Actually this is not about my uncle (I just used him as an example) it is about the principle involved.

And yes, this is the same uncle who gave me some cash for my birthday. He is my fave uncle, who has been like a dad to me since my real dad died, so why shouldn't I talk about him? I admire him a lot, and I never said he was gay - some other boys did that (cos they were jealous).

Hey, good point!  I think that a degree of free enterprise capitalism and a degree of socialism is the only mix which works well for democracy. Neither Fascist nor Communist dictatorships work for anyone except those at the top of the heap.

But I do not think anyone should be barred from teaching because of his personal political philosophies. These should be irrelevant, and his performance in teaching the curriculum should be the only measure of his suitability. Any society which precludes a teacher from pursuing his vocation because of his political beliefs, is neither a democratic one nor a civilised one.

OK, I'm having this 'spirited' discussion at another place, and I wonder what ppl here think about it.

I find the concept of one man being paid a 100 times (or more) as much as another for the same hours worked to be unjust. I know that one person might be better educated and/or more skilled than another, so it is reasonable that he be paid more, as his work is more valued by society. I also have nothing against people making a lorry load of money and enjoying it, so there is nothing personal involved. I am just talking about the concept of how much different people are valued by society.

As far as I can make out, most value is based on perception.

Let me use my fave uncle as an example. He is a Queen's Council and a very clever barrister who works three days a week for himself, and the other two days a week he gives pro bono. His fees are not by the hour but effectively average 500 pounds ($US1,000) per hour. If he were to charge all his time five days a week, he would very likely earn a million pounds a year ($US 2,000,000). As it is, he earns slightly more than half that, and he pays about 40% of his income in tax.

He is a man in his mid thirties, who is in good health, who is unmarried, and who does not have mortgages to pay. So he does not need all that money. He has three houses, drives an expensive car, and has a collection of vintage cars. He dresses well and eats well, and frequently travels overseas. He lives a comfortable lifestyle, and to be fair to him, is extremely generous as far as charity is concerned. But he does not need all that money.

I realise that if he, and people in a similar income bracket, did not pay the US equivalent of $400,000 a year in tax, the treasury would be poorer and there would be insufficient funds for things like universal health care, age pensions, education, etc. So there are benefits from having highly capable and highly recompensed people in society.

But irrespective of how clever he is, and how responsible he has been to become a Queen's Council, is his time worth 100 times that of someone who works on the factory floor? Society perceives it to be more valuable to that extent, but is it intrinsically so?. So things such as progressive taxation balance the books to a small degree, as it could be argued that he benefits society more than the man who screws in tail lights on the assembly line.

And to be fair to my uncle, he is a very nice man, (and great fun) and I don't begrudge him a penny, but on the conceptual level, I have doubts whether it is just that he is paid so much money, when an equally hard working factory worker is paid so little.

And as an example, my uncle is small potatoes compared to CEO's and sports stars who are paid 50 million a year (and upwards). I use him as an example because at least he works for his money.

What do the people here think about the issue of some people being paid multi-million dollars, and others barely enough to live on?

The only possible reply to that incomprehensible post, is to advise you that the past tense of the archaic verb 'to smite' is 'smitten' (not 'smited'). 

I appreciate that you are playing the Devil's Advocate, but might I suggest that life is such a capricious and unlikely occurence in the universe, that ipso facto it is valuable.  Within my (albeit subjective) morality, there is nothing - no transgression, no sin, and no circumstance which justifies the taking of human life. There does not have to be a reason, greater or lesser. It is axiomatic. 

So the question here is not whether the parents have committed a crime, but why they did it, and whether such criminal acts may be justified by personal beliefs.

They didn't need to. The adjectives 'ignorant, cruel and selfish' came from the deeply religious mother of a school friend. I happen not to share her religious beliefs, but I respect her right to them and her common sense. I would not respect her as much if she (a) believed in such extremism, and (b) imposed that extremism upon her children.

But as I pointed out earlier, whether such beliefs are right or wrong in the religious sense is not relevant.  The actions of those parents must be judged in the legal and humanistic sense.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." 

This was a documented example which was brought to our attention, and so the board is discussing it. And I believe it is a presumption on your part to categorise those who are discussing this as non-religious. I am indeed non-religious, but  I have discussed this with contemporaries who are deeply religious, and who nonetheless feel that this is a crime worthy of a life sentence.

And perhaps you would be so kinds as to acquaint us with the common non-religious beliefs which result in children being condemned to a certain death.

There is nothing in this ignorant, cruel and selfish act which may be reasonably taken as an indictment of the sincere beliefs of the vast majority of sane religious people.

Yes, I understand and agree that, from the limited perspective of their particular beliefs, they acted within the parameters of those beliefs. I just wanted to point out that a system of beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, does not justify doing harm to any others, let alone those under your care.

It is to that extent, and that extent only, that religious beliefs may be dangerous. The majority of the congregation (usually consisting of three old ladies and a stray dog) at any Church of England chapel would not dream of harming their loved ones on the basis of some religious admonition.

With all due respect to the believers of that particular mythology, I can see what they have done wrong - a very grave wrongdoing indeed. They have contributed by willful neglect to the death of a child within their care. Such culpability may not be excused on the basis of any particular mythology. What if a particular cult believed in the human sacrifice of their children upon altars of stone? Would you still maintain that 'they had done no wrong, from the point of view of a person within that mythology'? Are there not basic moral standards that supersede cultish beliefs? 'Thou shalt not kill' is not limited to religious admonition. It is a basic secular tenet of every society.

With respect Yilmaz101, I do not think anyone here is categorising religion in general as a bad thing. What have been quoted are instances of people causing the death of their children by refusing them medical attention. That such refusal is upon the grounds of religious belief, is irrelevant to the fact that they have been the clear, if indirect, cause of the child's death. This, in my view, is a serious crime, and the law should be amended if there are no sanctions against such an act.

Everyone is entitled to many freedoms, including that of free speech and religious belief. Where those entitlements cease is the point at which they affect other people, and in particular, powerless elements in society, such as children.

One of the many factors contributing to situations such as this is not only extreme and bizarre interpretation of a book of myth and fable, but the tendency amongst fundamentalist religions to consider children as property, to be treated as their parents see fit.

There is an old Middle Eastern (I think) saying - "Your children come through you, not from you ..." and, as far as I am concerned, you have great responsibility as far as their welfare is concerned, but no rights over them. They did not ask to be born.

I think any guy who prefers to use his hand when he can have real sex has a real problem. You are right that the couple has a problem with their sex life and I don't think porn is to blame.

Well, I'm certainly not going to say that I never do that, but I only mentioned masturbation and pre-marital sex coz Patton wrote   This implies that they are wrong, doesn't it?

Do you think masturbation and premarital sex are wrong? I don't know enough about stuff like abortion and homosexuality, but I would seriously doubt there are many non-religious people who might consider a bit of a bonk in the back of a car, or a quick wank, to be morally repugnant. Like who gets hurt by either 'crime'? 

With respect, you are 100% against universal health care on the basis of your impressions of the situation in one society (out of scores) which employ this system? Are you familiar with the situation in France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Austria, the UK, Ireland, or Australia?

And all civilised health care systems employ triage, which means giving priority to life threatening conditions, such as cancer. I do not see why you mention it as a fault within the Canadian system.

Secondly, the population of a given society has little, if any, effect upon systems of funding such as UHC. Of far greater significance is the physical size of a land and its population distribution. The delivery of health care is much more difficult in huge, sparsely populated nations such as Canada and Australia, for obvious reasons. In fact, as far as funding is concerned, especially if this is done via progressive taxation, the larger the population, the larger the funding base, and the better funded the system.

Your proposal of a state based universal health care plan (similar to the one operating in Alaska for people up to 18) is an excellent one (but it should not be limited to people under 18). This is in fact similar to the situation in Australia.

Each Australian state is obliged under the act to provide a system of universal health care for all its citizens, and for citizens of participating foreign countries (such as Canadians, Brits, and the Europeans) who are in Australia. The funding is via something called the Medicare Levy (which is 1.5% of assessable income) and must be paid by all Australians who earn over a certain minimal amount (about $15,000, I think).  This is collected by the taxation department and distributed by the federal government to the states on a per capita/needs basis. The state concerned provides much infrastructure and pays the private practitioners who supply the actual health care services.

Choice is maintained, as you may go to whatever doctor or hospital you choose, and the state government pays the bill. There are a small minority of doctors and hospitals who are 'private' in the sense that they charge over the scheduled fees, but you have the choice to use them or not. If you do, you have to pay the difference between the fee they choose to charge and the scheduled fee. But the vast majority of health care providers are content to charge the scheduled fees, and you pay nothing.

The World Health Organisation ranks France as the best health care service in the world, and even poor old Britain's NHS is ranked 12th, as against the private insurance system in the US which is ranked 37th.

So an universal health care system does not have to be a creaky old Soviet style system, with long waiting lists, and rusty instruments.  And a country as rich as the United States only has to want an excellent system of UHC (and ignore the bogeyman of Socialism), in order to get it.

I don't think you are missing anything, and I take your point about being in the US forum. 

However it is possible, and indeed advisable, to discuss the matter in principle, and such discussion could (and probably should) encompass what is done in other societies. The US is not the centre of the universe, and it may be quite instructional to examine what works well in other successful societies.