"It may even cost him his job," Morris said. "But if he can save one life, it's a moral responsibility."
in reference to Larry Kissell who voted against ObamaCare. (emphasis added)
Morris's reference to morality opens an avenue for debate. Just how moral is ObamaCare?
I will grant that ObamaCare has the patina of morality. We regularly saw individuals trotted out by the side of our President and Representatives as they argued for ObamaCare before the cameras of a sycophantic media. They served only to burnish that patina of morality.
Some nations compel their citizens to attend church at risk of state repercussions. Those nations that force their citizens to attend a regular church service often have a near 100% church attendance record. (I imagine those individuals with a doctor's note are excused thus those nations don't quite hit 100%.) This looks good compared to the church attendance records of nations that prefer to leave it a voluntary matter. The real question, though, is --is it more moral?
The obvious answer is NO. Morality can not be forced onto a people exogenously. Although it may look like morality statistically (100% church attendance), it is not a true morality and negatively affects the world. The church is cheapened, as a whole, because it becomes less about belief and more about adherence to the law.
True morality, on the other hand, springs forth from within an individual through voluntary action (40%-50% church attendance in the US) to positively affect the world. Although the percentage of regular church goers is less in the US, those members that choose to attend are more frequently true believers which, in turn, positively affect the respect of the church.
Just as mandating church attendance is moral to some nations, mandating generosity is moral to liberals.
In so doing, liberals loose sight of the fact that true generosity, the giving of dollars of love, with love is lost. The dollars they gather enter the gov. by force and as such are not dollars of love. Those dollars then work their way through the soul sucking machinery of governance. Many of those dollars are skimmed off to run the bureaucracy, while others lube the gears of political leverage and influence. The dollars that remain are soulless and without love or humanity when they finally get into the hands of those who need them. These dollars do not carry with them any sense of goodwill, but are instead dollars for the sake of statistics. Liberals can then point to all those soulless dollars as a metric of giving and as support for their idea of morality.
Government taxes are increasingly crowding charity. Dollars that may have gone to The March of Dimes or to The Red Cross or may have been used by one individual to help another are instead absorbed by government. Compare the offices of any charity to the the offices of any Government program and ask yourself if the government's overhead is moral. Compare the way dollars are received by the recipient from the gov. to the way they are received from an individual and ask yourself which is more moral. We are witnessing the death of American charity and liberals call that moral.
There is no morality in ObamaCare, only the statistical patina of morality. Legislating morality is in itself immoral and cheapens morality in America just as religion is cheapened in a nation od forced adherents.
By voting for ObamaCare, Brad Miller lent his support for immorality, soulless dollars and a cheapening of American morality.
Say NO to immorality and soulless dollars. Say NO to Brad Miller.