Preacher Provokes Students at Humboldt State University (CA)
Students not used to hearing what the Bible says (Leviticus 20:13; Romans chapter 1):
"In a frenzy of buttons, handmade signs, and typed fliers, students hastily distributed material less than two hours after the arrival of Matt Bourgault and his controversial message.
The Quad, normally a place for music and bake sales, became the epicenter for Bourgault and his words this past Monday and Tuesday. Ashton Powers came to tears after repeatedly hearing that she must repent or risk eternal damnation. “You are here using God as an excuse to hate,” Powers, a freshman music major, told the preacher.
Bourgault, better known as Brother Matt, held a large sign that read, “God Abhors Homosexuality. Repent or Perish Sodomites” on the front, and “God is angry with the wicked everyday,” on the back.
Bourgault, A full-time, self-proclaimed “campus avenger,” has spent the last 10 years spreading his message from one college campus to the next. He tells students to accept his lord, or be lost eternally to Hell. “I’m trying to pull others out and bring them to the cross of Christ,” he told The Lumberjack. “Leave sin and live a life under God.”
Nearly 50 students quickly rallied against Bourgault as he preached from a rock, his King James Bible in hand on Monday. For hours, Bourgault read various scriptures from his Bible as proof of his beliefs.
Source
There were lots of moves to shut him up but he has won court cases in the past when that was tried so the police and other authorities weren't game to stop him. He seems to be a free speech warrior as much as anything else -- educating college administrations about their free speech obligations.
Most people have feelings of instinctive revulsion towards homosexuality so such people may well be glad to hear that the Bible supports that view
35 comments:
Though i may disagree with what he's doing and what he says, he has as much right as all the campus communists, atheists, anarchists, and marxists have. When was the last time you heard of them being protested?
he has as much right as all the campus communists, atheists, anarchists, and marxists have. When was the last time you heard of them being protested?
How about Ward Churchill at the University of Coloado in Boulder? Do some research. Wait, research is an intellectual process. Never mind.
Religion only causes problems in religious countries. In a secular country this guy would cause as much concern as someone constantly preaching "My name is Larry, Larry is my name! My name is Larry, Larry is...". People would just walk around him not giving a crap. Everyone would respect his right to say what he wants and at the same time laugh at the crazy guy who believes in ghosts.
Ward Churchill was a part of the tenured staff teaching classes that students were expected to attend. He's not a good comparison for this purpose.
Your statement indicates you think you are smarter than the rest of us but you are not.
Looks like we have a Ward Churchill supporter, namely Anon 6;24. Damn liberals.
"Why do you think being "politically correct" is so popular?"
---I don't think it's that's popular, for example, yesterday I tried giving the new Wanda Sykes show a chance, then she started making fun of people who don't want public health insurance so I said "screw you, b-tch, I'm not watching your show" and changed the channel. I doubt I was the only one doing that.
Political correctness is boring, all my favorite shows such as Modern Family, South Park, Desperate Housewives, are politically incorrect.
then she started making fun of people who don't want public health insurance
Can't stand the truth?
Click here to see the Republican health care plan.
U.S. is far from secular (which is a good thing). You may have many atheists but you also have a lot of christians. And I mean the kind who actually go to church.
When I was growing up in Finland everyone went to church twice a year with their school class and that was it. We used to hate these trips and I didn't know anyone who went outside these mandatory Christmas and spring sermons. To find a person in Finland who goes every Sunday is pretty much impossible even though something like 80 percent of the population are Lutherans and happily pay the church tax. This is a truly secular society where people only go to church for weddings, christenings and funerals.
"Can't stand the truth?"
---I love it how liberals/progressives like you are so self-rightious, you think your "truth" is the only one that matters and everyone else who doesn't buy into it should be shot.
Well, here's some truth, you want "free" healthcare? Then pay 50%-70% of your income in taxes like they do in Finnland, but don't make those who don't want "free" healthcare to pay for it.
Now that would be a real public option instead of the nazi-like tactics of our president.
Anonyass said:
"How about Ward Churchill at the University of Coloado in Boulder? Do some research. Wait, research is an intellectual process. Never mind."
Don't look now comrade, but your stupidity is showing. Again!
We do pay too much taxes in Finland but we actually use very little money on health care. The U.S. public funding on health care is around 2-3 times as much as in Finland. This is mainly because of unnecessary tests that U.S. doctors order to avoid malpractice suits, doctors' insurance premiums that are very expensive due to malpractice suits and extra bureaucracy behind it all.
I'm not all that confident about the Finnish system and happily admit that it's not even close to being the best in the world. I am pretty confident that the U.S. system is not 2-3 times better though. Therefore I have to question why it's so expensive - easily the most expensive in the world.
If I go to get a travel insurance they ask me if I'm going to travel to the States. I can go anywhere on this planet with the same insurance premium except the U.S. To get coverage there is way more expensive.
"We do pay too much taxes in Finland but we actually use very little money on health care."
---Who's we? We as in the collective? You see, in America we believe in the individual. If an obese person wants to get a gastric-bypass, that's an individual and if his HMO is willing to pay for it, that's fine. In countries like England and Finnland I doubt you can get a gastric bypass since it's the government deciding what you need, and they may see those operations at not necesary.
"The U.S. public funding on health care is around 2-3 times as much as in Finland."
---The US has 300 million people and 50 states.
"This is mainly because of unnecessary tests that U.S. doctors order to avoid malpractice suits, doctors' insurance premiums that are very expensive due to malpractice suits and extra bureaucracy behind it all."
---Yet neither Obama nor the democrats want to reform that. See? So we end with a public system where lawyers can still sue us for millions of dollars. Thanks but no thanks.
"I'm not all that confident about the Finnish system and happily admit that it's not even close to being the best in the world."
---Exactly, yet as a taxpaying you pay for it whether you like it or not. In America I'm an individual, if I don't like Humana, I can go to another HMO. If one doctor charges a lot I can go to a doctor that charges less. In America i'm free to chose, in Finnland I woudln't be. And that's why I hate the public option.
In the end, if the public option passes millions people will be forced to pay for it through increased taxes, we'll see if they like "free" health care the.
The public health system in most west european countries like Britain and Finland makes health cheaper for the individual through taxes than paying privately when something major occurs and even insurance doesn't necessarily cover the problem that arises. However, private insurance and private treatment is still available to those who may not be satisfied with the public service or not want to go on a waiting list.
In summary,
Pay taxes for wars. Good.
Pay taxes for health care. Bad.
"Hey Bobby, can you please use your amazing mind-reading ability for something useful"
---I'm not using any amazing mind-reading abilities, just common sense. There are two types of missionaries, those who work privately with individuals, tellign them that Christ loves, and those who stand with signs saying stuff like "repent or perish."
If Powers really cared about the individuals he's trying to change, he would meet with them privately instead of insulting them publicly. But when you get off hearing the sound of your own voice, then you find a soap box and do what's best for you rather than what's best for Christ.
There are two types of missionaries
I prefer doggie style.
"---Who's we? [...]. In countries like England and Finnland I doubt you can get a gastric bypass since it's the government deciding what you need, and they may see those operations at not necesary."
We the people of Finland. Actually you can get a gastric bypass fairly easy in Finland. And no, you don't need to go to a private doctor. Everyone realizes that operating on a dangerously obese person is much cheaper when compared to treating his type-2 diabetes, hip replacement surgeries, heart medication etc. that are to be expected on the long run.
""The U.S. public funding on health care is around 2-3 times as much as in Finland."
---The US has 300 million people and 50 states."
I assumed it was obvious that I was talking PER CAPITA. It wouldn't really be expensive if you guys payed 3 times the amount a nation of 5 million people does. Or then we would be very very rich.
"So we end with a public system where lawyers can still sue us for millions of dollars. Thanks but no thanks."
You do have a problem with lawyers and bs lawsuits in your country - no denying that.
"In America i'm free to chose, in Finnland I woudln't be. And that's why I hate the public option."
What's with the double N - you're German or something?
The problem with your logic is that right now as an American (I assume) you pay more in taxes for public health care than I do. In addition to that you pay for your private insurance.
So the reality is that I'm the one with options: I can always use the public system I pay less for or I can just as easily get myself an insurance. I even have the option of treating myself on the private sector without an insurance because it's way cheaper here than in the U.S. and even regular people can actually afford that sometimes.
Now as a disclaimer I must emphasize that I don't really support socialized health care. But I can't in good consciousness support the American system either because it's obviously flawed. It's way too expensive for the added benefits.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/146992-comparing-u-s-healthcare-spending-with-other-oecd-countries
Are you really Finnish or just arguing for the sake of arguing as you always do?
"Everyone realizes that operating on a dangerously obese person is much cheaper when compared to treating his type-2 diabetes, hip replacement surgeries, heart medication etc. that are to be expected on the long run."
---Oh, you'd be surprised. In England a smoker needed a lung transplant, yet the NHS denied him until he quit smoking? See? Government-ran healthcare means you get healthcare the way they want.
"I assumed it was obvious that I was talking PER CAPITA. It wouldn't really be expensive if you guys payed 3 times the amount a nation of 5 million people does. Or then we would be very very rich."
---Sure, more taxes so we can have less money for the rent, mortgage, movies, and all the expenses human beings have.
"You do have a problem with lawyers and bs lawsuits in your country - no denying that."
---Well, for once we agree.
"The problem with your logic is that right now as an American (I assume) you pay more in taxes for public health care than I do. In addition to that you pay for your private insurance."
---Not really, hospitals are for profit institutions and they pay for public healthcare as in people who show up to the emergency room and don't have health insurance. Others simply go to Urgent Care, you pay $60 to $100 and get basic medical care. The taxes I pay are very low compared to europe.
"So the reality is that I'm the one with options: I can always use the public system I pay less for or I can just as easily get myself an insurance. I even have the option of treating myself on the private sector without an insurance because it's way cheaper here than in the U.S. and even regular people can actually afford that sometimes."
---Just tell me one thing, what is your payroll tax?
"But I can't in good consciousness support the American system either because it's obviously flawed. It's way too expensive for the added benefits."
---I don't mind fixing the flaws, but passing a health care bill with 1,900 pages most senators haven't read isn't the solution either. Why not for example allow HMO's to sell their services accross state lines? Why not allow private foundations to pool their money, buy health care in bulk and sell it to individuals?
As for prescription drugs, why not liberalize the market? In Mexico you can buy almost anything without a prescription, here in America you can't.
Re the smoker in England; I think it is entirely reasonable that the taxpayer should not have to pay for someone ready to destroy another set of lungs. If he wants a new set to ruin he can always go private.
I must agree with the Finn on many points. The short time I lived in Suomi, I found it quite easy to get the medical services I needed, as long as there weren't too many people in line ahead of me. Many of the people I talked with in Finland had private doctors even though they had already paid for the public doctors. If America would pay attention to the largest source of American health care cost- Lawyers- then maybe something could really be done to lower health care costs. But Pelosi's gang actually put in their bill to punish states that were doing something about lawsuits.
I also remember the students in Finland having to spend an hour (is it each day?, or each week? my memory is fading as I age) listening to a Lutheran minister in an assembly.
I also agree with Bobby, there would be a less agressive manner in which he could spread his message.
"the smoker in England; I think it is entirely reasonable that the taxpayer should not have to pay for someone ready to destroy another set of lungs. If he wants a new set to ruin he can always go private."
---Then why is the smoker paying high taxes for a healthcare system that denies him coverage? You see? He's paying into a system that doesn't give him anything in return, and that's not just with smokers, what happens in the future when you're 85 and the government decides that it's cheaper to let you die than to give you a needed operation?
The purpose of a doctor/hospital is to fix what's wrong, not to make unreasonable demands. Healthcare is about the individual, not the society, if my needs are measured with the needs of society then I'm better off dealing with a private HMO than with the bureocracy of government.
The American system isn't perfect, but at least here we have freedom and choice, that's why people all over the world come here for their healthcare. In fact, American doctors are making plenty of money from Canadians that want to get an MRI or hip replacement this week instead of 3 or 6 months later. Socialism means wait in line, capitalism means pay to play.
I'm sure that smoker has had plenty of benefit from the public health system over the years that he or she has or hasn't been paying taxes (which aren't broken down into which go to public health and which to education etc). And if he/she wants a special service that some may regard as unreasonable or even selfish, he/she always has the option to go private, just as he/she can also get private education for his/her children. Do people in the US who go to private schools or home-school get a rebate in their taxes? Do you regard tax-funding public education different in principle from tax-funding health. Should you pay for your own security and not pay taxes for a public police force? Are you being inconsistent?
Yes I am Finnish and I even changed my name accordingly for this discussion. I'm not every 'anonymous' on this board and I don't usually argue just to be on the opposition.
- I see nothing wrong with denying a person lung transfer unless they quit smoking. In fact I wouldn't see anything wrong with that even if he wanted to pay for everything himself. There are usually more people in need of a transplant than there are available organs. In such a situation the limited resources should go to those who benefit the most and not the ones who are willing to pay the most. Giving up smoking should be a minimum condition for a lung transplant just like giving up heroin should be a minimum requirement for methadone treatment.
- Like I already told you Bobby, Americans use more tax dollars per capita on health care than Finns do. We have higher taxes but it's not because of our spending on health care. In fact we are below OECD average in health care spending. Check out the link in my previous post.
"I also remember the students in Finland having to spend an hour (is it each day?, or each week? my memory is fading as I age) listening to a Lutheran minister in an assembly."
I almost forgot about this comment...
When I went to primary school we had some kind of 'news hour' every morning via the PA system which lasted about 15 minutes. A part of it was usually religious, maybe a story from the bible or something, but it was most often given by the religion teacher - not a minister. Once a week on Fridays we would have an actual assembly that took a bit longer and had other program as well. Sometimes even a minister. This practice wasn't followed in secondary or upper secondary schools though.
Religion of course was a compulsory subject all the way to the upper secondary (=high school) for every member of the church (ca 80 percent) but they've changed the rules somewhat since my school days. Nowadays kids have the right to participate in the non-denominational philosophies class instead of a religion class even though their parents have baptized them and they are church members. So basically the kids have total freedom of religion now as far as schools are concerned. Back in the day we didn't have that option and hence had to suffer through Christmas and spring sermons etc. Those are very difficult for small children who aren't used to going to church.
The American system isn't perfect, but at least here we have freedom and choice
if you have enough money.
"Do people in the US who go to private schools or home-school get a rebate in their taxes?"
---The don't but they should as long as they own property since all property owners pay taxes that fund public schools.
"Do you regard tax-funding public education different in principle from tax-funding health."
---Yes I do, a citizen is not entitled to everything under the sun, there has to be limits. If free healthcare is ok, why not free housing, free matchmaking, free college tuition, free money for the unemployed, etc, etc, etc.
"Should you pay for your own security and not pay taxes for a public police force? Are you being inconsistent?"
---Public safety is one of the few duties we expect from the government, besides, in America you are free to own a gun (unless you live in some european-style states), so you shoot the criminal yourself and then call the cops.
" There are usually more people in need of a transplant than there are available organs. In such a situation the limited resources should go to those who benefit the most and not the ones who are willing to pay the most. "
---Exactly, and then if the government has to choose between a 75 year old who needs a transplant and a 25 year old with the same need, guess who's going to get it? When you allow the government to make health care decisions for the people, not everyone will be covered.
sure is a lot of parroted 'intelligence' here
*
"There are usually more people in need of a transplant than there are available organs. In such a situation the limited resources should go to those who benefit the most and not the ones who are willing to pay the most. "
---Exactly, and then if the government has to choose between a 75 year old who needs a transplant and a 25 year old with the same need, guess who's going to get it? When you allow the government to make health care decisions for the people, not everyone will be covered.
*
Are you saying it's wrong that it should go to the 25-year-old? Remember that in this hypothetical situation there is only one set on lungs and someone is going to be left without.
And there's always the private option. Just because public system exists doesn't mean the private one isn't there. In fact the two need each other and work together, at least in Finland.
One more idea to throw in the discussion here: chancing meds to cheaper alternatives. I'm under the impression that you cannot do that in the U.S. In the EU the pharmacist will always offer you a cheaper alternative of the same medication unless the doctor has prescribed a particular brand. This has been very effective in lowering the cost of medication throughout.
It's also made it more difficult for the pharmaceutical industry to affect doctors and pharmacists by bribes etc. which used to be a problem. Big companies would fly pharmacists to conferences (=holidays) over seas and then those pharmacists would push for more expensive medication only to be rewarded for their efforts next year. Now they can't since they are required by law to offer the cheaper alternative.
"Are you saying it's wrong that it should go to the 25-year-old?"
---Yes it is wrong, in America both people would be on a waiting list and if the 75 year old was ahead or the 25 year old, he will get his transplant. That's democracy, equal opportunity and no special treatment.
But of course, if you're a socialist so you're more concerned with the rights of the community than the rights of the individual.
I hear Finland had their own eugenics program after WW2 and doctors had a great time sterilizing inferior people.
Hitler himself had an euthanasia program where retarded and deformed children where put to death against their parents wishes.
That's how socialist health care works, humans lose their individuality and become part of the socialist goals. So rather than help a 75 year old continue living they'll deny him his transplant and give it to the 25 year old that still has many years ahead.
So what do they say about people losing arguments when they start to make inappropriate comparisons with Hitler and the Nazis? btw. euthenics was also practised in the US.
Sorry for the typo - "euthenics" should read "eugenics"
"---Yes it is wrong, in America both people would be on a waiting list and if the 75 year old was ahead or the 25 year old, he will get his transplant. That's democracy, equal opportunity and no special treatment."
Well both people would be on a waiting list in Finland as well. The question on who should get the one organ over the other would only arise in the situation where both patients would be dying. In that case it's obvious to me that the one available organ should go to the one who benefits the most. Of course this is purely hypothetical and really holds no value for this conversation.
"I hear Finland had their own eugenics program after WW2 and doctors had a great time sterilizing inferior people."
Yeah, so what's your point? The United States had their own sterilization programs and were in fact the ones who inspired Germans to develop their own. And unlike Finland Oregon still had a forced sterilization law in the 1980's.
"That's how socialist health care works, humans lose their individuality and become part of the socialist goals. So rather than help a 75 year old continue living they'll deny him his transplant and give it to the 25 year old that still has many years ahead."
Funny thing is, the 75-year-old could get an insurance for himself and still pay less than his counterpart who doesn't have the option to be denied by the socialist system. And who knows, maybe there's a car crash and extra lungs to go around. Now that we're being hypothetical we can save them both.
"In that case it's obvious to me that the one available organ should go to the one who benefits the most."
---And should the government decides that? What if the 25 year old is a criminal? What if the 75 year old has been a good person his entire life? I don't want the government rationing health care, I don't trust the government, so there.
"Yeah, so what's your point? The United States had their own sterilization programs and were in fact the ones who inspired Germans to develop their own."
---The point is you can't trust the government. Look, Americans are very independent, most of us for example oppose a national identity card because we value our right to privacy more than the government's desire to control us.
"Funny thing is, the 75-year-old could get an insurance for himself and still pay less than his counterpart who doesn't have the option to be denied by the socialist system."
---That is if private insurance companies survive after the government takeover of health care. I know in Germany HMO's aren't allowed to make a profit unless they sell suplemental services. Either way, you're very optimistic about public health care in America, you do not understand the unique nature of the people in this country.
So as a libertarian, this is why I believe. If Billy wants public health care let him pay 50% of his salary in taxes while letting Jerry who's happy with his private HMO keep that option without seeing a raise in his taxes. This of course doesn't make sense to the collectivists.
It's just like Venezuela where Chavez is demanding citizens to take 3 minute showers to save water. See? In the USA they would be looking for more water, improving the infrastructure, in Venezuela and other socialist countries they demand collective sacrifice.
First of all I'm not talking about the Obama vision per se but public health care in general. And as I already pointed out I'm not completely in favor of socialized medicine.
It's just that I seem to be able to see the field more clearly for some reason. E.g. I understand that right now you pay overwhelmingly more for health care than any other nation on this planet. So nobody - NOBODY - pays as much as you do. In light of this sentences like...
"If Billy wants public health care let him pay 50% of his salary in taxes while letting Jerry who's happy with his private HMO keep that option without seeing a raise in his taxes."
..seem ridiculous. Right now nobody on this planet pays more than Jerry for health care despite being covered by the public system. Why would that fact have to change when Billy decides to go public?
Now obviously it's not fair to compere USA with other nations just like that. You couldn't just switch systems over night because the problems that plaque your current system would still be there tomorrow. I'm referring to the bs lawsuits, huge malpractice claims, lack of doctors etc. But despite this you have to see the reality: You pay too much! You pay for a Mercedes but are driving a Hyundai.
"---That is if private insurance companies survive after the government takeover of health care."
They have survived in every other country. Why would the USA be any different?
"I know in Germany HMO's aren't allowed to make a profit unless they sell suplemental services."
I very much doubt this is the case, you must have misinterpreted something. You can even have an insurance from an American company if you want and they can have as big a profit margin you're willing to pay for. If that is what you use as a measure of quality.
"It's just like Venezuela where Chavez is demanding citizens to take 3 minute showers to save water. See? In the USA they would be looking for more water, improving the infrastructure, in Venezuela and other socialist countries they demand collective sacrifice."
I do believe you've had water shortages in California, Nevada and Texas. Probably in some other southern states as well. Improvement is a good thing but sometimes there's just not enough water.
And no, I do not support Chavez or socialism.
I came here following a link about an open air proselytizer and found this wonderful debate over socialized health care. Thanks for all the food for thought. Wonderful discussion, just marvelous.
Post a Comment