ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Religion and Philosophy»
  • Atheism & Agnosticism

The God Loophole

Updated on April 10, 2010

All laws and policies have loopholes. One need not look any further than the United States tax code to find almost as many loopholes as there are pages. Of course, we all look for loopholes because the laws and policies surrounding them are ones that we generally don't like. If we can find a creative, but absolutely legal way of getting around unfavorable laws and policies, really, is there anything wrong with that? The practice may be a bit deceptive, that's true. It may be a bit disingenuous, that's true as well. Fair enough.

But it's not bad. It's not breaking the law. It's not breaking the rules.

And let's face it, there are a lot of laws, and some policies that we have that are just plain silly. Take, for example, some school's policies which have made the use of the word "God" in schools against the rules. I mean, don't get me wrong here. I'm not a religious guy, so I won't be preaching to the choir here. I think I made that perfectly clear in my recent article, "Religion Is Not Necessary," wherein I explored the idea posed by Albert Einstein, whereas he said, "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary." In it I also shared my own personal thoughts about the question of God's existence, or the realities of religion and non-religion as a whole.

Clearly, I'm no Bible toter, and you also won't be hearing me advocating for prayer in school. That is an entirely different matter than what I'm discussing here.

That said, I have to ask the question why would anyone have a problem with just invoking the name of the Lord in a speech? Even in a school setting? It's not prayer. It's not preaching. Why would it be wrong for one to reference any source of a person's plight or encouragement in life? If God is your source, then why would it be wrong to be able to share that? Why should it be so hard for a non-believer to have such difficulty even hearing the word God uttered? To me, it's silly. It just doesn't make any sense at all.

What if your source is Buddha? What if it's Allah? Okay, I don't agree with those things. Certainly I'm not a believer in Buddhism or Islam. But who cares if someone utters them in a speech? What if it's your mother or your father who is your source of encouragement? That could be offensive or hurtful too. Someone may try to stop that. I might not have a mother or a father. What if I'm an orphan? What if it's Ronald Reagan I invoke as a source for my plight or my encouragement? Should I not utter the name of the 40th President of the United States because a few democrats may be sitting in the audience and find it offensive?

Politics and religion, when you get down to passions, are very much similar in nature. Discussions in either can really wind up in some pretty knock-down, drag-out verbal sparring. We believe what we believe, and that's fine. But we should not impose our beliefs, and impose limits on the speech of others.

Religion aside, what I amis a conservative. I'm an American, and I'm proud of that. In every way I pride myself and associate myself with the values and traditions that are the foundations of this great land. God is a part of that in every way. Judeo-Christian philosophy touches every single document we have that defines America, her people, and is the basis for the country.

So, God belongs on my money. Certainly, without any doubt whatsoever, the word God belongs in my pledge of allegiance to my country. And it belongs in the hearts and minds, and the speech of any American who wishes to invoke it.

It's very utterance will not strike me dead. It will not reshape my views. It will not shatter the very fibers of my being. I will not all of a sudden burst out of the halls of the auditorium with a Bible in hand shouting "He has risen!"

A law like this, or a policy like this, wherever it may be encouraged or enforced, is wrong. But like I said at the beginning of this rant, there are loopholes. There are creative, fanciful ways around silly laws and policies. Recently I happened to have come across a rather interesting one. I'm calling it, "The God Loophole."

I don't normally do this, that is pass on another hubber's hub in a hub of my own. But in this particular case I was left with no choice. It's short and sweet, this God loophole. But I was so enlightened by it I just had to share it, in case anyone here reading this has not had a chance to read it yet. It'll bring a smile to your face. It certainly brought one to mine. Religious or not.

It's called, "The Sneeze." I'll just call this a favorable hub review and give it two definite thumbs up.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      On the oil spill issue I tend to agree that there ARE solutions and alternatives to oil. It's a matter of wanting to find them and make use of them. I've commented before, even on a hub written by Merlin Fraser "Life After Oil," that we are an innovative and creative people...we can figure it out if we really want to. Somewhere the opportunities get blurred when its about big money, big business, and politics.

      As for unions? Man, come on. You can't think unions do any good for America. They only perpetuate the status quo. If you put unions in context with oil companies, why do you think oil might be such a big deal and why alternatives may not be? Jobs. And the unions will do everything they can to protect them. Even keeping big oil alive and well. Because you have to pump it, proecess it, build rigs to pump it, and wells...these are largely union jobs. And let's not forget the tanker drivers, those are union jobs.

      Unions are as bad as regulations as they force businesses to consider things OTHER than the best path for profits in their business decision making process. GM and Chrysler failed, and Chrysler did as well many years before when Iacocca (sp?) was running it in part because so long as you have unions siphoning off every ounce of blood they can get, you cannot have a company capable of making profits to the fullest extent.

      I guess you could have ended your comment with, "in a perfect world." Unfortunately, our world is far from that. Still, I value your opinion and thanks for stopping by.

    • Micky Dee profile image

      Micky Dee 8 years ago

      Sorry- can't go along with Ronnie. He and his folks destroyed the middle class. It all began with setting the dogs loose on unions. He thought catchup was a veggie? Trees cause pollution? He did not bring down the Soviet Union. That was done from years of the US bluffing about its nuclear weapons. The USSR went on a spending spree. Spiritual advice from Ron? Uh uh.

      I answered this pretty much on your next "God" hub. The Golden Rule is the rule. Every religion has a form. If we cared enough for others as we care for ourselves the world would be a better place. Different energy sources might be in use now instead of an oil spill. There would not be as many wars. I know "wars and rumors of wars" blah blah. That is the attitude of the defeated. The Golden Rule should be required for business and governments as well as the personal endeavor. All of man's ugliness can be attributed to ignoring this LAW.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      Me? Subtle? :) lol. I have always felt that people are entitled to believe in whatever it is they wish to. It's only when one believer tries to force onto one who believes something else HIS beliefs is when I think it begins to enter into the realm of disrespectful and rude. And yes, silly.

      It's funny. Just today in the "Answers" section I ran across the question, "What Can A Wife Do To Make A Husband Start Attending Church Services Like the Rest of the Family?"

      My response was simply, "Why on earth would you want him to? It is disrespectful and rude to force your beliefs onto another person, INCLUDING your spouse. It is no more respectful for you to shove a Bible in his face than it would be for him to throw The Theory of Evolution in yours. Go back to the vows you took when you married him. You need to accept your husband for who he is, period."

      It's a bit harsh maybe. But I always wonder what makes ANYONE think it is okay to impose upon someone else their beliefs? It rarely ever works the other way around as we always learn.

      Both parties should ALWAYS be respectful of the other.

    • valeriebelew profile image

      valeriebelew 8 years ago from Metro Atlanta, GA, USA

      He is risen. LOL. I'm just kidding. I don't define myself as a liberal, conservative, republican or democrat, and in many ways I'm all of the above, and non of the above. I won't be defined as anything. I refuse. Your hub is good and makes sense. I don't get all bent out of shape if someone refers to the Good Fairy, though I doubt one exists, so why should an athiest give a rat's ass whether or not somebody mentions God. To pass a law like that is downright silly, and it will end up being deleted from the books like the old sodomy laws. Who can enforce it, and we don't have enough cops to take care of the real crimes, without adding silly laws that don't really even have a victim. This is the kind of idiotic, silly, shortsighted thing that happens when people start getting all riled up over religion and politics and cease to think clearly. I recently wrote a hub addressing whether people actually debate such matters or go to war over them. I try not to touch them, but you are subtle enough for me to stomach. Thanks for a good thought. (:v

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      I cannot find a single you said to be disagreeable. I think it comes down to respect. I have a similar situation in my own family where I am primarily non-religious, but my sister is a Christian. We both respect each other's beliefs. There was a time, I remember, when perhaps I challenged things more...

      But that was before I grew up. :)

      Great to see you and thanks for stopping by.

    • theherbivorehippi profile image

      theherbivorehippi 8 years ago from Holly, MI

      So well written! I think the problem today is EVERYTHING has to be so politically correct...right down to even how you refer to someone's height, color or size. Conversation must now be tiptoed around so that other (weaker) people do not get offended. There is nothing wrong with people of any religion speaking their beliefs as long as it is not done so in a hurtful manner towards anyone else. My mother is very religious, my real father is an Atheist...I mean...I've heard it all and quite honestly I enjoy learning religions of ALL cultures and beliefs. There are fascinating theories, real and mythological of how WE came to be and the beginning of the Earth. I think the Wicca religion is one of the most fascinating and oldest but of course it was pushed underground with the rise of Christianity. If different theories can be spoke of then God should be able to be spoke of as well. I think certain people should just stop getting so offended over every little thing that they don't agree with. Everyone has their own opinion and beliefs....this is what makes them special. Fabulous hub! Rated up!

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      Actually, it has always been something of great fascination and enlightenment to me to hear the views of others, and I agree it's surprising more people aren't open to such a variety of viewpoints. Discoveries are amazing things, though in order to discover you have to be willing to look.

    • Chaotic Chica profile image

      Chaotic Chica 8 years ago

      I love the sentiment regarding how differences of opinion should be noted but never silenced. How dull the world would be if we never disagreed with anybody or worse, never voiced our opinions! I have my faith and it doesn't neccesarily mesh with what 'standard' Christians believe but it's between me & Him and nobody need judge me or anyone else. I will never understand why some people get completely bent out of shape if somebody disagrees with their ideaoligies (sp). Truth be told, it is un-Christian-like to judge others, that is for Him to pass, not you, and yet judgement is passed every day in His name. Seems hypocrytical to me!

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      Kimberly, you made perfect sense. I always say, if it ain't gonna kill me or someone else...have at it. :)

    • profile image

      kimberlyslyrics 8 years ago

      Spring, I just loved this hub

      I am not American but I felt your declaration and what that entails, so inspirational.

      You are very wise and I am in agreement with you of the simple words freedom of choice.

      I tire so much now of the ridiculous extremes. Either defending and protecting their beliefs or preaching others faults.

      Most behaviors demonstrate the exact opposite of what they are suppose to believe.

      I could care less but respect anyone's belief but will admit I have no patience to share views, even on the friendliest levels.

      On a topic that I believe may be our most personal and sacred whichever way one sways.

      Can't we just privately live our lives respecting others choices?

      I don't know if that made any sense, but you sure did.

      ps- Loved the sneeze indeed

      Thank you


    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      Two things on this point. 1) I think it is absolutely clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the system of our laws, and the basis of our founder's thoughts ran on Judeo-Christian philosophy. Therefore, I think the use of the word "God" in anything American, including the pledge, is harmless, and certainly follows along American tradition, even if it was only added to the pledge in the 1950s. 2) I don't believe that in a Judeo-Christian based society that the use of the word "God" infringes on any other one's right to pursue their religion of choice.

      If I go to another country, such as Asia for example, I expect that I will find a common theme surrounding Buddhism throughout the country. It does not disallow me to pursue other forms. Traditionalists in Asian countries, also, would have similar oppositions to affecting the basis of their heritage and customs as we do in America—whether we are religious or not, such as in my case.

    • Dolores Monet profile image

      Dolores Monet 8 years ago from East Coast, United States

      Springboard, actually, the original Pledge of Allegience did not include the phrase 'one nation under God.' That was added in the 1950's, I think. It's a fine line there. Like in France where they have outlawed girls wearing scarves in school. What are they thinking? I don't think we should allow religion to rule, but to deny a person their religious freedom is tyrannical.

    • profile image

      Techwriter21 8 years ago

      Very nice, check out my hub

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      I can't argue with multiple thumbs up. :)

    • habee profile image

      Holle Abee 8 years ago from Georgia

      Excellent hub! I gave it a thumbs up and plan to come back later and give it another one! lol

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      But that's what I've been saying all along. 52% of the American people did not want the bill in its CURRENT form. Yes, there are parts of the bill that are very worthy of being made into law. Where that's the case, I'm fine with saying YES to that part, and would expect anyone else would say YES to any part that was worthy of support. I've stated a couple parts, myself, a couple of times in our discussions that I absolutely support.

      This bill should never have passed the way it did. It should have been broken into smaller, more digestible parts, and throughout the entire process, the debate should have been a healthy and robust one, taking into account not only the views of BOTH parties, but also the views of the concensus of the American people. You CANNOT be willing to simply say that the bill, for all its bad points, is worth passing just to incorporate a few good ones. It just doesn't make any sense.

      BTW, when I say I pay for these programs, you're right, it's not like buying a car. BUT, when I buy a piece of real estate and sell it I have to pay a tax for that. When I buy and sell a stock I pay a tax on the gain I earn. When I invest my money and hold a stock and earn dividends, I pay a tax on that as well—not to mention the other taxes we all pay such as at the gas pump or at the cash register at our local department store. Everytime we, as a country, add programs, and invariably add program recipients, someone has to pay for that, and before you know it more and more chunks of my risk reward get siphoned off. I'm tired of working for someone else. I'm tired of helping the clueless.

      By the way, Medicare and Medicaid ARE funded via taxes as well, and what's worse, is when costs exceed what they take in, well...we all know money doesn't grow on trees. Someone has to make up the difference.

      Again, I do not oppose health care reform. I oppose the health care BILL that became law. I oppose the enormous cost that this bill will impose on the taxpayer (the CBOs numbers, by their own admission BTW, can be construed in multiple ways and depending on how they are construed can be shown to save money or cost money. BUT, they also stated that the figures that show saving money are using taking-from-Peter-to-pay-Paul accounting, so it's not the big wash all the dems keep trying to say it is).

      As for your assessment of the gun-toting whackos hurting the republican cause, it's exactly the wrong way to be thinking, because it's clear that the people you are referring to are gun-toting whackos and NOT representative of the republican party ANYMORE than the guys who held up the signs depicting George Bush as Hitler were representative of the democrat party.

      Isn't it amazing though that here we go again...we can see CLEARLY that Barack Obama had been associated with known terrorists, racists, and that his entire administration has made glaring statements about the contributions of Chairman Mao, clearly described themselves as Marxists and socialists, associated themselves with even communism, and yet...

      It didn't matter. It was insignificant. Who cares who Barack Obama surrounded himself with then or who he surrounds himself with today? Why is it relevant? Why should people care that the Black Panthers blocked white voters at the polls? What's everybody so bent out of shape about...

      But get a load of those gun-toting whackos and conservative militias...oh yeah, and did you hear people were spitting on black Congressmen and calling them nasty names?

      It's just more bulls... rhetoric from the left. "Goddamn America!" is right. And on the current path, be damned we are.

    • woodwoman profile image

      woodwoman 8 years ago

      Who's healthcare are you paying for? The senior citizens are already on Medicare. The poor are already on Medicaid. Is it the subsidy I might get to help me afford my health insurance? How is that different from subsidies we give to agribusiness, for example? The change I'm looking forward to and will help me the most will be the ability to go in with an organization or professional group to buy group insurance, something that's currently prohibited by NC law. That won't cost you a dime, unless you hold stock in the insurance companies that sell in NC. If I buy that kind of health insurance I won't be eligible for the subsidy.

      Springboard, you talk about "paying for someone else's healthcare" as if you're paying for a car or a night out on the town. That's not a good analogy. I can buy a beater or a luxury car if I want, they both get me from point A to point B. Or I can not buy one at all. It doesn't have any affect on my health or ability to get treatment. If I don't have health insurance I can't buy the medication I use to stop me from having seizures and I'll end up on disability, costing you money.

      You've used the poll numbers of 52% oppose health care, but did you know that same poll also listed the major points of the bill separately and asked if they'd support this effort or that one. 52% answered yes, they'd support insurance subsidies or closing the Medicare donut hole.

      We'll see what happens in November. The Republicans had better pull back the crazies like the ones in Oklahoma who want to form a militia to prevent health care reform from being enacted. They ruin your message of restraint and working together to find a solution for a huge problem. The GOP is in danger of being damaging their "brand" and being identified with gun-toting wackos. If that happens, putting all the democrats out of office will be much, much harder.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      No more than you think I happen to be a rich snob who looks down at the little people as maggots. I'm a hard working American as well, and I pay taxes. That's all. As for your assertion that EVERYONE pays for these credits and taxes, consider that the IRS numbers show the highest percentage in this last tax cylce of people who will not have effectively paid any taxes—it's more than 50%. That means a lot of folks getting a lot of money from the IRS in the form of a "refund" that didn't pay anything in. PLUS the credits. PLUS welfare...

      ...and now they'll get healthcare as well.

      I don't know. Maybe I'm backwards. But where I come from, bad behavior is not supposed to be populated by winners.

      As for this constant assertion that republicans didn't want to discuss anything, might I remind YOU that the democrats had the majority. THEY closed the doors on the discussion. THEY knocked down every single proposal the republican party offered. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

      You and I are intelligent people. I think it's safe to say that if I came to the table with you, and I was the one who had the final say, and said "Woodwoman, I want to buy a red car, a blue car, and a white car," and you said, "What about an orange car?"


      Now keep in mind there IS a third person at the table as well...let's call him the American people.

      "Perhaps a green car?"


      "What about a silver one?"


      The third person rises at the table and says "Hey, wait a minute Springboard, I don't think I mind the red one, but the blue one and the white one may be a bit off..."

      I say back, "Sit down American. Trust me you're gonna LOVE the blue one and the white one once you get behind the wheel."

      How long would you bother to sit at the table with a conversation like that with me and continue to spout off color options? Or even to try and back the American's voice before you would arrive at the logical conclusion that Springboard is on a power trip, isn't interested in your ideas, and certainly isn't concerned about the American people. And how on earth would you even remotely consider that to be an "open" discussion? This whole thing was as one sided anything can be. The REAL party of no was the democratic party if you ask me.

      52% of the American people, if they could have voted for HCR, would have voted NO. Instead they will get to cast their vote in November.

    • woodwoman profile image

      woodwoman 8 years ago

      Competition is fine if you're healthy. Then you can look around and get the best deal. Insurance companies are willing to give you a good price because they don't think you'll make a lot of claims. Of course, if you actually NEED health insurance, the insurers will squeeze every dime out of you, and then some.

      The public option was the best idea, but it was demonized by the right. I don't want to get my own way every time as much as I want our leaders to be able to have a calm, rational discussion about it. I know if they do, then something will probably get done. The republicans didn't want to even entertain the idea of a discussion. If they don't like what's been passed, tough! They had their chance.

      BTW, everyone's paying for the tax credits and the cash for clunkers, not just you. Hopefully, it will help the housing market come back and the car companies do better so they don't have to lay off all their workers. If those two things happen, we all benefit.

      To remind you, the 2003 Bush tax cut increased our deficit and so did the Iraq war. Maybe it was necessary war in the beginning, but we'll never really know for sure. If you're against the expense of HCR, which the non-partisan CBO says will save the government money, were you against the 2003 Bush tax cut? If you don't want our deficit to go up yet again, aren't you glad the tax cut is expiring?

      Tort reform will save about 1% of the total cost of the bill. Did you know that in NC there is only one company that sells malpractice insurance? They can charge all they want because people in NC can't buy from out of state insurance companies. That monopoly drives up premiums more than malpractice claims.

      The thing that makes my blood boil and makes me not care about Republican concerns is the conservative rhetoric about HCR is the idea I hear over and over that the only people who need help paying for health care are welfare queens, lazy people and people who are buying large-screen TVs instead of health care for their kids. I'm none of those things and I'm insulted every time I hear it so I begin not to care about the concerns of people who say that.

      Springboard, you and I have discussed politics for a couple of weeks now. Do you think I'm one of those welfare queens or a fairly normal, fairly reasonable person with a kid and a mortgage and bills I want to be able to pay myself? Am I the unemployed woman who buys a whole new wardrobe on credit but doesn't have enough money to take her kid to the doctor or am I the woman who shops Goodwill instead of Macy's and thinks a big night out is dinner at Qdoba (a plastic fork, paper cup kind of place) with a buy one entrée, get one entrée free coupon?

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      That was the largest part of the problem woodwoman. "Until we see each other's side of the argument, nothing will get done." What I would say is that what DID get done was something way out of line with what should have been done. Again, I was never against health care REFORM. Even the republicans wanted some form of reform. But the debate had been closed early on. Backroom deals had been made and no republicans were invited. And as for republican proposals? They went without consideration. What we have is worse than a gridlock. The bill passed. It's a done deal. But what's in it is why it's worse than gridlock, because it should never have passed in the first place in the state that it was in at it's passing.

      As for my tax bill, of COURSE I'm concerned. I'm being taxed to death to help all sorts of people who don't take responsibility for themselves. I pay my mortgage on time. I buy properties that I know I can afford to pay for. I don't use a ton of credit. I put my money into savings accounts, buy stocks, bonds, and CDs...

      Yet I'm buying houses (the $8,000 credit), paying for mortgages (the bail out of subprime), buying cars (cash for clunkers), and now soon I'm paying for someone's medical coverage too (Obamacare). Where does it end?

      As for covering everyone, well...I was FOR the public option, though not quite under the same conditions the bill proposed. So, it's not like I'm in the interest of leaving people uncovered. I was also FOR the pre-existing condition clause. There are many things in the bill I am for, but as I said before, there are just too many things in the bill I cannot support, that under those conditions, and by those merits, I cannot support the bill as it currently stands.

      BTW, I never said I didn't care about how much people were paying for health care. I think health care costs and insurance premiums are through the roof, and have risen at a pace that is not quite consistent with what it should have been. It's why more competition is needed, which isn't in the bill. It's why tort reform is needed, which isn't in the bill.

    • woodwoman profile image

      woodwoman 8 years ago


      If you don't care about how much others pay for insurance or even if they've got insurance and access to medical care, why should we care that you think your tax bill is too high? Until we can see each other's side of the argument, nothing will get done, all we'll have is gridlock.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      Thanks Ben, Sky, and Marliza for stopping by and commenting. I always enjoy hearing the views of others. As for the title, I do like it too. In hindsight, though, my fear is that it is a bit anti-climactic in that the hub itself doesn't explore my thought on the topic further. In any case... :)

    • Marliza Gunter profile image

      Marliza Gunter 8 years ago from South Africa

      Great title...certainly God has loopholes...that's exactly how He outsmarts Satan all the time...

    • Sky321 profile image

      Sky321 8 years ago from Canada

      Cool picture!

    • Ben Zoltak profile image

      Ben Zoltak 8 years ago from Lake Mills, Jefferson County, Wisconsin USA

      Provocative hub article. I don't agree with everything you've stated here, but I enjoy the conviction in your voice. I am a religious, spiritual person, though someone who doesn't enjoy religious bureaucracy or the theosophical administration, for many reasons I can't explain in a short blurb here. The only church house I visit is the one I walk in where the birds sing and the trees grow. But I agree with you wholeheartedly that just because we don't agree with someone's view, doesn't mean we should censor their words. I don't agree with most atheists, but I couldn't dream of a country where I would live, where those people weren't allowed to speak their minds. I do believe in our country (and coincidentally our state) many people worship wealth in the same way George Washington was afraid of, and that self imposed blindness has allowed the restriction of our freedoms here in the USA.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      "People without health insurance are more likely to suffer poor outcomes during health crises than people with health insurance."

      That's indisputable. But the logic could be applied in ANY circumstance. A person without a car will be more likely to not get to point B. A person without a job will more likely have money troubles. A person without an umbrella will more likely get wet in a rainstorm.

      Again, I don't want to turn this hub into a political discussion (well, maybe), but I just think that's NOT a good enough reason to say we should just give a man a car, or hand a man an umbrella. Sure, it's a nice gesture.

      Now, you may say we're not giving anyone anything when we're talking about healthcare. But the fact remains that so long as it's government rendered, and taxed, someone will be paying for someone else inevitably.

      I just don't see that as being a good thing.

      As for Sarah Palin, she DID go on about how ridiculous a statement it was, because it was entirely inaccurate to suggest that republicans wanted anyone to "die quickly." Another wonderful Grayson line BTW.

    • woodwoman profile image

      woodwoman 8 years ago

      Sarah Palin went on and on about them, too. Only she fabricated everything she claimed about them. Anyone hurts their credibility when they lie like she did. It may have short-term benefits but it will come back to bite you in the butt.

      People without health insurance are more likely to suffer poor outcomes during health crises than people with health insurance. Those are American Cancer Society findings. not a Democratic study that's been twisted to serve an agenda.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      Alan Grayson (D-FL): he was the one who was on and on about the death panels.

    • woodwoman profile image

      woodwoman 8 years ago


    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      secularist—I don't want to be overly argumentative. But my article was geared more toward personal freedom to choose one's own guidance and to be able to choose to express what guides them under freedom of speech. I was in no way advocating for, nor discussing government mandated religion, nor government imposing religion by law on any individual. That said, I repeat, our culture IS Judeo-Christian based, and so are our laws, and anybody should be able to appreciate at least the heritage of the founding fathers of our country. Why are there more mosques in Iraq than Christian churches (if there are any)? Because their culture is Muslim. I won't get into whether or not Iraq mandates now, or mandated before what religion a person could practice. I'm merely using it for illustrative purposes. I would expect that in a primarily Muslim country that I would see and hear more references to Allah, Islam, and that the country's system of laws would probably follow some sort of Muslim doctrine or philosophy as well.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      woodwoman—honestly I don't want to turn this into a health care debate. To answer your question generically I will simply quote something Dennis Miller said once.

      "I love to help the helpless, I don't care about the clueless. We're helping too many of the clueless nowadays." That really does sum it up for me. I cannot disagree with his statement.

      Your "letting all others suffer and die" statement just brings back that awful image of Grayson. Please spare me that.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      Pamela—thank you. Always a pleasure to hear from you.

      festersporling—glad you liked it as a picture choice. I figured it was appropriate considering the topic is sort of as similarily dangerous as stepping into a den of lions. :)

      woodwoman—you and I have had this discussion on health care reform already. I never said I did not want health care reform. What I DID say is that I did not want a massive behemoth bill that nobody would read, nobody would understand, with too many things strewn about and hidden between the lines that make all the good parts get lost in the quagmire. Your logic that we just pass something, anything, to fix a couple of real problems is sort of like going in for plastic surgery for a nose job, coming out of the operation and the doctor smiling at you, "BTW, we know you just wanted a nose job, but we went ahead and took care of moving your lips over a little bit—oh, and yes we DID charge you for it, and we've got you scheduled for a breast reduction as well four years from can go ahead and start paying for that as well NOW, and if you don't WANT the reduction, we'll send a note to the IRS about that one."

      A ridiculous response mind you. I'll freely admit that. Over the top? You bet.

      The bill did a lot of things I wanted but when I woke up I realized it did a lot more I didn't, and my elected officials had earplugs in through the entire debate. While we we were all sleeping they were moving our lips for us because they know so much better than we do where our lips should be.

      This really is a ridiculous analogy...still... lol In a very Twilight Zone sort of way, it makes sense considering the times we seem to be living in lately.

    • secularist10 profile image

      secularist10 8 years ago from New York City


      "Our culture, our system of laws, are primarily Judeo-Christian philosophy based."

      I agree, and that is not relevant. The question is whether the government SHOULD give favor to Judeo-Christian philosophy.

      If the government gives preference to one belief system over others, this violates the separation of church and state.

    • woodwoman profile image

      woodwoman 8 years ago

      Now that you've trashed these programs, come up with something better. And remember that these programs have helped millions upon millions of people. Of course, when someone becomes poor, we could send them to the poorhouse. When someone becomes ill, we just set them adrift on an ice floe. When someone retires, they get to live on whatever they have and tough luck if some big bank trashed their retirement account with bad investments.

      Gee, I'm glad I don't live in your world where only perfect people live. You've never answered my question springboard: What is good or moral about giving health care only to people who can afford it and letting all others suffer and die?

    • OpinionDuck profile image

      OpinionDuck 8 years ago


      The government had forced the country to take a tax and make it look like a way for people to have some sort of retirement.

      They called it Social Security.

      Back in 1935 and now after seventy five years the Social Security System is insolvent.

      People fifty years and younger may not get any benefit from it even though they have contributed into the system.

      A fifty year old could have been contributing into the system for over thirty five years.

      Social Security was passed as a tax, and then thirty five years later they added another tax called Medicare.

      Medicare has been besieged by costly and wasteful fraud for decades.

      Now forty five years after Medicare the government has passed another tax, called Healthcare.

      Like Social Security and Medicare it is fundamentally a Tax in mercy clothing.

      Another way for the government to invade your privacy and increase the size of government and increase taxes.

      A costly and controversial reform such as this should have required more than just a simple majority to pass this bill.

    • woodwoman profile image

      woodwoman 8 years ago

      You'll die to keep the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance even though it's a) not in the original version and b) nobody pays attention to it but you won't support health care reform which will help millions of people because some pundit says it will raise your taxes? Good choice, there.

    • festersporling1 profile image

      Daniel Christian 8 years ago from Los Angeles, CA

      Well written and intelligent hub. Love the picture of Daniel in the den. :)


    • Pamela99 profile image

      Pamela Oglesby 8 years ago from United States

      I thought you explained your points very well and I really enjoyed your hub. You did an excellent job with this one.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      reddog1027—glad to see you. Separation of church and state is an imperative IMO.

      woodwoman—with all due respect, it's not about God. It's about my love for country, and my love for this country's heritage. It's my love for all that made this great land possible. It's about the philosophy that made us a great people. It's the basis for our culture. Whether or not I believe in God does not remove God from the equation. I support America, our system of laws, and our system of government. I absolutely support the Constitution. All of these things state are, yes, separate from the church, and absolutely rightly so, but not separate from Judeo-Christian philosophy on which the ideals and foundations were largely based. God may not have been in the body of our government, but it was definitely in the minds of our governors. As a patriotic American, that means something to me, and I'll fight to my dying breath to conserve it.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      secularist—Maybe I was misunderstood . I am not for any state funding of anything religious, nor am I in favor of an "official" religion. What I was speaking to were issues of freedom to express oneself as to their inspiration or personal source of encouragement. When I was speaking on Israel among other places, I was speaking about culture. Our culture, our system of laws, are primarily Judeo-Christian philosophy based. That was all I was saying. People in this country should be able to practice whatever religion they want, speak on whatever relgion they want, they simply should not be able to impose religion. Might I add imposing and displaying are different things as well, but that's for another discussion, though I bring it up because these days a lot of folks are confused about that as well.

      There is no reason to change our government, our system of laws, or our founders heritage, nor the basis for the culture of our country that I can see. No one would expect Asia to suddenly change. Nor Israel. Though if an Asian would want to practice Christianity, fine. If an Israelite wants to practice Hindu, fine. There will always be dissent for such choice when the majority favors one or another religion, but that's how it goes.

      Again, if I saw a problem with any of the aforementioned parts, I'd advocate change. Finding none, I can't do that, nor do I have any reason to want to.

    • woodwoman profile image

      woodwoman 8 years ago

      You said: "I'm not a religious guy." OK, so why do you care if God is referenced anywhere? Because the liberals are supposedly "anti-God" and it really makes them mad when we say we have a right to have God on our money and in our schools? How does referencing God today have any affect on what this country's Judeo-Christian based ethics are like now or will be in the future? Does including "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance make this a better, more moral nation?

      The truth of the matter is that no one listens to the pledge when they say it, they just say it. Even the people who don't believe in God. The ones that make a federal case about it either way are just people who want to push their beliefs on others. The ironic part is that most of the "under God" supporters are people like you who "aren't religious." The people who want to take this out of the pledge are prickly atheists with too much free time. You're both wasting time and money fighting about this. Leave it in, take it out, I don't care, but don't start telling me how all-fired important it is to you, a "not religious" guy.

    • secularist10 profile image

      secularist10 8 years ago from New York City

      Springboard: Not sure what Israel or other countries have to do with it. The US is not like other countries, nor should it be. Other countries have an "official" religion or even a theocracy. That's not what we want in the US.

      The issue is not whether Christianity is good or bad (although I would challenge you on that point). The issue is the appropriateness of the state giving preference to one private belief system over others.

      The lack of state support for Christian ideas does not "create a world in which one cannot speak on their personal spirituality." Private citizens can say whatever they want in a free society. And we should defend against militant secularism as much as militant Christianity.

      But surely you would not say that lack of state support for Hinduism means a private Hindu citizen cannot speak on their personal spirituality?

    • reddog1027 profile image

      reddog1027 8 years ago from Atlanta, GA

      I am a strong supporter of the separation of church and state.

      I think that the founding fathers were very wise men. But I also believe in freedom of speech and respect the moral history of this country. I also believe in God. I also believe in freedom of religion. There is a great difference in trying to convert and expressing ones personal beliefs.

      I refuse to say Happy Holidays at Christmas time and I refuse to keep God and Jesus Christ out of my vocabulary.

      Being a medical technologist responsible for drawing blood from infants to seniors when I actually got blood from a turnip, I often thanked Jesus right out loud.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      Michael—thanks. :)

      secularist—tell that to Israel. Tell that to any Muslim country. Tell that to Asia which is largely Buddhist. If we were talking about something bad, I'd agree with you. Change it. But while I do not subscribe to Christianity, I cannot find anything in its teachings nor its foundations that are bad. Principally, Judeo-Christian philosophy is something that is good. If we want to fight against things in this country, let's work on fighting things that are bad. Breaking down people's foundations for hope, whether we agree with them or not, is counter-productive and serves no real purpose other than to create a world in which one cannot speak on their personal spirituality at all.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      The problem with that, Woodwoman, is that it suggests that everyone is Christian in America. Everyone is not. It also suggests that everyone in the world is also Christian. That also is not true. Imposing religion is wrong. Invoking religion as a source for one's encouragement, inspiration, guidance is fine. I don't expect people to live under God's order. I expect people to live under their individual order. If that's influenced by God, so be it.

      My only point was toward one's freedom to express themselves.

    • tarotexperience profile image

      tarotexperience 8 years ago from UK

      Spirituality creates karma, religion often destroys it


    • secularist10 profile image

      secularist10 8 years ago from New York City

      I agree with the idea that people should be allowed to utter the word "god" in school as long as they're not trying to impose on anyone.

      However, just because the country was founded on Judeo-Christian ideas does not mean it should continue to be, anymore than the fact that it was founded as a slave state means it should continue to be one.

      Having "God" on the money is of course a violation of church and state, because "God" is a religious idea. Since the state creates money, if "God" is on the money, the state is creating something that lends credence to a religious idea.

    • Michael Shane profile image

      Michael Shane 8 years ago from Gadsden, Alabama

      Springboard, you did a fine job of wording this so perfect! Great hub! Rated ya' up!

    • woodwoman profile image

      woodwoman 8 years ago

      So it's okay to invoke God as the foundation of our society and culture, but not okay to invoke God as the reason we should help those less fortunate today? We say that God is an important part of our life and you should be made to listen while we talk about how great he is, but don't expect us to actually do what he asks us to do.

      My God is the God who sent his believers out into the world to do something, not just sit and count their money. He sends them to where ever there is need and tells them to make a bad situation better, even if there's really no solving it. He tells us to make a difference even for folks who've made bad choices in their lives. Remember "I was sick or in prison and you visited me?"

      If you want to cling to God, read Matthew 25. Don't skip verse 40. "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me." God's not addressing sinners who've led lives of doing the wrong things, he's addressing the Pharisees who haven't done any of the right things. We shouldn't be allowed to fight for our right to talk about God until we actually live like we care about what God says.

      We shouldn't have to need to preserve the right to talk about God in the schools. We should be living so that there's absolutely no doubt who we believe without even opening our mouths.

      BTW, "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance during the '50s. It was the height of the McCarthy/Red Scare era when politicians were using the threat of communism as a way to silence the people who contradicted them. In the name of patriotism, they took away people's right to speak while using the Under God issue to pander to people back home in their districts. It was never in the original pledge.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      POP—It certainly would appear that way. And you're right, there is so much more to be focused on and worried about as a nation. This should rightly be the least of them.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      OpinionDuck—it is one of the more perplexing things about the United States. It makes you wonder sometimes. What's at the end of the road of political correctness is very scary to me. I only hope we can finally come to our senses.

      Smireles—Thanks for stopping by and for the compliment. :)

    • breakfastpop profile image

      breakfastpop 8 years ago

      Terrific hub and God Bless you. Honestly with all the pressing problems this country is facing do we really have the time to start worrying about invoking God's name?

    • Smireles profile image

      Sandra Mireles 8 years ago from Texas

      You made the case that most of our christian brothers and sisters have trouble getting into words without adding our own dogna! Thank you for saying so eloquently what I could not get just right. I also enjoyed The Sneeze!

    • OpinionDuck profile image

      OpinionDuck 8 years ago


      I agree with your hub, and I find it strange, that after hundreds of years, the foundation of this country is being methodically and persistently attacked.

      One nation under God.

      I have no problem in leaving God in the country symbols.

      It is a God with no particular religion attached to it.

      It can have a broad meaning or a specific meaning and it can even encompass those people that don't have a God.

      The first Amendment makes no reference to God, just religion.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      Ann—thanks for the compliment. :) When things strike me or move me, I just have to share it.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      eovery—most brilliant minds do suffer quite a few trials and tribulations, and I think by their very nature, have to be a little crazy too.

      I'm going to go in an edit in a better link to "The Sneeze" BTW. :)

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      greatAmerican—I always believe that respect in any debate is key. Everyone has to respect the other's beliefs, whether they mesh or clash or whatever.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      lol Tom. Maybe I should have made that more clear that it was a link to another hub.

      prayn4u—thanks for the compliment. I'm sure you'll like "The Sneeze."

    • Ann Nonymous profile image

      Ann Nonymous 8 years ago from Virginia

      Thank you for your thoughts on this, springboard! You do very good at explaining yourself. Also thanks for recommending another hubbers work here!!

    • eovery profile image

      eovery 8 years ago from MIddle of the Boondocks of Iowa

      SpringboardI didn't Einstein was known for his social brillance. He had several impulsive disorders that sometimes effected his social behavior.

      And I had to go back like, Tom and read sneeze, and I finally got your message. Neat.

      Keep on hubbing!

    • greatAmerican profile image

      greatAmerican 8 years ago

      God may only be a wish but many humans find belief gives purpose to life. I am a believer in a greater power and perhaps that power is God and he has conveyed his existence

      to the residents of this earth. Believing is nowhere near the problem of mocking those who believe.

    • prayn4u profile image

      prayn4u 8 years ago

      AMEN AND AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • prayn4u profile image

      prayn4u 8 years ago

      very very good writing...I will now go to "the sneeze" hub and see what's there...thanks for sharing...Gob Bless(smile)

    • Tom Whitworth profile image

      Tom Whitworth 8 years ago from Moundsville, WV


      I kept going back and forth reading your hub over and then over and then over and then over and I finally I kept on reading till the end . I clicked the link and read the "The Sneeze" then I got your point. Kudos and two thumbs up!!!!!!!!!!

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 8 years ago from Wisconsin

      I can't disagree at all that America is a great land, and that there's definitely a reason we have such a problem with immigration. Still, we're a changing nation, and we have to be careful about that. It's okay to disagree with an opinion, it should never be okay to silence it.

    • msorensson profile image

      msorensson 8 years ago

      I love your openness and your loyalty. You were supposed to be the poster child for people who want to come!

      When I was growing up, the only ads that I looked at about America was a beautiful blonde woman whose scarf was flying with her looong hair while driving her convertible T-Bird along the

      I enjoyed this hub, Thank you!

    • thevoice profile image

      thevoice 8 years ago from carthage ill

      amen the God of all human birth right great read thanks


    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: ""

    Show Details
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)