense. Socialist health care is not slavery.

__________________
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum
(To such heights of evil are men driven by religion)

i'm medically disabled. am i one of the folks who won't help myself and lacks self-respect?

__________________
~0000~

Don't confuse me with the facts.

Without knowing the extent of your medical disability your question is irrelevant. There are those who actually are disabled through no fault of their own, and those who are personally responsible for their disability. There are those who are actually disabled and those who only claim disability.

Those truly disabled through no fault of their own are a very small segment of the population and thereby easily cared for by private charity, family or both. There’s no constitutional authority for government to extort taxpayers to care for the disabled, or no moral authority for government to “force” any citizen to fork over his/her fruits of their labors to supplement the life style or wellbeing of anyone else. We are only our brother’s keeper “voluntarily.”

the difficulty that i ran into is that i attended many churches over the years, and churches often choose not to financially support medically disabled people. churches more often are willing to send charity support overseas to help starving children, etc, versus paying the standard living expenses of medically disabled people in their own immediate community.

is this good or bad?

__________________
~0000~

Don't confuse me with the facts.

Churches aren’t the only charities in the country and why should they look locally or domestically at charitable cases when the government has created so many “forced” charitable programs through socialist extortion and redistribution?

Constitutional principles are based in individual liberty and individual “responsibility” and limited government. The two go hand and hand. That’s not just a “good” thing, it’s the “best” thing. Too bad nobody pays any attention to those principles anymore and instead have chosen the political path of socialism and the “slavery” thereof.

your two paragraphs seem to contradict each other:

here you seem to reference that charitable organizations have been 'forced' (as opposed to making a choice) by the government to engage in political programs, thereby exempting them from the responsibility of offering their charity freely to needy individuals.

yet here you seem to say that charitable organizations have made a 'choice' (as opposed to being forced) not to extend themselves to needy individuals.

my question is: are charitable organizations 'forced' or do they have a 'choice'?

__________________
~0000~

Don't confuse me with the facts.

Private charities have been handed the incentive to look outside of the United States for most of their charitable work because government has taken the “domestic” roll of charity with “forced” social programs. That’s why your mostly ignored by private charity, you have government forced charity to look after your disability, Africa and other nations alike have no social programs for the most part.

Private charity isn’t forced to do their work non-domestically, they’ve simply had nearly all “incentive” for domestic work taken over by government “forced” charitable social programs. If you want to call that being “forced” out of the domestic charity market, that’s fine with me, because in a way they have been forced out by government domestically. However, when it comes to catastrophic need such as Katrina, earth quakes, floods and fires domestically, private charity has proven it’s far and above FEMA in delivery of necessities on a far, far greater positive schedule and cost effectiveness basis.

The bottom line is, private charity can do it all for those who are really in need through no fault of their own. They do it more effective and cost efficient than government and seldom ever get swindled like government. They know how to find the “truly” needy through no fault of their own and they’re there first with the most, while government proves it’s simply a bureaucratic bumbling monster, wasteful and ripped off and hardly anything more than a millstone around the taxpayer’s neck. That’s because government has no business in the work of charity, and no moral responsibility or duty to extort it’s citizens to operate that which they know little to nothing about. There’s also no constitutional authority for government to even be in the charity business.

'can' and 'will' are two different things. none of these organizations is offering me money (nor will they anytime soon) to help support me in my medical disability. nor are they obligated to.

this is much like saying that the neighbor down the block has a million dollar home, but that doesn't mean that such neighbor will actually house the homeless.

do you believe that non-government organizations (as opposed to government) have a moral responsibility to give charitably to needy individuals?

__________________
~0000~

Don't confuse me with the facts.

As if you haven't noticed, governments are set up for the purpose of extorting taxpayers. And I've never noticed any constitutional provision saying what the government cannot extort taxpayers for.

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University of Seattle, 1993

Put 'em to work so they can earn their keep!

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University of Seattle, 1993