[hackyhacky]

Traditional conservative dogma requires the belief that poverty or misfortune follows from an inherent moral failing, never from circumstance. Therefore criminals cannot be reformed, homeless cannot be helped. The only solution is to remove them.

[iammisc]

Of course traditional conservative dogma also has extremely strong private safety nets. Just look at Utah and the mormons. Or the Amish. I mean, I understand that many people do not understand this, but I have found that atheists and the unchurched cannot comprehend just how substantial most church support programs are. In my old parish, my wife and I practically lived at the place and when we had our first baby, we got free baby-sitting, meals, company, etc, even though we were far from our families. Many we know in our town (Portland, mostly irreligious) have to pay for this. How sad.

This is what I find so bizarre about the 'left' in this country (in quotes because I'm making wild generalizations). They say they are all about community and social ownership and responsibility, but they don't actually do it. Their ideal is lived out everyday in churches across the country. It used to be the case that the 'left' in this country (by that I mean the democratic party) was made up of the churched, so their ideals for social programs matched their lifestyles of intense social participation and private contributions to welfare programs. But today, the right is the one most likely to contribute to charity, and in my opinion, the one most likely to live in the leftist utopia.

I'll give an example. I hear all the time from those around me (I live in Portland) about family members homeless due to schizophrenia. As a very conservative religious man (and child of immigrants, so maybe it's that), I find this incredibly odd. My uncle has schizophrenia and was deported from this country after going after someone with a knife.

However, at no point was he ever homeless. My mother and father -- both incredibly unwavering law and order types -- kept my uncle in their house and assumed absolute responsibility for him until he was sent back to India. Once he was there, at no point was he allowed to live in destitution on the streets (we are not a rich family either). Eventually, he married a woman he knew (and who knew about his condition and has been able to manage it) and he has kids. Don't get me wrong.... the man is still crazy in a sense. At one point, he made up a religion unbeknownst to us, proclaimed himself God, and got many hundreds of followers on facebook. But at no point could we have ever imagined him homeless. In my view, what's missing in America is any sort of actual concern for our fellow man, our family most importantly. Everyone seems to want to outsource 'caring' for others to the government instead of actually doing the hard work.

Here's another example. Leftists want community health care. Okay, that's fine. But again, right-wing Christians are the ones actually doing it. Health sharing ministries see Christians pool together money so that no congregant has to face undue financial hardship. If you join this ministry you essentially get a 'tax' each month representing your 'share' of all members total emergency expenses. Again, supposedly thrifty conservatives simply giving their money away to actually help people instead of waiting. I don't get it.

[CocaKoala]

You say "Many we know in our town have to pay for this. How sad." but then you go own to observe that "If you join this ministry you essentially get a 'tax' each month".

So it's not that you didn't pay for it - you did, and continue to. But your support is contingent on following the rules of the community and maintaining your welcome, while the irreligious people in Portland had a more straightforward transaction.

[iammisc]

> So it's not that you didn't pay for it - you did, and continue to. But your support is contingent on following the rules of the community and maintaining your welcome, while the irreligious people in Portland had a more straightforward transaction.

Not really. If we could'nt afford it, it wouldn't be demanded.

[hackyhacky]

What percentage of Christian ministries are actually providing these services? You don't say, just that some are. I would say that this is far from widespread phenomenon.

Are Christian ministries actually providing comprehensive healthcare, or only those procedures that they morally approve of?

If conservatives are the "real" humanitarians, why is there more poverty, more untreated diabetes, and worse healthcare in conservative states?

Why should the availability of healthcare be contingent on your religious beliefs?

[iammisc]

Needlessly combative comment, but I'll bite I guess.

As to what percent, I can't give it to you. How do you quantify how much your friend likes you. A lot of this support is not organized, like the meal train I mentioned for my wife and I after our first kid.

WRT 'comprehensive' healthcare, many conservative people would find those procedures offensive and unnecessary.

> If conservatives are the "real" humanitarians, why is there more poverty,

Because it's relatively easy to be poor in a conservative area if you have community support. Lots of people to give you food and handouts. Like my aunt and uncle who retired way early and are technically impoverished, but live a good life, around family, friends, lots of food (from their church), etc.

> more untreated diabetes

because conservative people do not typically believe that life is the only end worth pursuing. This sounds strange given the 'pro-life' stuff, but you see it with COVID too. To a religious person, death is just the beginning, and what they perceive to be overly invasive measures to prolong life is not worth it. Whether it be diabetes dieting or covid lockdowns. Remember, the christian ethos is not utilitarian.

> and worse healthcare in conservative states?

All the good doctors realize they can make more money in blue states?

[hackyhacky]

1. If you're going to argue that argue that religious-provided healthcare is superior to secular, you're going to have to do better than "well, who can say." You've given some anecdata, with nothing to back it up.

2. I'm aware that conservative people consider certain procedure unnecessary. My point is that religious-based moral outrage has no place in deciding the proper standard of care. Your approach means that when your morals contradict another person's health, you get to choose what kind of services they get. That's a great reason to divorce healthcare from religious influence.

3. Being poor sounds great! Makes me wonder why more people don't move to the south and live in the socialist utopia that you describe, where everyone has all their needs fulfilled with no effort.

4. If death is just the beginning, maybe we should abolish healthcare entirely, and just get to the good part sooner. Instead of wasting money on MRI machines, heart surgery, and diabetes medication, we should instead wisely invest in elaborate mausoleum, like the pharaohs of old. This also conveniently explains why religious conservatives, although ostensibly caring about their fellow man, consistently vote against any expansion of state-provided healthcare, which is selfishly rooted in the notion of keeping people out of heaven.

[myWindoonn]

Who owns the hospitals in Portland? There is no conflict between churches and capitalism, either.