What do progressives do when a program they devise doesn't work at all. Double down and claim its racist who are the problem!! Its work so far so way stop it?

They won't stop it. Everybody else has to team up to stop them.

So, why don't we team up? The answer is that, besides progressives, "everybody else" is divided into groups that, among them, are groups every bit as offensive as the progressives, or moreso.

On the right, for example, libertarian free-marketeers detest pro-lifers as much even more than they do progressives.

On the right, for example, libertarian free-marketeers detest pro-lifers as much even more than they do progressives.

I wouldn't agree to that.

The honchos of the Libertarian Party have always been pro-choicers. They had a big setback when Ron Paul was their 1988 pro-life nominee, a legacy that continues to cause them problems.

Among the small-L libertarians, my experience indicates that a strong majority of them are pro-lifers.

Don't assume there is any majority of pro-lifers among the libertarians overall, even if LP leadership remains pro-abortion (but fairly quiet about it).

Look at this site. Start lining up the issues and putting people in various boxes, issue by issue.

Now think how impossible it would be for us to all cooperate with each other against a common enemy, because we talk of each other as the enemy, even though we probably agree on 75% of everything.

What I meant was that we need only look to ourselves to see why a visible enemy like the Democrats advances against us. Many of us simply hate each other. How can anything be built on that? Can't be.

Now think how impossible it would be for us to all cooperate with each other against a common enemy, because we talk of each other as the enemy, even though we probably agree on 75% of everything.

One might almost suspect there are agentes provocateurs but I think that conservatives tend to be more opinionated and sunk into their various FNC and talk radio bubbles. And you have a good smattering of the Jonesy people who follow Alex Jones and even Michael Savage. And no elected pols who really speak well to all those groups, including Trump (despite trying to, even appearing as a guest on Jones' show).

OTOH, we don't have a complicit mass media or control of academia or social networks. So we are being swamped by the big battalions of the Left in the war for public opinion.

Look, here's the way it is: the American Right cannot hold permanent institutional power the way the American Left has until it reconciles itself to Catholics.

We are not going to stand in ranks with people with whom we agree politically on important things when you call us Satanists and evil and other jejeune, ignorant crap when we talk to you in private.

You don't find us going on crusade against your religions. We did once. In Europe. 500 years ago. At the same time that your brutal and satanic ancestors were burning people at the stake as witches. There was evil on all sides. That was then. This is now. You are not them, and we are not them. We are us now, Americans.

We believe our religion is true, every bit as much as you do. And we are the pivot population - the ones that gave FDR his New Deal, and America its social welfare structure.

We need to have a talk about social welfare, because that's where our religious differences bite down the hardest politically. We tend to love the military, the idea of the rule of law, support law enforcement in general, and support individual rights. We're as pro-life as you are.

But we're never going to break bread with people who are still in the third grade pitching taunts about our being evil. We're not evil, but you are when you talk like that (not YOU - "ye").

You have to discipline yourself to stop that. That is the PRICE of having the Catholics as the pivot back towards you. You cannot get the Jews - though you profess your love for them - not ever. But you CAN have us for the same reason that FDR did: we believe in social welfare and a functional state.

But we are not blacks. We will not sit at the table and pretend we're cool with racists who hate us.

You spew your hatred, we hear it, and we walk away. Our common interests are not important enough, because we are actually Catholics - we know that life is short, we die and go someplace better, so we're not going to compromise on anything important, ever. We'll just wait to the afterlife.

We are not persuadable, and we are not changeable. But we WILL work with allies towards a common goal. Catholic France gave America its birth in the first place, did we not? (Yes we did.)

So, understand that for US, social welfare is not political, it is theological. We cannot abandon it because some asshole named Rand or Hayek or Friedman decided that it is unnecessary. Those people are midgets compared to Jesus of Nazareth, who commands it.

We are operating on commandments of God, and we're never going to compromise. You are ALREADY COMPROMISED. You COLLECT Medicare and Social Security, and Medicaid and Disability and Unemployment when you need it. So all of this mewling and puking against the social welfare state, which is your hallmark, is hypocritical and stupid. And you make yourselves disgusting to us by spewing hate at us.

Stop spewing the hate. Admit that you NEED the social welfare (because you do), and then sit at the table with us to discuss and work out REASONABLE finances, REASONABLE levels of health care and military spending. Agree on the economic commandments, and all of a sudden you have a majority for not expanding gay marriage and for ratcheting back abortion, for maintaining a robust military and the rule of law. All of a sudden you have what you want.

But you'd rather piss all of that away so that you can maintain a stupid hatred of Catholicism that is based on nothing that has happened within the past three hundred years. It is so very dumb.

We're not moving. You could. If you do, then you have what you want. If you don't, we sit unmovable and grow through immigration and birth rates, the social welfare state is maintained, and the military, but the society goes to worms.

You want to win? Then stop being stupid and stop hating your natural allies. You USED TO hate the Jews with the same vehemence, but you STOPPED. Which means that you CAN decide to stop hating a religious group you don't agree with, if you WANT to. You don't want to. Apparently you like losing.

See, we Catholics mostly have what we want. We just want to stop the moral decay. You guys have nothing you want. Everything is falling to ruin. You are too few in numbers, and you're losing all the battles. You're like the South in 1863: you need more men. We are like France, sitting there over the horizon - ABLE to intervene (as we did in 1778) and ABLE to turn the tide. But we're not going to do that unless you reach out your hand.

So humble yourselves and turn off the anti-Catholic hatred, and reach out your hand. We will take it. It isn't funny to us. We don't see it as a game. Jack Chick makes me laugh, but that's the way you people ACTUALLY TALK TO ME on this board, because I am a Catholic. Are you REALLY all that ignorant? Honest to God, you seem to be.

Well, if you don't want to go the route of the Confederacy, lose the war, and then eventually even have your monuments taken down so that you died in vain for an evil cause, went to hell, and are forgotten here also...memory blotted out. You're well on your way.

You don't have to lose. But like George Washington and the founders knew; YOU CANNOT WIN WITHOUT CATHOLIC FRANCE. And you can't. The Confederates didn't have Catholic France or Anglican Britain, because their populations would not let them commit to fighting for slavery.

Catholic America would ally with you, if you were not such nasty fucks to us ALL THE TIME. So decide to save yourselves and grow up and knock that shit off for good. It doesn't strengthen YOUR side, and it drives away the only possible allies that could give you the win.

Stop insulting us, and understand that we are never going to let you end social welfare, not ever. Accept those two things as GIVENS, and then look at what you can build on a stable political alliance.

There is hope, in that path. There is none on your swirling path into darkness. Pickett - don't make the charge.

You don't have to lose. But like George Washington and the founders knew; YOU CANNOT WIN WITHOUT CATHOLIC FRANCE. And you can't. The Confederates didn't have Catholic France or Anglican Britain, because their populations would not let them commit to fighting for slavery.

Perhaps that you should consider that Catholics can't win on pro-life and pro-family issues either without the Prot voters. It cuts both ways. Catholic and Prot camps make common cause on abortion and family policy pretty broadly and without much fanfare. I always considered this to be understood.

And I recall years back you predicting that the great wave of Hispanic immigration would dramatically shift America toward Catholicism because the immigrants were strongly pro-life Catholic. But we don't see that. Instead we see Latin America and South America pivoting to emulate our policies on abortion and same-sex marriage.

I think you're mistaken about the fundamental voting habits of a majority of Catholic voters in northeastern Blue states and CA in particular. Where are these pro-life pro-Catholic Dems getting elected to the House, let alone the Senate? And yet these senators from the northeast Blue states do represent a large voting bloc in each of these states.

So I don't see where either immigrant Catholics or the states with the highest concentrations of Catholic voters are making any real headway in electing authentic Catholics to office. Instead, you get the Pelosis and other very liberal unCatholic Catholics elected overwhelmingly. But no pro-life Catholics or any that speak out much on same-sex marriage are in office. You might argue that Bob Casey campaigns to the ghost of his father's brand of pro-life politics as a Dem. But even that is a very faint gesture and surely an outlier among prominent Dem politicians.

So looks as though I was wrong about Hispanics. Looks as though Christianity is simply going to die out in America as it has in Europe, and become a little asterisk at the bottom of the page. People will be "Christian" like the French are Catholic. Kids still usually get baptized. There's a marriage at some point, maybe. And then a funeral. Essentially the church becomes a baptism hall, a marriage hall and a funeral parlor.

The seculars look set to win. Most of them are not all that hard to live with. So I guess that's it then. Christianity never reconciled. It just shriveled. We could discuss why, but why bother?

The seculars look set to win. Most of them are not all that hard to live with. So I guess that's it then. Christianity never reconciled. It just shriveled. We could discuss why, but why bother?

It might have happened sooner if they had reconciled.

In the past ten years, religion has faded in general - Catholic, Protestant - you name it.

I believe LDS (Mormon) has grown very slowly, but grown. I reckon Islam is a big exception. Evangelical denominations have grown. Mainstream Catholic and Protestant religion isn't doing so good.

Organized religion itself is dying out in the US. That doesn't mean that belief in God is going away. But people in increasing numbers no longer desire to express that belief in God through organized churches.

That means that the political clout of the organized churches is declining steadily and substantially.

It's frankly not hard to see why. Organized Christianity addresses side issues and esoteric things, but does not address, front and center, the primary issues that drive human beings: and those are ECONOMIC.

There has long been an argument from the conservative right in America that the government should get out of the business of social welfare, that the government has no business providing social security, medical care, poverty relief - that this is the role of private charity and the churches.

The problem, of course, is that the churches never filled that role well, and are not trying to. Instead, the churches focused on maintaining political control through the justification of segregation and racism in the South, alcohol prohibition nationwide, and every aspect of sexuality, from contraception through abortion and homosexuality nationwide.

One could - and Christian fanatics would - argue that these are fundamental Christian issues. But America is a democracy and people vote with their feet.

Fact is, people need economic security more than they need racial division, alcohol prohibition, and lectures about sex. And so the government has grown, and the role of government in providing economic security has grown, while the churches wilt and become less and less capable of really providing charitable support for the whole population even if they wanted to (which they don't).

Conservatives never want to face up to the reality that the fundamental purpose of religion and government, from the perspective of individual people, is providing them with economic security. The provision of economic security is massive, permanent, and requires shifting wealth from those who have a lot and want more, to those who don't, on a continuous and rather heavy basis.

Charity is supposed to do that, but the churches have never done it on the scale necessary, and focus on aspects of social control that have been at best intrusive into life where people do not want intrusion, generally unhelpful (Prohibition), or outright evil (Southern Christian arguments for racial segregation and slavery).

This has served to discredit Christianity over the historical span. (Note well how Protestants remember the details of Catholic crimes committed five hundred years ago in the time of Luther - nobody forgets the sins of organized religion.) There is nothing on the cards at all that indicates that organized Christianity will get smarter or step up to its charitable role. Christians have never wanted to do that, and still don't.

So, essentially, organized Christianity is expensive, intrusive and useless, and more and more people see that and walk away from it now that there are other entertainment options.

Which means, in turn that even though the Churches COULD HAVE BEEN the social safety net, had they actually fulfilled their true purpose, they are no longer capable of replacing the government in that role even now, and in the future they will be weaker, smaller, and increasingly irrelevant, like they are in Europe.

Which means that the government will remain the foundation and source of the social safety net, and that it will continue in that role until the end of the world, as it must.

Which means that the conservative right is doomed to endless political defeat and marginalization unless it changes its ideology regarding the social safety net. It is not possible to win control of any democratic country by campaigning on dismantling the social safety net, so when conservatives still talk about doing that, they are cranks on the fringe.

One of the reasons that Republicans campaign on a right wing program to get their base, but always lie and never do it is because if they really did some of the things they campaign on, they would effectively be doing what the Republicans did to themselves with Prohibition: made themselves odious. One of the key planks of the Democratic platform in 1932 that got FDR elected was an end to Prohibition. He won, and within a year the Constituton was amended to end it.

You can see that relentless will to power on the right in various posters here on this board. It's really offensive. People won't vote for that. You can ALSO see the will to power on the Left. People would not vote for that either, if that was all that was on offer.

But the Left also provides the Social Safety net, which is why over time, since 1932, they always win. They may lose an election here or there, but none of their major advances in providing the social safety net are ever undone.

Obamacare is the current example. The American people need universal health care, paid for by the government. The rest of the civilized world has it, and we need it. The right pretends we don't. but when they actually get power, they recognize that the cost of actually pulling the plug on it will be horrendous suffering which will ensure they are wiped out in the next election. So the right when it actually has power - supports the social safety net. It verbally abuses it to keep the wingnuts in their party happy, but it actually supports it.

Ronald Reagan is the guy who not only shored up Social Security, but signed the law that gave access to hospital emergency rooms all across America, regardless of ability to pay.

A lot of the rank and file on the right really believe in dismantling the social welfare state and rolling back laws on sexual liberty, hard prohibition on pot. They even manage to maintain some dry counties down South. But even when "their" party wins, the social welfare state is never rolled back, because it cannot be.

It cannot be for exactly the same reason that the country is not going to abandon electricity and go back to living like the Amish.

There is much to detest on the Left, starting with the fact that they are racists, and continuing along with the fact they they are thugs, criminals, that they rig elections, and that they have their own fanatic issues, which mostly involve pillorying people over minoritarian issues. The Clinton family is an outright criminal enterprise that has been kept above the law by Democrat protection.

The right would dearly love to replace the Left as the dominant establishment power, but they can't. They can't because they are children and don't understand either economics or the teachings of God in the Old Testament, the New Testament and practical reality. Life is economic, and wealth redistribution, of a limited, controlled, scheduled nature to prevent true suffering at the bottom of society, is necessary. God said it over and over, but the fact that Christians don't actually do that is why Christianity wilts while government remains strong.

Government actually provides what God told people to provide. Religion obsesses about sex.

The social safety network is a permanent feature of government, like sewers. It's necessary. The Right has to grow up and embrace that as a duty from God (which it is) and do it more efficienctly. Then they will win.

Until they do, the right will look like it does, and its thought leaders will be what we have.

And it will be the minoritarian view and keep losing, because it's wrong.

You say the so called social safety net is necessary. That is because your faith is on yourself and sinful man and not God.

In short you're a blotivating long winded gas bag.

Ronald Reagan is the guy who not only shored up Social Security, but signed the law that gave access to hospital emergency rooms all across America, regardless of ability to pay.

I thought that was Anthony Kennedy in another of his decisions. Around the same time, he did the same with school admissions for illegal aliens.

Oh and your so called economics of god thread didn't advance your point 1 millimeter. You abandoned it because that is what you do. Make up things and say you are going to prove something. Then you don't because you can't.

Ok. Well, then let's go back and focus on that thread. I do start things and don't finish them sometimes. Since you've called attention to it, I'll get right back on it now.

In short you're a blotivating long winded gas bag.

And you read every word of it.

Since you've called attention to it, I'll get right back on it now.

This is too much! I can't contain the belly laffter.

And it's work done without pay at night for VERY hostile people who don't hesitate to express their hate, often.

Which causes me to pause when I get tired - as anybody who writes things like that inevitably does - and ask myself "Just why exactly am I doing this, anyway? To appease the unappeasables?" It's very easy, and very sane, to just drop it and walk away.

I don't see anybody ELSE here actually writing long original works of research and analysis. Nolu Chan is the exception - he clearly does focused legal research and puts together interesting results. You can use his work, even if you don't agree with it, because he gives the citations, and he argues from the texts he uses. You can't just brush away his legal arguments with an "I do not agree" handwave, because he has actually cited LAW. If you don't agree, then you have to look at what he has put together critically, to see if he has cited something wrong. He doesn't. So then it comes down to parsing words and his interpretation of words.

Even where I don't agree with him, you'll never see me going after Nolu Chan with aggressive sneering disregard. I can see the work he has put into it, and I can see that what he has said has backing and needs to be taken seriously. He has the power to persuade because of the quality of his research and the detail of his efforts.

When speaking of the Bible, you essentially have to be perfect. Your quotes have to be perfect, and your inferences have to hang upon the language you quoted. Theologies have been built on individual words and sentences over the course of almost four thousand years. Nobody is going to bum's rush anybody knowledgeable on the Bible.

I know that. So I have to be extra careful. That's why I've made choices such as using the current version of the KJV - not because I agree with KJV-Onlyists, or that I think it is the best translation - I don't, and it isn't - but because I know that there is a whole swath of Protestant Christianity, including some of the very people I am trying to communicate with on this board - who will not accept anything BUT the KJV. I know that, and I know that the thread of the story is present throughout the KJV text, so I don't mind using it for the purpose for which I was writing.

I have to keep all of that in mind when I write, and write carefully. Every word has to be chosen. The story I mean to tell extends throughout the entire 2000 pages of the Bible. It's there, but the people to whom I am speaking have not themselves see it, so I have to show it to them, so that they see it, but I have to do it in a way that is respectful and that lets the text itself say it. It can't be me who is asserting it, it has to be the Scripture itself that is saying it.

(I note that I have to be respectful and careful even when my antagonists are anything but.)

This is hard work. It's not paid. And given this audience, it's not rewarding. It's very easy, after a bruising day on LF, to think "Fuck you all. Go die in a hole and burn in Hell!" Close the computer, shake the dust off my sandals and walk away. It's very fatiguing to do such work and pretty much know that it's just going to be ignored and trampled.

It's discouraging enough that I lose energy and walk away from it.

AKA's goading here has caused me to look back at it, because I do know that what I have said is there, is there. What I don't know is whether or not, after I have slowly and carefully gone through the whole Bible, front to back, and given full quotes and demonstrated that I am neither skipping anything, nor picking and choosing - that the Scripture really does say thus and so - anybody like Stone will actually be persuaded. I'm pretty sure, in my heart of hearts, that his heart is a stone and that he will simply disregard all of it and say "You didn't prove it." I think that's what they all will do here.

And so I say to myself "Why put myself through it, then? Why go through all of that EFFORT for nothing? Isn't this what Jesus means when he says 'Do not cast your pearls before swine?'"

It's an easy answer, too - to just leave it off as a hopeless, barren, sterile exercise.

But then somebody like Stone taunts me with the incompleteness of what I said I would do, causing me to realize that they DID read it, and they DID think about it - that maybe if they see the Scripture on the matter laid end-to-end and not manipulated, they MIGHT actually have a change of heart - not because of me, but because of who speaks in Scripture.

So I pick my KJV back up - wearily I have to say - and I start preparing the next passage, secretly hoping in my heart of hearts that Stone or somebody else will go ahead and say something nasty enough that I will have a reason to go pencils down and decide that continuing the work would be pointless and fruitless, and go pencils down to spare myself the pain.

I suppose that's funny to you. But you never write any substantial original works here, so you don't really invest any time and effort in anything you write. It's easy for you to be flippant. I can't be flippant in an analysis of the Scripture. I actually have to do the analysis, the writing, the careful editing and correction.

You don't care about any of that and would never do anything like that yourself, and you think me a fool for even trying to do that for this audience. Maybe you're right. I often think you are right on that. But I'm not sure enough that you are to not try.

There is an example of another "long-winded bloviation", to use Stone's lexicon when addressing me.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2015/may/pew-evangelicals-stay-strong-us-religious-landscape-study.html

Pew: Evangelicals Stay Strong as Christianity Crumbles in America Amid changing US religious landscape, Christians ‘decline sharply’ as unaffiliated rise. But born-again believers aren't to blame.

Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra
May 11, 2015 11:04 PM

The main methods for measuring American faith are flawed.

So thinks the Pew Research Center, which today released the second wave of a massive study designed to “fill the gap” left by the United States census (no questions on religion), the self-reporting of denominations (“widely differing criteria”), and smaller surveys (too few questions or people).

Scrutinizing the past seven years, Pew finds that, amid the rise of the “nones” and other popular talking points, the fate of evangelicals is proving much brighter than Christianity at large.

Here are highlights from the US Religious Landscape Study, conducted among more than 35,000 adults in English and Spanish, of how American religion has changed from 2007 to 2014:

1) Evangelicals have remained remarkably stable

Over the past seven years, evangelicals have lost less than 1 percent of their share of the population, holding steady at about 1 in 4 American adults (25.4% in 2014, vs. 26.3% in 2007) and preserving their status as the nation’s largest religious group.

In contrast, mainline Protestants have lost almost 3.5 percent of their population share and are currently less than 15 percent of American adults, while Catholics lost about 3 percent of their population share and are currently about 21 percent of adults.

The declines have allowed the religiously unaffiliated, who gained nearly 7 percent in population share, to surge past Catholics and mainline Protestants to become America’s second-largest religious group (22.8% of adults). (Historically black Protestant denominations, tracked separately though nearly three-quarters of their members identify as evangelicals, were statistically unchanged.)

Evangelical churches also added more than 2 million people to their ranks, up from 59.8 million in 2007 to 62.2 million in 2014. Meanwhile, mainline churches lost 5 million people. “As a result, evangelicals now constitute a clear majority (55%) of all US Protestants,” noted Pew.

The population share of evangelicals rises even higher when identified differently.

For the above findings, Pew categorized Americans by denominational affiliation. (Evangelical denominations include the Southern Baptist Convention, the Assemblies of God, Churches of Christ, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Presbyterian Church in America, and nondenominational churches.) But Pew also asked: “Would you describe yourself as a born-again or evangelical Christian, or not?”

In response, about one-third of American adults (35%) self-identified as evangelicals in 2014, nearly the same as in 2007 (34%). Meanwhile, Americans who self-identified as Christians dropped from 78 percent in 2007 to 71 percent in 2014.

[...]

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/factchecker-are-all-christian-denominations-in-decline

FactChecker: Are All Christian Denominations in Decline?

The Gospel Coalition
Current Events, Ministry / Joe Carter
March 17, 2015

Many Americans, both within and outside the church, share Evans perception of the decline of denominations. But is it true? Are most denominations truly seeing a decline in numbers?

Before we answer the question, we should clarify what is meant by “decline.” We could, for instance, say that Protestantism has been on the decline since the 1970s. That would be true. We could also say there are now more Protestants today than there were in the 1970s. That too would be true.

The fact is that the percentage of people identifying as Protestant has declined since the 1970s while the total number of Protestants has increased (62 percent of Americans identified as Protestant in 1972 and only 51 percent did so in 2010). Yet because of the population increase in the U.S., there were 28 million more Protestants in 2010 than in 1972.

So did Protestantism in America decline since the 1970s? Yes (percentwise) and no (total numbers).

What about when we drill down to the denominations that comprise Protestantism in America? Here the differences depend on whether we look at short-term or long-term trends.

If we look at the short-term (year-to-year) trends, we may be able to detect a decline in some groups, especially in large denominations. For instance, the membership of the Southern Baptist Convention—the largest Protestant denomination in America—declined by 105,708 from 2011 to 2012. While that sounds like a lot of people, the denomination could lose that many members every year for 150 years before the pews in SBC churches would be completely empty.

In the case of the SBC, and other conservative denominations, the trend seems to be that they’re losing members to other conservative denominations, especially non-denominational ones. As of 2010, four percent of Americans (12,200,000) worshipped in a nondenominational church. There are almost as many members of nondenominational churches as there are members of the SBC—and almost as many as in all of the mainline churches combined. A decline in a conservative denominational church is often offset by an increase in a conservative non-denominational church.

When tracking changes to gauge the overall health of a denomination, it makes more sense to look at long-term trends. If we look back 50 years (to 1965) we can see a clear and unequivocal trendline: liberal denominations have declined sharply while conservative denominations have increased or remained the same.

Here are the primary mainline denominations, every one of which has seen long-term decline in membership:

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

In 1965, the CC(DoC) had 1,918,471 members. In 2012, the membership was 625,252, a decline of 67 percent.

Reformed Church in America

In 1967, the RCA had 384,751 members. In 2014, the membership was 145,466, a decline of 62 percent.

United Church of Christ (Congregationalist)

In 1965, the UCC had 2,070,413 members. In 2012, there were 998,906 members, a decline of 52 percent.

Episcopal Church

In 1966, the TEC had 3,647,297 members. By 2013, the membership was 1,866,758, a decline of 49 percent.

(Those numbers should be even lower, though, since those figures by the TEC include breakaway churches trying to leave the denomination.)

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (PCUSA)

In 1967, the PC(USA) had 3,304,321 members. In 2013, the membership was 1,760,200, a decline of 47 percent.

United Methodist Church (UMC)

In 1967, the UMC had 11,026,976 members. In 2012, the membership was 7,391,911, a decline of 33 percent.

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)

In 1987, the ECLA had 5,288,230 members. In 2013, the membership was 3,863,133, a decline of 27 percent.

(Note: The ELCA was formally constituted in 1988 as a merger of the Lutheran Church in America, the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches and the American Lutheran Church.)

American Baptist Churches

In 1967, the ABC/USA had 1,335,342 members. In 2012, the membership was 1,308,054, a decline of 2 percent.  

(Note: The ABC/USA has been able to stem its decline among white congregants by replacing them with African American and Hispanic members.)

Now let’s look at a few of the primary non-mainline denominations, almost every one of which has increased in membership since the mid-1960s. 

Church of God in Christ

In 1965, the CoG had 425,000 members. In 2012, the membership was 5,499,875, an increase of 1,194 percent.

Presbyterian Church in America

In 1973, the PCA had 41,232 members. In 2013, the membership was 367,033, an increase of 790 percent.

(Note: The Presbyterian Church in America was founded in 1974 by conservative members of the Presbyterian Church in the United States who rejected that church's merger with the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.)

Evangelical Free Church of America

In 1965, the EFCA had 43,851 members. In 2013, the membership was 372,321 , an increase of 749 percent.

Assemblies of God

In 1965, the AoG had 572,123 members. In 2013, the membership was 3,030,944, an increase of 430 percent.

African Methodist Episcopal Church

In 1951, the AME had 1,166,301 members. In 2012, the membership was 2,500,000, an increase of 114 percent.

Southern Baptist Convention

In 1965, the SBC had 10,770,573 members. In 2013, the membership was 15,735,640, an increase of 46 percent.

Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod  

In 1965, the LCMS had 2,692,889 members. In 2012, the membership was 2,163,698, a decline of 20 percent.

Mainliners may try to comfort themselves by claiming that every denomination is in decline, but it’s simply not true. While conservative churches aren’t growing as quickly as they once were, mainline churches are on a path toward extinction. The mainline churches are finding that as they move further away from Biblical Christianity, the closer they get to their inevitable demise.

The mainline churches are finding that as they move further away from Biblical Christianity, the closer they get to their inevitable demise.

Maybe. What I see is the demographic death of the white population, with all of their religions.

And the demographic growth of the minorities - particularly Hispanics and Asians - and the growth of their religions.

I don't have the statistics (and don't feel like doing the research right now), but I would wager that Islam has grown faster in America than any evangelical group, that the largest growth in evangelicals has been the shift of Hispanics out of the Catholic church (but that more Hispanics become non-affiliated than join Protestant groups), that among the Blacks, conversions to Islam exceed conversions to any Christian group.

Nope. Evangelical Christianity is also in decline among whites. There has been a small rise in it among Hispanics, but a much larger rise in religiously unaffiliated among Blacks, Whites AND Latinos.

The statistics I had seen indicated Evangelicals were not in decline. They have assumed the leading position in the United States. The religious unaffiliated are in second place, and the Catholics and mainline Protestants trail behind.

Organized religion itself is dying out in the US.

It appears undeniable that they are declining.

That doesn't mean that belief in God is going away.

It is true enough that the general decline in organized religion does not mean that belief in God is going, or has gone, away. It does not necessarily, in and of itself, either support or discredit such conclusion.

Science has undermined a literal belief in the bible, but that does not necessarily mean a disbelief in God.

But people in increasing numbers no longer desire to express that belief in God through organized churches.

Many churches (buildings) serve as man's monuments to man. One might better commune with God during a walk in the woods.

That means that the political clout of the organized churches is declining steadily and substantially.

It's frankly not hard to see why. Organized Christianity addresses side issues and esoteric things, but does not address, front and center, the primary issues that drive human beings: and those are ECONOMIC.

No offense intended, but I would subscribe to a different diagnosis for the decline of organized religion. Organized religion has failed at its core responsibilities which are not economic, but matters of religious doctrine and morality.

If the current brand of Christian theologies is correct, then the previous two centuries must have been mistaken in fundamental ways, and the bible must be considered a quaint religious bygone.

Many Christian denominations have rendered forfeit their claim to lead anyone in doctrines of faith or morals. When the teachings or practices of a denomination are utterly repugnant to the bible, what are the believers to do? Among the choices are, they can stop believing altogether, or they can seek a different denomination.

The Catholic church in the United States has imploded over its condonation and coverup of child abuse by clergy.

In addition, a significant majority reject, rightly or wrongly, the church doctrine banning all forms of birth control except the rhythm method.

Episcopal denominations have ordained female and homosexual priests. Was the centuries old doctrine correct, is today's doctrine correct, or are the denomination powers that be just creating whatever doctrine they can self-justify?

Denominations are all over the place on abortion. As a legal matter, it is one thing regarding what the government is empowered to enforce upon everyone. But as a matter of religious doctrine, abortion on demand seems a strange doctrine to support.

Many of the denominations have a very fundamental question to answer — what Christian doctrine of faith and morals do they stand for?

There has long been an argument from the conservative right in America that the government should get out of the business of social welfare, that the government has no business providing social security, medical care, poverty relief - that this is the role of private charity and the churches.

The problem, of course, is that the churches never filled that role well, and are not trying to. Instead, the churches focused on maintaining political control through the justification of segregation and racism in the South, alcohol prohibition nationwide, and every aspect of sexuality, from contraception through abortion and homosexuality nationwide.

One could - and Christian fanatics would - argue that these are fundamental Christian issues. But America is a democracy and people vote with their feet

It is most certainly a conservative argument that the Federal government was never delegated power to act as a nanny state, taking from some, to provide to others, social security, medical care, poverty relief, free condoms, food stamps, Obama phones, Obamacare, sex change operations, or subsidized abortion clinics.

The objection is quite simple, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Whether churches do a good or a poor job tending to the needs of the flock would vary greatly from one group to the next.

So called Christian fanatics would, indeed, argue that following the teachings in the bible is a fundamental Christian issue. Why call a religion Christian unless it follows the teachings of Christ? When a so-called Christian church adopts or condones doctrines of faith or morals repugnant to the teachings on Jesus Christ, believers may, indeed, vote with their feet. They may become unaffiliated or affiliated with something else.

The reason the churches have lost membership is not because of their failures with economic issues, but with moral issues. They have ceased to be moral leaders. Accordingly, the non-leaders lose followers.

This has served to discredit Christianity over the historical span. (Note well how Protestants remember the details of Catholic crimes committed five hundred years ago in the time of Luther - nobody forgets the sins of organized religion.) There is nothing on the cards at all that indicates that organized Christianity will get smarter or step up to its charitable role. Christians have never wanted to do that, and still don't.

The primary function of religion is not charity. It is faith and moral leadership. It is largely failing at its primary function.

While Protestants may remember Catholic crimes committed five hundred years ago, former Catholics recall much more recent episodes of serial priestly pedophilia practiced upon Catholic children, and coverups and payoffs to avoid taking responsibility and cleaning up their act. This has had a ruinous effect on the moral leadership and influence of Catholic cardinals and bishops. When faced with the moral choice of protecting their own, or protecting their flock, their flock was abandoned, and it became public to the world. The only way to repair that is by decades of doing the right thing.

So, essentially, organized Christianity is expensive, intrusive and useless, and more and more people see that and walk away from it now that there are other entertainment options.

Which means, in turn that even though the Churches COULD HAVE BEEN the social safety net, had they actually fulfilled their true purpose, they are no longer capable of replacing the government in that role even now, and in the future they will be weaker, smaller, and increasingly irrelevant, like they are in Europe.

Which means that the government will remain the foundation and source of the social safety net, and that it will continue in that role until the end of the world, as it must.

In tending to its own flock, a church can still do that. Other entertainment options is not my diagnosis of the problem. The government takes the money from the people and wastes it on government bureaucracy. It would be much more effective if tithed to a local church congregation that cared. Some churches do care, many do not. But it is hard to tithe what the government has taken away. Tithing is now done to the Church of Washington.

Whatever did the people do before the government took the money and effectively put the church social safety net out of business?

Which means that the government will remain the foundation and source of the social safety net, and that it will continue in that role until the end of the world, as it must.

What it really means is that the government will grow bigger and bigger, and take more and more, until the cycle completes itself again with the people getting so indignant and enraged that they rise up and destroy the existing government and start over again. No government in history has lasted forever and this will not be the first.

Which means that the conservative right is doomed to endless political defeat and marginalization unless it changes its ideology regarding the social safety net. It is not possible to win control of any democratic country by campaigning on dismantling the social safety net, so when conservatives still talk about doing that, they are cranks on the fringe.

No amount of fringe left ideology will persuade a conservative that power to create and enforce a Leviathan all-consuming so-called social safety net was delegated to the Federal government. It has never been a delegated power of the Federal government to engage in income redistribution. The rejection of such leftist policies has led to 15 Democratic governors, a Republican House and Senate, and a Republican president.

You can see that relentless will to power on the right in various posters here on this board. It's really offensive. People won't vote for that. You can ALSO see the will to power on the Left. People would not vote for that either, if that was all that was on offer.

But the Left also provides the Social Safety net, which is why over time, since 1932, they always win. They may lose an election here or there, but none of their major advances in providing the social safety net are ever undone.

The Left does not provide a Social Safety net. They confiscate money from the people who earn it, to give it to lefty freeloaders.

Indeed, the Left may lose an election here or there. That is why the county map of the United States is a sea of red.

Obamacare is the current example. The American people need universal health care, paid for by the government. The rest of the civilized world has it, and we need it. The right pretends we don't. but when they actually get power, they recognize that the cost of actually pulling the plug on it will be horrendous suffering which will ensure they are wiped out in the next election. So the right when it actually has power - supports the social safety net. It verbally abuses it to keep the wingnuts in their party happy, but it actually supports it.

American people do NOT need universal health care, paid for by the government. They have never had such, and they were doing just fine. Which government health care has ever been equal to privatre sector care? The Veteran's Administration system? The military health care system?

The Congress has long ceased to act based on what is best for the people. They vote for what is best for themselves and ever-growing government power.

Obamacare is a blatant failure, and anybody who took the time to look at it when it started coud predict that failure. It is a doomed economic disaster. Only a hardline lefty could supports an economic money pit that provides poor people with useless so-called health insurance policies with deductibles so large they fail to provide real benefits. Obamacare is a scam, written by people on the payroll of the insurance industry. What was done was a disgrace. Noteworthy is that the Democrats who passed the Obamacare monstrosity were careful not to impose it upon themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Gruber_(economist)

"Grubergate" videos controversy

In November 2014, a series of videos emerged of Gruber speaking about the ACA at different events, from 2010 to 2013, in ways that proved to be controversial; the controversy became known in the press as "Grubergate". In the first, most widely publicized video, taken at a panel discussion about the ACA at the University of Pennsylvania in October 2013, Gruber said the bill was deliberately written "in a tortured way" to disguise the fact that it creates a system by which "healthy people pay in and sick people get money". He said this obfuscation was needed due to "the stupidity of the American voter" in ensuring the bill's passage. Gruber said the bill's inherent "lack of transparency is a huge political advantage" in selling it. The comments caused significant controversy.

In two subsequent videos, Gruber was shown talking about the decision (which he attributed to John Kerry) to have the bill tax insurance companies instead of patients (the so-called "Cadillac tax"), which he called fundamentally the same thing economically but more palatable politically. In one video, he stated that "the American people are too stupid to understand the difference" between the two approaches, while in the other he said that the switch worked due to "the lack of economic understanding of the American voter".

In another video, taken in 2010, Gruber expressed doubts that the ACA would significantly reduce health care costs, although he noted that lowering costs played a major part in the way the legislation had been promoted. In another video, taken in 2011, Gruber again talks about manipulation behind the "Cadillac tax", this time also stating that the tax is designed so that, though it begins by affecting only 8% of insurance plans, it will "over the next 20 years" come to apply to nearly all employer-provided health plans. Journalist Jake Tapper noted that Gruber's description of the "Cadillac tax" directly contradicted a promise that Obama had made before the bill was passed.

After the first of these videos came out, Gruber apologized and conceded he "spoke inappropriately".

Some defenders of the ACA, such as Jonathan Cohn, called Gruber's statements about Americans "wrong and inappropriate" while maintaining that the trickery of which Gruber spoke was standard procedure in passing legislation in Washington, D.C., and thus not a cause for scandal. Opponents of the Act, on the other hand, were harsher in their criticism: National Review Online editor, pundit, and conservative commentator Rich Lowry said the videos were emblematic of "the progressive mind, which values complexity over simplicity, favors indirect taxes and impositions on the American public so their costs can be hidden, and has a dim view of the average American", while commentator Charles Krauthammer called the first video "the ultimate vindication of the charge that Obamacare was sold on a pack of lies."

Conservative S.E. Cupp wrote that the videos showed "willful ignorance" on Gruber's part in thinking that the Act was successfully marketed to voters, stating that "the law has never cracked a 51% favorability rating" and that, in the first elections after the ACA passed, Republicans, who had opposed it, retook the House of Representatives and gained control of 11 additional state governorships.

Nancy Pelosi, then-Speaker of the House, who successfully shepherded the legislation through the House of Representatives, without a single GOP vote and despite some opposition from pro-life Democrats, stated in a press conference after the Gruber controversy, "So I don't know who he is. He didn't help write our bill", a comment PolitiFact described as "inaccurate".

Congressional hearing

In the wake of the controversy, Jonathan Gruber was called to testify before members of United States Congress. He gave testimony on December 9, 2014, in which he apologized for his remarks, which he called "glib, thoughtless, and sometimes downright insulting". The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial, called Gruber's apology unpersuasive, saying that "his response to substantive questions suggested that he is mainly sorry for getting caught on tape".

Ronald Reagan is the guy who not only shored up Social Security, but signed the law that gave access to hospital emergency rooms all across America, regardless of ability to pay.

Ensuring someone in an emergency is not turned away to die is not analogous to universal health care for all, paid for by the government, in an effort to reduce all health care to the lowest common denominator.

A lot of the rank and file on the right really believe in dismantling the social welfare state and rolling back laws on sexual liberty, hard prohibition on pot. They even manage to maintain some dry counties down South.

Only a lefty would complain if a majority in a county desire their county to be dry and the majority rule wins. Dry counties do not sell alcohol, although some exceptions are made for private clubs. There tends to be a liquor store on the other side of the county line on roads that go that way. Buy it, take it home, drink it, just don't walk down the street drinking it. And for those who prefer a wet county, there are lots of those. Community choice, what a concept.

But even when "their" party wins, the social welfare state is never rolled back, because it cannot be.

It can be. The problem is that people have had their money confiscated based on promises of some future benefit. Their money is gone, their money is spent, and eventually the Ponzi scheme goes bust. Call it the Madoff Social Welfare Program. Such programs have a predictable ending, it is just a matter of how long it takes to get there.

It cannot be for exactly the same reason that the country is not going to abandon electricity and go back to living like the Amish.

The country does not have to abandon electricity. Neither did it have to abandon the best health care system in the world. Nor is the country prohibited from going back to a better system than government run healthcare.

Perhaps the VA is too drastic an example of corruption to serve as the beacon of what government healthcare can do. The military healthcare system may serve the purpose. All the people need know is that government seemed to find some need to protect the military healthcare system by what is called the Feres Doctrine.

The name comes from the U.S. Supreme Court case of Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950).

The first paragraph of the syllabus is: "The United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty and not on furlough and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. Pp. 340 U. S. 136-146."

Basically, the active duty military member cannot sue the military medical system for medical malpractice. If he goes to have his appendix removed, and they remove his penis in error, a severe case of medical malpractice, he cannot sue for damages.

At 136-37, "The Feres case: the District Court dismissed an action by the executrix of Feres against the United States to recover for death caused by negligence."

Even if they kill you by malpractice, no family lawsuit for damages applies.

At 137, "The Jefferson case: plaintiff, while in the Army, was required to undergo an abdominal operation. About eight months later, in the course of another operation after plaintiff was discharged, a towel 30 inches long by 18 inches wide, marked "Medical Department U.S. Army," was discovered and removed from his stomach. The complaint alleged that it was negligently left there by the army surgeon. The District Court, being doubtful of the law, refused without prejudice the Government's pretrial motion to dismiss the complaint. After trial, finding negligence as a fact, Judge Chesnut carefully reexamined the issue of law and concluded that the Act does not charge the United States with liability in this type of case. The Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, affirmed."

At 144, 'No federal law recognizes a recovery such as claimants seek. The Military Personnel Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 223b, now superseded by 28 U.S.C. § 2672, permitted recovery in some circumstances, but it specifically excluded claims of military personnel "incident to their service."'

Ain't government run healthcare grand?

Ain't government run healthcare grand?

It's great in France.

It was great in the US Navy.

I don't know anybody who passes on Medicare.

I don't know anybody who passes on Medicare.

AFAIK, most Amish remain outside the SS system.

Basically, the active duty military member cannot sue the military medical system for medical malpractice. If he goes to have his appendix removed, and they remove his penis in error, a severe case of medical malpractice, he cannot sue for damages.

I knew a woman, a close friend, who was in the Air Force. She had some routine little surgery (gall bladder, I think) but as a result of a botched surgery, she became an extremely brittle diabetic. Her condition deteriorated as she aged and she died from falling into a coma alone at home at age 59. I went to her burial a few years ago.

Your point is well-taken. She had no legal recourse for that routine but disastrous surgery.

AFAIK, most Amish remain outside the SS system.

Probably - they've never paid into it in the first place.

Modern people are not self-sufficient like Amish farmers are. And of course if Sheki gets run over by a horse and decides that native treatment won't help him, that he doesn't want to die, and he goes to the emergency room, he gets treated.

Probably - they've never paid into it in the first place.

Even so, you have to acknowledge that you do know of people who voluntarily remain outside the SS/Medicare system.

And of course if Sheki gets run over by a horse and decides that native treatment won't help him, that he doesn't want to die, and he goes to the emergency room, he gets treated.

And do you have any evidence to cite that this occurs? How many incidents of these treatment-sponging Amish can you cite? Or are you just making it up?

Or are you just making it up?

He's making it up.

He's making it up.

In fairness, if he is, it would be a rare instance. Which is why I jumped on it! You don't get a chance like this with Vic very often.     : )

Honest to God, did you really not understand my point?

Living the Good Life? Mortality and Hospital Utilization Patterns in the Old Order Amish

And this despite average caloric intake in the range of 4,000 calories/day. And they still aren't really obese as a group.

Clean living, I think. They have other factors against them, like being able to trace their lineage to about 200 individuals and a high rate of in-group marriage/breeding.

Clean living, I think.

Routine physical activity is probably the key. A lot of manual labor pitching hay working crops and horseback riding. Done daily with one day Sabbath rest is a recipe for good overall cardio health.

It's Vic's idea of domestic political bliss but I don't see why anyone should be compelled to subsidize known bad health lifestyles. Despite some genuinine genetic challenges in their gene pool, the Amish are doing quite well compared to the rest of us with our fancy-pants Medicare and all the rest.

So what do we do with the vast spending on Medicare/Medicaid? Subsidize the idle and those who smoke/drink/drug and won't keep their weight down?

Yes, that's exactly what you do. You subsidize everybody's health care, and you don't make moral value judgments about it.

Yes, that's exactly what you do. You subsidize everybody's health care, and you don't make moral value judgments about it.

Nonsense. We already do make and enforce moral judgments about people's bad lifestyle choices with regard to healthcare and insurance. Smoking, obesity, diet, drinking/drugging, etc.

We already do make and enforce moral judgments about people's bad lifestyle choices

That used to be part of becoming a serious adult. It was training for survival.

No that is the mighty Vic the only person that god would ever help because you are so wonderful.

I am a sinner like everybody else. And yet God did in fact reach right out of the sky and save my life directly once, and has helped me astonishingly time and again.

So I will tell you truly: God doesn't follow your rules, and to the extent you hate me for telling you how good He has been to me (even though I don't deserve it), you make yourself a miserable person who questions God's judgment.

I've read the Scriptures so very carefully precisely BECAUSE I know that He's real. You swashbuckle with the Scriptures, pick and choose passages here and there, and act like your typical hypocritical Christian because you don't know that He's real. You treat religion as a game in which your pretending to believe very fervently is what God wants from you.

Well, it isn't. If you are attacking me for telling you about miracles God has done for me, you are attacking God for His judgment. Which is very unfortunate for you. You could learn a lot from me, but you hate me precisely BECAUSE God has favored me. Why me and not you?

Probably because - for all of my sins - I am a much nicer, kinder, and more forgiving and less judgmental person that you are. Your words drip with venom and you type with a sneer on your face that is visible. You're an unforgiving relentless person who is quite ignorant of Scripture - you cite a line or two, and then rely on what you heard. You've even presumed to judge God, for saving my life, calling me a liar, and proving yourself (to me) to be an angry, mean, ignorant and blind fool.

It doesn't surprise me that you don't have miracles, why WOULD you? You do exactly what He said not to do, and when God sends you angels to open your eyes and tell you the truth, you spit right in their faces.

Of course everything trends to dark and the ditches for you - you have chosen to be dark, relentless and evil. And that doesn't work. Never will.

Nonsense. We already do make and enforce moral judgments about people's bad lifestyle choices with regard to healthcare and insurance. Smoking, obesity, diet, drinking/drugging, etc.

Nope. Have a stroke and can't get medical care - you go to the hospital emergency room and they treat you.

Over 65, you get Medicare.

You're desperate to judge and pinch pennies on people. Very few people can afford unsubsidized health care throughout their entire lives, or unsubsidized educations, or unsubsidized old age retirement - nobody on this website can.

You always have the option of refusing all of it. You'd pull up the ladder if you could, but society will never let you, thank God.

I believe the key is 'movement.' Meaning exercise, but not the stupid workout mentality of the Boomer to now generation. They go torture themselves for 2 hours a day to make up for bad living the other 22 hours a day.

I mean being more physical and physically active like the Amish. Do more chores, walking, endurance. Do it over a longer period of time instead of an insane 1-2 hour workout a day.

The key is exercise over many hours doing stuff not just to exercise. Eat in moderation with more smaller meals.

Pretty easy to follow.

You're desperate to judge and pinch pennies on people. Very few people can afford unsubsidized health care throughout their entire lives, or unsubsidized educations, or unsubsidized old age retirement - nobody on this website can.

Conversely, you are desperate to justify your own liberal policy preferences.

1. I favor Policy X.
2. All decent and moral persons (and my church) favor Policy X.
3. Only bad persons would oppose Policy X.
4. Therefore my opinion is right and anyone who opposes me is, ipso facto, a bad person.

A convenient exercise for you but it has no bearing on the real issues (vastly inflated medical pricing, free riders who pay nothing into the system, subsidizing unhealthy lifestyle choices, drinking/drugging/obesity/idleness etc.).

Unless Jesus died on the cross so we could all be compelled by force of law to subsidize the healthcare of obese alcoholics and druggies who never get any exercise and to pay exorbitant rates for doctors/nursing/hospitals, then you are wrong and your church is wrong. You are just pandering to your own moral smugness and I think you have no intention of ever actually paying for these things yourself. You just want a pedestal to stand on so you can admire your profile.

You just want a pedestal to stand on so you can admire your profile.

Well, you told me that I was a mental retard back when I supported Trump and you didn't. That's the way your ilk talks talks to people.

Well, you told me that I was a mental retard back when I supported Trump and you didn't. That's the way your ilk talks talks to people.

That's because it is admirable when I do it as a matter of principle but a sign of your bad faith and low moral character when you do it.

That's because it is admirable when I do it as a matter of principle but a sign of your bad faith and low moral character when you do it.

Makes sense.

It really fleshes out the differences between me, on the one hand, and you and AKA Stone on the other.

The differences are not political, they are theological and moral. We have opposed moralities and our respective Gods tell us different things.

When it comes down to this, obviously nothing can be resolved by conversation, so the question becomes: why are we conversing at all then?

Unless Jesus died on the cross so we could all be compelled by force of law to subsidize the healthcare of obese alcoholics and druggies who never get any exercise and to pay exorbitant rates for doctors/nursing/hospitals, then you are wrong and your church is wrong. You are just pandering to your own moral smugness and I think you have no intention of ever actually paying for these things yourself. You just want a pedestal to stand on so you can admire your profile.

Or we could all just go for a nice walk 2-3 times a day, use stairs instead of elevators, and park to the farthest point of a parking lot and get the extra walk in....Instead about bickering about a system that will never change.

I want you all to seriously consider each other brothers in Christ when you address each other.

The endless bickering and sniping and name calling is a horrible witness for those who come here and see us all proclaiming our faith.

Off soapbox.

Jesus did not advocate for government-run healthcare. He didn't charge for healings, nor did his disciples. He didn't even ask to have his parking validated after he resurrected Lazarus.

So how does social gospel healthcare policy become the central dogma of Christian life?

The answer is that it doesn't. It's just a ruse for phonies like Vic to try to be holier-than-thou to anyone who disagrees with him.

The last I checked, "Healthcare for all" was not one of the Ten Commandments. Nor a part of the Great Commission. Or the Sermon on the Mount. Until the last few decades, no Christians have ever equated socialized medicine with sound Christian doctrine. And no sound Christians do today. However, hacks who want to defend their preference for socialized medicine like to hide behind the cross and heap adulation on themselves for advocating socialized medicine as a substitute for Christian doctrine and missions work.

I don't know anybody who passes on Medicare.

Just like Social Security. It ain't voluntary.

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10043.pdf

Signing up for Medicare

When should I apply?

If you’re already getting Social Security benefits, or railroad retirement checks, we’ll send you information a few months before you become eligible for Medicare. If you live in one of the 50 states, Washington, D.C., the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the U.S. Virgin Islands, we’ll automatically enroll you in Medicare Parts A and B. However, because you must pay a premium for Part B coverage, you can choose to turn it down.

When one turns 65, the Social Security Administration automatically enrolls them in Medicare. One may turn down Part B, but Part A is there to stay.

Practitioners can opt out from participating. When you turn 65, you are not only covered, but it is your primary insurer, by law.

When I changed to a different family physician who only accepted two new Medicare patients per month, the openings for the next two months were spoken for and I had to wait three months to get an appointment. It made no difference that I had TRICARE from military service, and BCBS, or cash. Medicare must be the primary insurer, and a Medicare participating physician cannot accept a cash payment from anyone who is Medicare eligible.

It was great in the US Navy.

It would not be so great if you burst your appendix on a destroyer.

Navy provided medical care is not that great. They would not need complete protection from malpractice if it were that great.

Most ships at sea do not have a doctor, they have a corpsman. Many initial visits at a shore facility ware assigned to a PA, not a doctor. The commanding officer of a Navy hospital may be a Medical Supply Corps officer. A Navy hospital is the only Navy command that I ever encountered that kept the official quarterdeck log in pencil on a legal pad and later rewrote it into the official log. You almost have to work in naval hospital administration to get a real taste of it. It is a taste that lingers.