Universal Health Care in the US

Churches should pay for this because it's in their religion, so unless they pay for it (assuming they can) then they would be hypocritical since they accept Jesus by his words and reject them by his lifestyle which is against the bible. Churches are funded consensually whereas taxes are not. Stereotypical and typical donations on their own fail. However, on a massive scale I have proven they are not failures. http://meettheneed.org...... states that the reason why churches fail to give to the poor is because they are more about judgment than compassion. However, if the government tells poor people to depend on the churches, than poor people would hear this on the news, there would be talk about it, the word would get out, and then churches, even if they are evangelical churches, would be pressured to help out the poor like when a hurricane destroyed parts of Houston, Texas whether or not they are actually religious. So if you are very religious, and especially if you donate, you can use other poor people to pressure the churches into acting Christian. “What makes you think that they will go to a POW for help?” If the government tells people to go to a church for help, even atheists would crawl out of their shell and go into a place where they don’t believe in the G-d that is there. I’m not Jewish, yet I’ve been in synagogues. I’m not Buddhist, but I’ve been in Buddhist temples. If I can crawl out of my skin, so can atheists. I say this as an atheist. "By the time a person is on the street, his or her life is usually already careening out of control." If they go to a church to get their health insurance bill paid for, then there life won’t be “careening out of control” as easily. “they feel like a religious POW will be supporting them when they may not support that religion.” It’s very rare first off, most poor Christians would depend on Churches, most Jews would depend on Synagogues, etc. Atheists don’t care, they respect Christians (most of them) and if they need the money, they can make the church more poor. They don’t like it when the Church gets richer from tithes. They would feel good if they legally make the church more poor, or they can at least have an illusion that they are bankrupting the church. “It becomes lack of control to have churches pay for the UHC b/c people will be losing control.” If anything, it gives the church more power over the lives of their dependents, but it’s ultimately up to the dependents on whether or not to accept this advice. "(https://www.cheatsheet.com......) "How much does each person from a church donate per year? Christians: $817 Muslims: $1,300 Jews: $1,440" These are numbers. It does not correlate into how much money the entire church gets from every christian and other religious person. You aren’t providing enough data in your argument. I also don’t know how reliable a .com is. They only polled 1000 Religious people, not even 1000 Christians, but 1000 religious people. Assuming they broke it 3 ways, that means that they polled less than 340 Christians. The site says, ““We polled 1,000 religiously affiliated Americans who indicated that they did contribute financially to their respective religions to determine the financial impact of their religious affiliations,”” This doesn’t seem very reliable. They might have done the survey in a poor section of the US, screwing up the numbers much more than what they would have done if they surveyed from every US county. ""Jesus said help the poor." That is what they're doing, but it certainly isn't enough to pay for this huge amount of money." Jesus said to sell all you have and give to the poor. While he probably made exceptions for necessities, it shows that churches should be sacrificing almost all of their excess income to paying for the poor and serving their lord, Jesus Christ. Otherwise, they are false Christians, which should be okay for individuals because of freedom of religion, but not okay for Churches who claim to be a religious place yet have leaders who don’t live religiously. "As you can see if you have working eyes and a brain that exceeds 5th grade math, this would total more than $914,000 (again, this is from YOUR estimate). So ultimately, it is impossible for these churches to pay for it because your entire case revolves around donations, and yet they aren't enough to pay for the $1M price tag PER YEAR, PER CHURCH." Although it sounds crazy, I actually managed to prove how churches could pay for all this since many people tithe and donate in general and you have yet to disprove it, you merely only believe that is infeasible despite the evidence stating the opposite. ”And then I am ultimately really confused about why the US GDP is coming into the picture.” I did this to figure out how much the average tithe would be since a tithe is 10% of a salary and the GDP per capita measures the average annual salary. This helped find out the average tithe amount. “So let's simplify this to just one church. Cut out everything else. So let's say that this church has 75 members.” Most towns have multiple churches so it’s not just one church paying for the health costs of the poor people of the town, but all the churches working together to achieve this goal. And most churches have more than 75 members Assuming there are 14 churches of a bigger size (150 members), then they are a christian church, so they all donate $817 to their church, then the average church under this situation would raise about $980,400, using a combination of both our numbers. I estimate the reason why this was less than the previous estimate was because the survey surveyed poor regions of the US. “Do you mean like a tax like what they did in the past, where 10% of your paycheck would go to the church or clergy(if that is your definition, they you are contradicting yourself because you said that involuntary tax was bad and which was also your reasoning for the governments, "immoral taxing.")” I mean a tithe that is consensually paid (excluding religious threats). "Nothing you have said makes sense and thus there is no reason that you should win this debate." It does make sense and it's backed by many mainstream prominent people. While churches paying nearly $1 Million a year seems unreasonable at first, I confirmed that this as possible. "(I'm not going to be rude like you because I am at least respectful when debating)" I have a feeling that I am being about as polte to you as vice versa. I can find some times when you were arrogant and rude. An example, you said, "These reasons shut down your church argument (basically your only argument), using your own reasoning and numbers.". Although I have a tough skin, so I can withstand this, this is indeed rude and it could cost you conduct points. It will be fun to see the outcome of this debate!