# 'Hiding Behind Jesus'



## Josiah (May 1, 2015)

Recent goings on in my state of Ohio. John Kasich (R) is the current Governor of Ohio. I recently saw the headline:

Kasich Attacked By GOP Govs. For 'Hiding Behind Jesus' On Medicaid.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) was criticized by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) for "hiding behind Jesus to expand Medicaid" according to a report in The Atlantic.


The two Republican governors confronted Kasich at a donor forum hosted by the Koch brothers in Palm Springs.


A source at the event told The Atlantic, "It got heated."


Kasich was the fifth Republican governor to accept Medicaid expansion through Obamacare. Kasich has previously cited his "personal faith" as a motivator for choosing to expand Medicaid in Ohio, putting him at odds with most Republicans who strongly oppose Obamacare and Medicaid expansion through the law.


Citing God is something Kasich has done numerous times. Recently, the Ohio governor said he's waiting for a sign from God on whether he should run for president.


----------



## Josiah (May 1, 2015)

My observation is that I hope the ethical teaching of Jesus, particularly in regard to his  concern for the poor, will influence more Republicans to support legislation that benefits the poor.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 1, 2015)

I think it's that pesky Matthew 25 31-46 that gives Republicans the most trouble..   They simply do NOT like that Chapter... It makes it hard to screw over poor people.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25:31-46&version=NIV


[SUP]44 [/SUP]“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
[SUP]45 [/SUP]“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’


----------



## QuickSilver (May 1, 2015)

So... I'm trying to understand... It's OK to hide behind the Bible on SOME things... but NOT on others..


----------



## Glinda (May 1, 2015)

A republican doing the right thing for a change - maybe there is a God after all.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 1, 2015)

Glinda said:


> A republican doing the right thing for a change - maybe there is a God after all.



And don't forget.... He wants to run for President...  I don't think we can totally attribute it to altruism.


----------



## marinaio (May 1, 2015)

It's right and proper to be magnanimous and generous in support of the poor when dealing with one's personal money, it's not right and proper to be so when dealing with the state's general fund.  There are qualifications and limits placed on recipients of state funded charity for good reasons.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 1, 2015)

marinaio said:


> It's right and proper to be magnanimous and generous in support of the poor when dealing with one's personal money, it's not right and proper to be so when dealing with the state's general fund.  There are qualifications and limits placed on recipients of state funded charity for good reasons.




By the same token... I don't want MY tax dollars going to fund War.. and subsidies to Corporations.  I would MUCH rather the money be spent helping the poor..


----------



## Josiah (May 1, 2015)

marinaio said:


> It's right and proper to be magnanimous and generous in support of the poor when dealing with one's personal money, it's not right and proper to be so when dealing with the state's general fund.  There are qualifications and limits placed on recipients of state funded charity for good reasons.



Is it your contention that Christian charity is limited to individual charity? What's all the GOP hub bub about ours being a Christian nation?


----------



## Ameriscot (May 1, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> So... I'm trying to understand... It's OK to hide behind the Bible on SOME things... but NOT on others..



Yes, exactly.


----------



## SeaBreeze (May 1, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> By the same token... I don't want MY tax dollars going to fund War.. and subsidies to Corporations.  I would MUCH rather the money be spent helping the poor..



I agree.


----------



## NancyNGA (May 1, 2015)

Call me crazy, but I would much rather have my taxes raised and have the money go to responsible and legitimate charities, or whatever you want to call the services, than having numerous people calling me on the phone all the time asking for charitable donations.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 1, 2015)

Not to mention there is no way in the world that private charities can meet all the need out there.


----------



## marinaio (May 1, 2015)

My statement and your's reflect the fact that we live in a democracy, we each represent one vote out of hundreds of thousands and from what I've read our votes would offset each other.  The expenditures needed to maintain a safe and viable infrastructure should be primary, other expenditures should be as expressed as desirable by the voters but too often they are based on the personal opinion of some fat-headed. ideological or crooked politician.


----------



## drifter (May 3, 2015)

This is off subject but not too far off. David Brooks, a columnist for the New York Times has a new book out, "The Road To Character." I haven't read the book yet but I plan to. I have read some of David Brooks columns and would perhaps have read more of them but I get only a limited number of articles I can read on the Times without subscribing. I say this because I feel much of Brooks comments arise because of his stand on a foundation of morality, perhaps influenced by his faith. I thought it might be an interesting read and I suppose it's not too far fetched to say some politicians might also stand on some firm bedrock of moral implications. Just saying we all struggle with the person inside us.


----------



## Underock1 (May 4, 2015)

Forget about the "Obama Care" issue. We have a Governer here who  makes decisions for people based on "signs from God". He wants to be our president. I thought we just did that a little while back. Didn't work out too well.
 Might as well be deciding the fate of the world by examining the intestines of a chicken.


----------



## Shalimar (May 4, 2015)

Drifter, would you please clarify what you mean by the statement, we all struggle with the person inside us?


----------



## Glinda (May 4, 2015)

drifter said:


> This is off subject but not too far off. David Brooks, a columnist for the New York Times has a new book out, "The Road To Character." I haven't read the book yet but I plan to. I have read some of David Brooks columns and would perhaps have read more of them but I get only a limited number of articles I can read on the Times without subscribing. I say this because I feel much of Brooks comments arise because of his stand on a foundation of morality, perhaps influenced by his faith. I thought it might be an interesting read and I suppose it's not too far fetched to say some politicians might also stand on some firm bedrock of moral implications. Just saying we all struggle with the person inside us.



Isn't this just another republican lecturing us about "morality"?  Judging by the David Brooks interviews I've seen, I'll pass on the book.


----------



## Josiah (May 4, 2015)

I consider David Brooks one of the most thoughtful, least doctrinaire of the moderate Republican journalists and I compliment drifter's willingness to explore both sides of these complex issues. On the other hand I understand where Glinda is coming from. I just read a Krugman column which articulates her "lecturing us about morality" comment very well. See
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/04/opinion/paul-krugman-race-class-and-neglect.html


----------



## drifter (May 4, 2015)

Posted twice. Please see below.


----------



## drifter (May 4, 2015)

I wasn't trying to be complicated or political, or lecture. Simply a comment to add to the discussion. For the record, if I have not heretofore made my self clear, I am a life long democrat. I'm a simple guy and it is easy for me to get in over my head. Yet in an attempt to keep my head above water, I read both those with whom I agree and those I don't. I often feel the best course of action politically is somewhere between the extremes of both right and left. We cannot please one side and ignore the other. That doesn't seem to work either. 

Shalimar, I believe clear thinking leads to clearer, better writing and I admit to being dull-headed when I said we all struggle with the person inside us. Our personal, professional, and creative lives are inthertwined. They are not alway in agreement. The person inside us is symbolic of our internal struggle with that left-right brain thing and our realizing and knowing the best thing to do and when. We know we should no doubt do things a certain way but we yearn for an alternative course of action. We struggle with success and failure, what’s the right and wrong of it. We struggle for acceptance or to keep our moral compass intact, we struggle to raise children, to make a living, or to keep our marriage intact. Life is not always rosy; sometime it’s a struggle. The person inside us is a metaphor, something symbolic, how we handle decisions and the struggles of life.


----------



## Underock1 (May 4, 2015)

Drifter, I agree. Life is _not_ simple, and neither are you. Much as I am unhappy with some of our politicians, the truth is that, as with all things in life, every solution to a problem creates other problems. I would not want the job. Thankfully there are enough egos around craving satisfaction. 
The brain is the most complex thing of all. There certainly is a "person inside us" that I talk to all day. Its not a metaphor. Its a real thing. We _are _our brains, and I do mean _"We"._


----------



## Warrigal (May 4, 2015)

We are our brains, it is true, but we are also more. As the brain begins to deteriorate, deep inside we are still there, and still more than the sum of our decaying neurons.

As a young person I was very impressed with brains. Later I discovered that there is something else called "heart" that can be found in the brain damaged and can be absent from the intellectually gifted. "Heart" does not lie in the pump that moves our blood around. Where it comes from and where it abides is a mystery but it is what makes humans human. Perhaps it is just a metaphor, but a metaphor for what exactly?


----------



## Josiah (May 4, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> As the brain begins to deteriorate, deep inside we are still there, and still more than the sum of our decaying neurons.



I know this is the prevailing belief held by a great many people, but for me it's just wishful thinking. There was nothing of me before my brain developed and when my brain is dead there will be no me left. IMO.


----------



## Shalimar (May 4, 2015)

Well, Drifter, Underock, and DW, your deep posts have certainly given me something to think about. All of them strongly resonated with me, and I admit to feeling somewhat bemused. Much pondering needed before I come up with a response to any of this.


----------



## tnthomas (May 4, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> I think it's that pesky Matthew 25 31-46 that gives Republicans the most trouble..   They simply do NOT like that Chapter... It makes it hard to screw over poor people.
> 
> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25:31-46&version=NIV
> 
> ...



There are unfortunately far too many that profess to be Christians, but really just don't like what Jesus stood for.   The GOP is drastically overrepresented by these types...


----------



## Underock1 (May 4, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> We are our brains, it is true, but we are also more. As the brain begins to deteriorate, deep inside we are still there, and still more than the sum of our decaying neurons.
> 
> As a young person I was very impressed with brains. Later I discovered that there is something else called "heart" that can be found in the brain damaged and can be absent from the intellectually gifted. "Heart" does not lie in the pump that moves our blood around. Where it comes from and where it abides is a mystery but it is what makes humans human. Perhaps it is just a metaphor, but a metaphor for what exactly?



Very eloquently put. Certainly a more attractive view than that we are just a collection of neurons reacting to electrical and chemical sensations. I envy you your view point. I have found nothing to indicate that we are anything more than physical bodies reacting to various stimuli. In spite of that, I still manage to enjoy sunsets and little kids.


----------



## Warrigal (May 4, 2015)

I have a scientific background and I do not dispute modern advances in brain science. However, science is not purely objective and in every age scientists have interpreted the data according to their prevailing prejudices i.e. their world or cosmological viewpoint, masculinist or feminist philosophies and their religious biases, including non theist biases. We tend not to see what we don't believe exists. Remember when educated men argued that women were not truly human or, at best, lesser beings to men?

It is in the interpretation of data and the extrapolations that the ground becomes less solid.

It is a pity that the sciences and humanities have become so far apart because I believe that science needs the humanities and vice versa if we are to really understand our own species.


----------



## DoItMyself (May 4, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Not to mention there is no way in the world that private charities can meet all the need out there.



And yet in our county we've been reducing the amount of government handouts, and charities have been picking up the slack without a problem.  Local charities have a better infrastructure in place than any government agency, they have lower overhead, and they don't have all of the government red tape and government incompetence.  At the same time we've reduced the tax burden on working people, who in turn find themselves with more to give to local charities.

Before you claim that "there is no way in the world" that charities can meet all the needs, you should actually do some research and find out if it's being done.


----------



## AZ Jim (May 4, 2015)

DoItMyself said:


> And yet in our county we've been reducing the amount of government handouts, and charities have been picking up the slack without a problem.  Local charities have a better infrastructure in place than any government agency, they have lower overhead, and they don't have all of the government red tape and government incompetence.  At the same time we've reduced the tax burden on working people, who in turn find themselves with more to give to local charities.
> 
> Before you claim that "there is no way in the world" that charities can meet all the needs, you should actually do some research and find out if it's being done.



Maybe true in a small county in your state but how do you think it would work where most of America lives?  Charities would go belly up quickly in Los Angeles for instance.  We are only as strong as a  nation as our weakest link.


----------



## Underock1 (May 4, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> I have a scientific background and I do not dispute modern advances in brain science. However, science is not purely objective and in every age scientists have interpreted the data according to their prevailing prejudices i.e. their world or cosmological viewpoint, masculinist or feminist philosophies and their religious biases, including non theist biases. We tend not to see what we don't believe exists. Remember when educated men argued that women were not truly human or, at best, lesser beings to men?
> 
> It is in the interpretation of data and the extrapolations that the ground becomes less solid.
> 
> It is a pity that the sciences and humanities have become so far apart because I believe that science needs the humanities and vice versa if we are to really understand our own species.



I'm afraid I can't agree with that. "Science" is all about the objective. Granted, scientists may put their interpretation on data, and others may interpret it differently, but there _is _data. If it were not for science, we would be too busy digging in the dirt to discuss what it is to be human. All of the advances in medicine and the modern conveniences we enjoy, including these devices we are typing on, have been brought to us by science. The truth is that all of us _are _human, regardless of our interpretation of what that means. I, personally, do not feel the need for some  mysterious force to exist within me.
 Women are still treated as less than human in several parts of the world. The support for that does not come from science.


----------



## Warrigal (May 5, 2015)

Underock1 said:


> I'm afraid I can't agree with that. "Science" is all about the objective. Granted, scientists may put their interpretation on data, and others may interpret it differently, but there _is _data. If it were not for science, we would be too busy digging in the dirt to discuss what it is to be human. All of the advances in medicine and the modern conveniences we enjoy, including these devices we are typing on, have been brought to us by science. The truth is that all of us _are _human, regardless of our interpretation of what that means. I, personally, do not feel the need for some  mysterious force to exist within me.
> Women are still treated as less than human in several parts of the world. The support for that does not come from science.



Science used to be about the objective facts but since the acceptance of quantum theory, it is more about probabilities than certainties. The data we collect is to some degree changed by the method of observation of the data Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). Also, which data is collected and which is ignored is where subjectivity enters the equation. Until very recently drug trials were conducted on male subjects only because the researchers didn't want to take into consideration the problems of the female hormonal cycle. Nevertheless, the drugs were assumed to be effective and safe for women if they were so for the men.

Brain science has not yet established how we become self aware although its development in children can be observed and tracked. Baroness Susan Greenfield is working on this http://www.susangreenfield.com/science/consciousness/  She is looking for an answer to the question "_How do we generate consciousness and an awareness of our own identity?_"

She may succeed in demonstrating the validity of her ideas about  _‘neuronal assemblies' _but at the moment when she talks about these ideas she is speculating, but many people aren't aware that she may or may not be correct. Listen to her talk here to see what I mean https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_ZTNmkIiBc

(I haven't listened to her talk without interruption so I'm not commenting on the content just yet. I probably won't be able to even after listening very carefully because this is foreign territory for me. I do like that she puts her faith in falsifiable hypotheses))


----------



## Underock1 (May 5, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Science used to be about the objective facts but since the acceptance of quantum theory, it is more about probabilities than certainties. The data we collect is to some degree changed by the method of observation of the data Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). Also, which data is collected and which is ignored is where subjectivity enters the equation. Until very recently drug trials were conducted on male subjects only because the researchers didn't want to take into consideration the problems of the female hormonal cycle. Nevertheless, the drugs were assumed to be effective and safe for women if they were so for the men.
> 
> Brain science has not yet established how we become self aware although its development in children can be observed and tracked. Baroness Susan Greenfield is working on this http://www.susangreenfield.com/science/consciousness/  She is looking for an answer to the question "_How do we generate consciousness and an awareness of our own identity?_"
> 
> ...



When discussing quantum theory, and how consciousness is created, we are at the extreme edges of our knowledge. There are certainly disagreements. Some questions may be unanswerable. Because _some _things are not known, does not negate the things that are. I know when I press down on the ? key, that you are going to see ?. I can replicate that forever.
Not wanting to get into an interminable debate that will have no resolution, I will restrict myself to stating my own, admittedly limited perception of things. I see no indication of any force operating within us, other than the electrical and chemical ones we have evidence for. As an incurable romantic, I wish that were not so. All of those love songs, poems, and literature about giving your "heart" are not about handing someone a lump of muscle and fat. Because I accept what appears to me to be reality, does not mean that I do not "feel" things. I enjoy the beauty of this world as much as anyone else. I stand in awe at the images from the Hubble telescope.


----------



## Warrigal (May 5, 2015)

People don't see what they aren't looking for. That is the point I am making. 

Baroness Greenfield is looking for something that she believes that she can find using scientific methods. She's not looking for anything that she does not believe in. She may find that which she believes but, barring serendipity, she is unlikely to discover anything that she doesn't already believe is there.


----------



## Josiah (May 5, 2015)

Underock1 said:


> When discussing quantum theory, and how consciousness is created, we are at the extreme edges of our knowledge. There are certainly disagreements. Some questions may be unanswerable. Because _some _things are not known, does not negate the things that are. I know when I press down on the ? key, that you are going to see ?. I can replicate that forever.
> Not wanting to get into an interminable debate that will have no resolution, I will restrict myself to stating my own, admittedly limited perception of things. I see no indication of any force operating within us, other than the electrical and chemical ones we have evidence for. As an incurable romantic, I wish that were not so. All of those love songs, poems, and literature about giving your "heart" are not about handing someone a lump of muscle and fat. Because I accept what appears to me to be reality, does not mean that I do not "feel" things. I enjoy the beauty of this world as much as anyone else. I stand in awe at the images from the Hubble telescope.



Very well stated. And I might add that what people are referring to when they talk of spiritual experiences is a result of chemicals acting in the brain. People who ingest small quantities of LSD talk endlessly of the "spiritual" trip they have been on when clearly it was the presence of lysergic acid diethylamide molecules in their brain that was the cause of their experience.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 5, 2015)

good grief... this forum is betting "high-brow"  of late.


----------



## Warrigal (May 5, 2015)

Problem, Quicksilver?
Please don't shut us down.
We're enjoying the mental stimulation even though we have not been imbibing psychotropic drugs.
At least, I haven't.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 5, 2015)

Nah....  I prefer a raucous fight, to this mental stimulation stuff..   lol!!


----------



## Ameriscot (May 5, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Nah....  I prefer a raucous fight, to this mental stimulation stuff..   lol!!



Aye, I'll just go harass Ralphy some more.  It's fun.  Or wait, is that Ralphy harassing me?


----------



## Underock1 (May 5, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> good grief... this forum is betting "high-brow"  of late.



Lets leave my hair line out of it.


----------



## Butterfly (May 5, 2015)

tnthomas said:


> There are unfortunately far too many that profess to be Christians, but really just don't like what Jesus stood for.   The GOP is drastically overrepresented by these types...



Well put, and absolutely true, IMHO.


----------



## Shalimar (May 5, 2015)

Underock, too funny! Lol.


----------

