But the biggest questions we as a society need to ask is do we regulate quality and do we regulate access? In other words, do we ensure health care is given at or above a certain level by licensure and audits? And do we say people have a right to it?

Answer those two questions and the options drill down a lot.

If we say no guarantee of quality and no right, the costs go WAY down and our deficit is solved. But is that really what the majority of Americans really want?

It would also totally upend our economy given nearly 20% of the entire economy is health care now.

If not done right it would be like Florida Lands all over again circa 1929.

@DrYuriMom Oh yeah, theonomy is definitely reminiscent of Sharia in that both declare their states to be divine mandates. I still believe that religious freedom should exist, but I believe that the separation of Church and State to be both impossible and undesirable.

That is why I specifically want theodemocracy along with religious liberty and freedom, but I still want the law itself to divinely in-ordered.

What about those of us who don't fit in the accepted theocracy? Gays, lesbians, transpersons?

That could be said for the ideology of any state

And I don't want an equivalent to Sharia law or Papal Temporal Power, I don't want some Clerical Fascistic government. I think it is important though to justify your laws based on a higher moral principle.

That is why I personally believe it is impossible to have a fully secular state because in the end you have to justify your system on some moral grounds. And although it is indeed possible to separate morals and religion at least somewhat, the two will always be interlinked.

*We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.*

I don't necessarily disagree, I just am skittish about anything that takes us back to when lesbians were persecuted, gays were prosecuted, and trans were liquidated.

It wasn't long ago at all

Nah, I personally am accepting of all men and woman, even if they are trans.

But there are two genders

Or the religious arguments for miscegenation

I will agree to two genders. I'll even agree that to jump from one to another you need to make anatomical changes to comply with where you feel you should be.

^

And even if religious institutions will not condone a marriage between two people the state has the duty to provide them with a legal marriage.

Even in your proposed government that is steeped in religion?

Yes

I wasn't always religious. My parents are both Catholic but neither are practicing. I am nineteen now and only became religious a few years ago when I discovered Gnosticism, but I have expanded out to cover all aspects of primarily Abrahamic faith.

I now believe a synthesis of traditionalism with modern liberal ideals must be achieved if the West hopes to survive as a culture.

I similarly believe religion had a falling out in the West due to its lack of ability to adapt due to a rigid exclusivist form of religion normally found in Abrahamism.

What enticed me about Gnosticism is that it was an undercurrent of Christianity that was around since the beginning and only became extinct in the 13th century with the Cathars.

As an undercurrent it carried much of the ideals that we now believe to be common in the post Enlightenment West. Such as the equality of the genders, the lack of original sin, and the importance of self-determination.

The Albigensian Crusaders did nothing wrong.

To be honest I'm not even a huge fan of the Cathars and the Madaean strain of Gnosticism in general.

The Cathars were just a bunch of celibate catholic hippies.

I prefer the earlier Judeo-Christian form of Gnosticism found in the early days of Christianity.

Fact: There is a direct correlation between a country’s life expectancy and it’s aethisim population.

Fact: Correlation does not imply causation.

Fact: There is also a correlation between the percentage of people who say religion has a meaningful impact on their lives and average GDP per capita with the US being the exception

The common theme of all religion is human immortality through the afterlife.

why is there no fedora emojii

Fact: the common factor in all religions is a beginning to the universe, an end to the universe, a higher power and an afterlife.

Fact: There is a correlation between countries with high amounts of secure people and aethiest population. By secure I mean the odds of being born as someone who does not have to worry about their survival each day

Aethist attempt to corrilate IQ and aethisim but I don’t think that’s the case. I do not believe the issue is intellectual. It’s more likely to suggest that the issue of faith based thinking is existential

Fact: the common factor in all religions is a beginning to the universe, an end to the universe, a higher power and an afterlife.

Preeety sure there's at least one religion that doesn't have all four of those traits.

If your talking about Hinduism then it cycles, but there is still a clear origin story which signifies a “beginning”