After losing one court battle, Gov. Robert Bentley is preparing for another. Alabamians overwhelmingly applaud his goal of denying health care to the poor.""" SINCE WHEN ?

I was OK with this ,Until the above paragraph was written about this terrible Governor.That in no way cares about the middle class,And surely not the poor.

When will the people in this State wake up to the fact the Republican's could care less about anybody but their selves.

Cue the Flyshower haters in 3..2...1

Christians will gladly give food to the poor, but, not money for 52" TVs and video games from rent-to-own companies while the children of the poor go hungry. Prior to the "Great Society" money for the poor flowed through a vast network of religious organizations and charities who saw to it that the poor and their children were sheltered and fed, but, not entertained. These organizations did not give the poor money because the poor exercise profound ignorance with economic decisions, obviously. More importantly, while in the care of the church, the poor were schooled in the Christian work ethic and reminded that they were living off the labor of others. The church did not permit the poor to neglect their children. As even the poor wanted more than food and shelter for themselves and their children, they were well motivated to find employment. As a result, the poor were never unemployed for long. It has long been known that if one gives a poor man a fish one has fed him a meal, but, if one teaches a man to fish, one has fed him for a lifetime. Who now teaches the poor the work ethic?

Who truly holds the moral high ground, those who teach the poor, or, those, like the Decatur Daily, who advocate simply giving to the poor? How many would prefer to learn to stand on their own rather than be carried by others?

Mr. Fleischauer omits, intentionally or accidentally, verses that strongly prohibit idleness, ( "Ye that does not work neither shall he eat," etc.) Whether through ignorance or deceit, Mr. Fleischauer displays the intellect or malice that brought him to a rural, small town newspaper at the height of his career.

Looks as though OTIS is feeling more self righteous/guilty than usual here at the end of the year. A hopeful sign is that he continues to demonstrate an ability to read even if he can't understand.

Are those who teach the poor rather than give to the poor following Christ?

Hey Otis, you know:)

Bubba

Cue the takers in 3...2...1...

Great article!!!!!

Bubba says thanks

While driving to church one Sunday morning, my young daughter asked me what I thought about the Affordable Care Act. I told her that if I did not support the access to health care for the poor, I would surely turn the car around and not be going to church.

concur with forrest. put up or shut up, 'christians'.

If we're really going to use Biblical teachings to craft the principles of our government, then let's no stop at those teachings mentioned in this particular editorial.

Psalm 139:13 demonstrates that children in the womb are, indeed, human and not just cells to be aborted: "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb." So, let's declare abortion illegal.

Genesis 19: 1-13 tells of Sodom being a place of homosexuality. God destroys it and it's inhabitants. So, let's no have governmental support of gay marriage.

Liberals conveniently quote the Bible when it supports their agenda, but not when it goes against their agenda. Obviously their agenda is more important to them that their Biblical beliefs.

clifton, EVERYONE uses the bible to their convenience. have you ever read that thing? this is against that, this is ok, but only this day, you cannot kill except here, here, here and here. its one big gigantic contradiction, and no im not just talking about the old to new testament drastic shift in god's actions and behaviors.

you can use the bible to justify ANYTHING, at least in one's own mind. so how bout we try what the founding fathers had in mind in the first place and keep a strong wall between church and state? that would be cool.

James: Should that "strong wall" also work to keep the state out of the church's business, i.e., don't force religious institutes to provide health care coverage that includes birth control?

Not really, no. I can see that getting heavily abused if it were the case: there would be a whole lot of 'churches' filing for 501c3 status. Also, as Jesus said, 'render unto Caesar that which is Caesars', pertaining to money, but also applicable here as the church being beholden to the laws of the land it is in, not vice versa.

Ex- if my 'church' believed in smoking peyote and sacrificing virgins is the US govt supposed to be OK with that cuz we are a church? I don't think so.

You're talking criminal laws being broken with sacrificing virgins and peyote smoking There will eventually be some flexibility on the latter (with respect to the relaxation of drug laws), but never on the former.. I'm talking about the gov't dictating the specifics of a business agreement between churches and an insurance company. That's really none of the government's business even though it's a law being enacted via the Affordable Care Act.

No, clifton, I was using that as a drastic example, expecting you to get the picture, but you didn't. So here goes.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), whether you agree with it or not, is ALSO a law. NOT a business agreement, tho those are very frequently codified by laws as well. And the ACA can, unfortunately for you, dictate that very agreement to which you object.

So your argument is moot/failed.

I realiized your examples were drastic, but that's what you laid out so I addressed them.

My argument is not moot or failed. You said you wanted a "strong wall" between church and state, but it seems you really want a one-way gate through which the gov't can tell churches what to do.

I never said the ACA was a business agreement. I said the business agreement was between the church and the insurance company. I DO object to the ACA, but not because I want to deny anyone health care. I object because it will be another bloated gov't program that is full of waste and fraud and will ultimately cost much more than advertised. It will also increase costs to businesses which will lead to less people being hired, which means leass people have income and health care coverage and will depend on the gov't.

'I object because it will be another bloated gov't program that is full of waste and fraud and will ultimately cost much more than advertised.' - cant argue with you there!

as to your gate analogy, i suppose you are correct. im an agnostic. i dont believe that christian churches are sacrosanct, inviolable, as you apparently do. did you see where italy is beginning to tax churches next year? i would love for that to happen here.

heres an article on the italy thing i mentioned, if youd like:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/world/europe/italy-sets-tax-on-church-property.html?_r=0

As long as churches are made of human beings, they will never be totally above reproach.

Looks like that tax realtes to commercial use. I don't think the same tax in the U.S. would bring in much revenue. When it's talked about in the U.S., it's mostly because a chruch has "officially endorsed" a candidate of some sort thereby touching on the separation of church and state.

hmm. also true.

Forrest, apparently you haven't read the offordable care act, it is nothing to do with health care, it is about CONTROL! The government gets to tell who gets what care, if you don't believe it, read it! We will all be like the Veterans going to the VA, you get what they TELL YOU to get, when they tell you to get it, and where they tell you to get it! You and your MD will have NO control over what procedures and tests that you have done! Now tell me how obammy and his goons know more about my body than me and my Dr??

have YOU read the ACA, R? all 1000-2000 pages of it? studied its implications and interactions with other laws in the field?

no? then i would lay off forrest, and perhaps not make so many assumptions about what 'obammy' will do to you and your body.

James, I am in the health care field, and the ACA is already affecting patients and hospitals, as of October 1st 2012, any hospital that readmits a patient within 30 days for CHF, ACUTE MI, and 1 other condition, will be penalized 1% for every patient admitted, it goes to 2% in 2013, and 3% in 2014. This means that hospitals are not going to admit you if you come back with a CHF exacerbation within 30 days of getting out of the hospital, you may stay in the ER for 23 hours, or be sent home with home health. Most hospitals do not have a large profit margin anyway, so this means that if hospitals have to pay the fines, they will be GOING OUT OF BUSINESS, all because of ACA! If you are over 65 you will be told if you can get that pacemaker or knee or hip replacement, it won't matter if you and your DR think you need it or not, and you WON'T get that knee or hip replacement if you are obese, because the government thinks it is your fault for being overweight and wearing the joint out!

hm. point taken.