Ed Morris said of Rep. Larry Kissell's NO vote on ObamaCare:
The Daily Vampire:It may even cost him his job," Morris said. "But if he can save one life, it's a moral responsibility."
Just how moral is ObamaCare? Let's look at church attendance between nations that compel attendance to those that leave the matter to individual choice.
IN the US. church attendance rates seem wedded to around 44% while in Europe the rates often fall into the single digits depending on the nation. These low rates that plague Europe could easily be rectified by law through the use of mandatory church attendance provisions. If we assume Europe achieves attendance records of near 100% through such measures could it then be argued that Europe is more moral than the US?
The obvious answer is NO. Morality can not be forced onto a people exogenously. Although it may look like morality statistically (a near 100% church attendance), it is not a true morality and negatively affects the church and nation. Religion is cheapened, as a whole, because it is understood that most people are only there to avoid breaking the law at which point the motives of all those who attend church become questionable.
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 church and nation. 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.
If we now turn to generosity we find that liberals have a penchant for mandating generosity and calling such mandates "moral" even though this is no different than mandating that the citizenry attend church. When Ed Morris says "but if he can save one life, it's a moral responsibility," he is arguing that mandated generosity through ObamaCare is a moral imperative.
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 crushing 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 then point to all those soulless dollars as a metric 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 of forced adherents.
By voting for ObamaCare, Bob Etheridge lent his support for immorality, soulless dollars and a cheapening of American morality.