*UPDATE: Closing comments at 10pm CST.
You have to give these people some credit for their ability to type with their eyes firmly closed against reality. I’ve addressed all this before, but Craig Wubben apparently missed it. I did an entire segment on air about this very issue: how can you argue for the morality of health care legislation that, because it lacks the proper prohibitive wording, would cover abortion? If we’re going to discuss morality, let’s begin there. How can you advocate for legislation that cites rationing as cost-control? Jesus is clear in the New Testament: authority to the people under a government respective to the divine, not subservience to government, which is the nature of this legislation.
Because he didn’t come off as threatening with his tone or explicitly, I won’t publish his email, et al., but am going to open up comments briefly and let you keyboard pundits flex your know-how as I love hearing thoughts on this issue.
He writes (after an irrelevant insult to my site and show):
The majority of Americans want a public option (and 73% of physicians according to a survey of 6000 US physicians and surgeons – done by JAMA). Once democrats pass meaningful health care reform you know the conservative movement will be dead for a minimum of 2 to 3 generations. That’s why you are against health care as a right. My question to you as a self professed christian person is: Who would Jesus cover? The answer is everyone, and you know it. Either that, or you are not a christian. Or you are christian, but completely oblivious as to what that actually means. Here are the 10 reasons why the tea party movement is a complete failure. Hint: the economy always does better under a Dem president than a Republican president.
Thoughts, conservatives?
*I’m sort of shocked that Wubben isn’t participating himself, seeing that he was so adamant. If you have faith in your arguments, Craig, join in.
thedanashow.wordpress.com 
Yes, Jesus would cover everyone, but he would not perform abortions. As a firm believer in Christ, His teachings, and my daily strive to live my life out as He would every day, I will gladly sit in prison for not paying my taxes if a penny of that went toward abortions. What Mr. Wubben is missing is this: God CREATED life –> He is prolife. Therefore, backing this plan which potential will end life, is anti-God. Duh!
All you have to do is go to scripture and the temptations Jesus faced in the desert, rejecting Satan. Jesus essentially rejects the materialistic philosophy of socialism and communism. Jesus IS Good and is our guide, he never preaches about ‘goods’ but the Good. The ultimate Good. He emphasizes that man shall not live by bread alone. Charity comes from the heart, not centralized Big Government that steals from the people.
Jesus was a libertarian hippie buddhist, so he’d cover no one but he’d preach acceptance of the world as suffering, the letting go of wordly things to end suffering, and the promise of a reward in the Heaven for those who suffered the most.
I’m a Christian, I have a Master’s Degree in Theology (I’m sure there are plenty of people on both sides that are of equal or greater credentials). As a Christian, a) he’s simply wrong. The Christian worldview would NEVER use the government to do what the church ought to be doing. If Jesus would care for everybody, the he would do so using the church and has charged the church with just such a task. b) The Christian worldview is about caring for the poor and needy but it also emphasizes the need for carrying your own weight. My conclusion is that the Christian must treat all people with the knowledge that we’re out to help each other, but in the end you’ll be held responsible for your own choices and actions. This means that while entitlements (though good intentioned and poorly implemented) should ALWAYS be finite. My conclusion: charity to those in need should be handled by the church, not the government and should be applied in a finite way as to limit the development of behavior patterns that encourage people to ignore their own personal responsibility.
His misuse of Jesus’ name to further his politics is something that I’m sure Jesus will correct in this life, or the next.
The last sentence “the economy always does better under a Dem president than a Republican president,” negates the entire email. This is utterly false. Regan had a much better economy than Carter. And throughout history there have been good/bad economies under both because it’s about policy not party.
So while I take a differing stand on some arguments, which you totally know, I certainly would give this person zero clout. Arguments need to be fact before they can be argued. And we can differ in opinion and have a rational discussion. However, this email doesn’t even come close.
Jesus was not a political figure. And quite frankly I am doggone sick and tired of the Left appropriating Someone they usually want to ban from anything public to use as a prop to advance socialism, not to mention that false claim that Jesus was a community organizer. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible to support the Left’s claim that Christ was a socialist or a community organizer. Nothing. He talked about loving your neighbor as yourself and said, “‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” Those were the direction for personal compassion, but neither of those justifies Big Government mandating compassion by taking the hard-earned fruits of one person and giving it to another. Compassion cannot be mandated. It is an internal emotion. When Big Government starts mandating compassion, it builds resentment. Same with mandatory national service, er, volunteerism.
Being a Christian means accepting Him as your Savior and reflecting His love through your actions. Socialism, by comparison, replaces the deity of Christ with that of the state.
Also what backpacking dad said. :)
Fact 1) Most Americans DO NOT support a public option
Evidence: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/13/AR2009091302962.html (note: other surveys show a much higher percent AGAINST the plan)
Fact 2) Health care is not a right
Evidence: constitution. People are provided equal opportunity NOT equal things.
Fact 3) the economy does not always do better under a democratic president. Please see Obama’s economy and the results of Carters and Roosevelt economies.
Fact 4) Jesus could heal…but he did not heal everyone he came in contact with. You can not provide everything for everyone. Example: We are spending almost twice as much this year as the govt is receiving in revenues…and yet, everyone still thinks they need more entitlement programs. If you taxed the rich at 100% we could not afford all these “rights” for people. Maybe its a nice idea to give food stamps, and welfare, and social security, and medicare but we wont have any of those things once our country dissolves in China’s hands.
First, the very people who call for the moral obligation of HCR, would insist that we keep government isolated from religion. How then can we have a morally influenced legislation since morality comes solely from faith? Thats just hypocrisy. (Truthfully, they’ve simply chosen secular humanism as their preferred faith) Secondly, Jesus left it to his disciples to care for those in need. His principles are 100% isolated from any social/governmental institution outside of the church of genuine followers of Jesus himself. This is pretty much a useless interjection into the HCR discussion.
I truly believe that right now the liberals are creating an opportunity for Christians to prove our faithfulness to Christ. This is an awakening for people that believe in the Bible and the constitution, the 2 literary structures of our great nation. People of God, rise up and never be ashamed to scream the things against Gods law from the rooftops!
I disagree with tone of his comment and pretty much all of his points. I also can’t stand when people mix politics and religion, but that said, I think he’s probably right about one thing – as a Christian we should care about people getting clothed, fed and cared for when sick.
Does getting cared for require the Federal Government to do it? No. But as a Christian I should care about the well being of all (illegal immigrants, liberal jerks, sinners, etc). Whether this is done through charitable donations, tithes or through government programs is probably a matter of choice. But we should care and they are trying to use that tenant of Christianity to get their billed passed.
I’m really tired of the right and left trying to manipulate Christians. I’ve been to one Tea Party event, I went because I’m tired of a government spending exorbitantly and way beyond tax revenue. I’m against printing money as fast as possible and the fate of this country being in the hands of foreign debt holders.
But as a conservative, I must acknowledge that W. had most of the sames fiscal policies we are rallying against (not as a matter of principle perhaps, but let’s remember the bailout started with W). Carl Rove leveraged issues Christians care about to get W elected and re-elected and didn’t necessarily stand for anything Christian / Conservative when it comes to values or spending. Sure Obama’s beliefs are less conservative.
I can’t remember the last time a true conservative was actually well represented anywhere.
I don’t think Jesus ever called upon the government to do anything. His mandates were to PEOPLE to show charity to other people, not to abdicate their moral responsiblities to the institution of government. A good example I’ve heard lately: he didn’t use the parable of the Good Samaritan to call for government intervention, he used it to call people to help their fellow man and be good neighbors. There is a disconnect that comes from just filtering your money to the government to take care of everyone; as Christians, we would miss out on the personal blessings that come from personal and community-level charity.
Jesus would and does cover everyone, including those in the womb (I don’t think He’d be a fan of something that provides funding towards abortions) . Jesus is also all knowing, all powerful, and all forgiving…. so asking the question, “Who would Jesus cover?” is kind of irrelevant to the health care debate… we need to work within our means, and focus on making the right decisions for all people… not only for today, but for the future generations of America.
I’m against the public option because there are countless examples out there where it just doesn’t work (UK and Canada are first to mind). I’ve heard many stories of delays, rationing, and even low quality care from these ‘public option’ systems.
Those against the public option aren’t against reform in general. Tort reform for example… I would think this would be something both sides could agree on. Capping malpractice lawsuits etc. could go a long way to cutting the cost of health care for Americans. I’ve read that there exists many unnecessary procedures and tests today that get run just to cover the doctors from potential lawsuits.
I’m also not a fan of insurance companies…. they seem like the middle man… the ‘robber barons’ if you will. I’m not sure the best way to get rid of the insurance companies at this point… but I think a public option would just make them stronger and bigger money makers. It seems like the wrong way to be going, and once you go that way with a public option it will cause dependencies and make it even more difficult to get rid of.
Well, that’s my quick two cents from the top of my head over my lunch break. I appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on this blog post. Thanks.
I’m not a conservative, but I gotta tell you, it grates my fucking cheese anytime ANYONE evokes the name of Jesus in politics. DOES NOT BELONG. Who CARES if Jesus would have provided universal healthcare? Never mind that again, DOES NOT BELONG, no matter what you believe (and surprisingly, I am religious, though I don’t talk about it much), there are approximately NINE THOUSAND interpretations of the Bible. Are we really going to sit here and speculate on what Jesus would do in the case of … legislation? OMFG.
Creative Reason is dead right: while there is history of the moral majority, etc., with Reagan, no one more vomitously exploited Christians than Karl Rove, and rather nefariously so. I am infuriated, frankly, that religion has come to be a conservative value, while those of us in the middle to left part of the country are assumed to be godless heathens. Piss me off, man, that Karl Rove. Although I see our friend here has decided to make it an issue for the left, too.
LEAVE GOD AND JESUS OUT OF IT.
Also, it may surprise many that I am as pro-choice as they come (in the Libertarian sense — as in, wtf is the government doing legislating our bodies?), but I am also against federal funding for abortions. It’s a private, moral decision, and no one the government has a place in at all. So to assume that those of us who are more on the leftist side of the healthcare debate are all, yes! Let our public insurance pay for abortions! And let’s keep that funding UP, yo! You’re wrong.
What kills me, though, is that there are so many real questions to this debate. SO MANY. REAL, MATURE, GROWN-UP QUESTIONS. And I have relied, sadly, on my conservative members of Congress to ask them and they haven’t. Instead, they’ve pandered to the crazier people in their base by bringing in immigration, scare tactics and other crazy shit. Dude. There are a ton of VERY REAL ISSUES here. Must we really talk about death panels? And, apparently from the left, whether Jesus would have supplied healthcare?
Discourse fail. On all levels. But mostly from conservatives, and this is an area where, as a moderate, on-the-fence-type I really wanted them to step it up.
Is your vocabulary so limited that you could not make it past the first sentence without dropping the F-bomb into your diatribe? But thanks for using it so early; saved me from reading the rest of what is more thank likely a waste of blogspace.
Eh, swearing is a vice of mine — seriously, one of the only ones I have. I prefer to think of it as a creative use of vocabulary, rather than a limited one. :-D
(But seriously. I wasn’t attacking you or anyone else for their beliefs, and am really honestly super-tolerant. I wish you would have extended me the same courtesy, f-bomb or not. Your attack was uncalled for.)
Happy Tuesday!
Anyone trying to advocate that Jesus was a socialist and would support this type of legislation needs to read John 12: 1-8. This is the story of Jesus going to Lazarus’s house in Bethany. It was here in this house that a meal was prepared for Jesus by Martha, and Lazarus was reclining at the table with Jesus. Then Mary comes in and pours a bottle of very expensive perfume called spikenard upon Jesus’s feet. It is here that Judas Iscariot gets indignant and asks, ” ‘Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?’ This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. Then said Jesus, ‘Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.” You see, if anyone had a socialist mindset it was JUDAS ISCARIOT, not Christ. The reason Judas wanted the perfume to be sold was not because of altruism, but because he had his HAND in the TILL. He was the disciples’ Mr. Moneybags. Like Iscariot, socialists seek to rob Peter to pay Paul, not because they genuinely care for the poor because they seek to gain and make merchandise from Paul’s misfortune and also to keep Paul in his place. “A Place for Everyone, and Everyone in Their Place.” sums up the mentality of radical leftist politicians. They feign compassion and tell their constituents that there is a place at their table, but they seek to keep them in that place and feed them cradle to grave, for the ends of using them as a voting bloc. Welfare then becomes that sorry sap’s drug of choice and once thought free, that person soon finds himself enslaved to another. And when that person wakes up and decides to learn how to fish, and reject the rotten fish being handed to him, the vile socialists will throw that person to the dogs. No, Jesus was NOT a proponent of “The War on Poverty” and government intervention. Jesus advocated for ordinary, regular believers to step in to help our neighbors when they fall upon hard times through churches and charities, and our own general hospitality. James 1:27 – “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” Of all the best laid plans of mice and men, Obama Care was most certainly laid by mice.
I always find it interesting how, selectively, liberals allow Jesus into the political debate. In that spirit, Let’s keep him in the forefront of all our discussions, political or otherwise. Let’s do away with 501 (C)3 IRS requirements imposed on the churches in our nation and then you can invoke Jesus in your discussions and arguments politic. While we are at it how about we allow our children to start praying in school once again and how about they read scripture in school everyday, so they are well versed in WJWD. It is simply amazing to me how liberals do everything in their power to shove christian thought and teaching out of the public square until they need it to brow beat us into submission through distortions and guilt.
In the spirit of Craig’s appeal to Jesus’ teaching, I would also like to suggest that we have some insurance reform, and perhaps the churches could pool resources and shop for adequate coverage for all their members. They could utilize this valuable resource as an outreach to the needy in their communities, while engaging them in a program, offered by the local church, designed to help them develop skills and a responsible attitude toward their lives. This could be a great Christian outreach and benefit to every community. We could do away with welfare, medicare and medicaid as we teach others about liberty and personal responsibility. They could exercise that liberty to shop for medical insurance that fits individual needs enabling them to meet their own medical coverage needs.
Reaching out to those in need is not a new concept with Jesus, the church or for that matter most Americans. However, Jesus did teach personal responsibility through example and his word. He certainly would not approve of slavery to a government system granting charity to those who continue to vote for it and who are willing to live off the sweat of another mans labors indefinitely. He would have kicked their sorry behinds and told them to find a job and accept responsibility for their lives and the support of their families.
Jesus admonished the church to “…render unto Caeser what was Caesars.” He did not seek healthcare from Rome, he took care of it himself, and I might add, was really persecuted at times for doing so. He would not look to governments to do what we as Christians should do by providing for our own families and in times of need He expected the church would step in.
Charity is not the work of governments. Charity offered by government inevitably leads to enslavement of some and the abuse of productive members of society. Charity is freely given and thankfully received by those in need.
It is amazing how coarsened we become as a society when we turn to the government for our needs rather than stepping up and providing, through the church and individual commitment and compassion, charity for those in need. However, it is not really the conservative, Christian community that is found lacking here, it is a liberal, collectivist worldview cloaked in some pseudo version of what Christianity really is and what Jesus really came to do.
It is time for all of America to fall on her knees and repent for their wrongdoing. Not for failing to be charitable, but for allowing the enslavement of millions, mostly in our inner cities and ghettos, to a life of entitlement and poverty in the name of charity, all at the cost of liberty and the pursuit of dreams through personal effort and sweat equity in what each individual desires from life.
According to our founding documents we are all guaranteed certain unalienable rights, that these are life, liberty and the “pursuit of happiness.” No guarantee of equal outcomes but the guarantee that every individual would be free to pursue happiness, unhindered by government intervention and theft and unhindered by the envious sluggard who wants someone else to pay his way.
I son’t know what polls he’s quoting from , but all the ones I read like Rasmussen, Zogby, Quinippiac, etc. show Congresses approval rating in the toilet and the President’s sinking like the Titanic. Poll after poll shows the public does NOT want govt. to run healthcare, but rather to remove some of the restrictions that keep insurance free from having to adhere to antitrust laws and free-market competition. Government bureaucrats can’t manage a corner newstand, let alone an enterprise that makes up sixteen percent of the American economy. We’re in the shape we’re in largely due to liberal social engineering, onerous regulations, abuses of laws like worker’s comp, employment descrimination, sexual harassment, etc. We’re not going to fix the problems in this country or economy until we become a nation that MAKES things once more. Until the “P” in GDP stands for “product” again instead of “paper” and until we start producing more doctors, scientists, architechts, engineers, etc than lawyers and stockbrokers, nothing can or will change. AS for economies, if you take into consideration the fact that it takes the economy more than ten years on average to cycle, it was DEMOCRATS in charge when the mines were laid. It was the CRA under Jimmy Carter and amplified under Bill Clinton, taht turned the cancer loose in our financial system. Trying to start or grow a business under a demorcatic govt is like trying to grow food by planting seeds in concrete. It’s NOT gonna happen. As for the reporter and his comments, the press has become just like the old Dire Straights classic tune, “money for NOTHING.” for like the government, they produce NOTHING of value anymore. Why is iit that when you examine the tax returns of LIBERALS, with the exception of the “glieteratti” you see almost no charitable contributions. They are only generous with OTHER people’s money, namely because they do not produce anything of value and thus have little of their own. As for Jesus, and what we would do, he’d heal the sick, but using his OWN resources and talents, not at anyone else’s expense. He’d also say “get the beam out of your own eye before you worry about the speck in someone else’s.”
If one looks very carefully at the gospels, one will find that Jesus did NOT in fact heal everyone. When he healed the man at the pool of Bethsaida, there were plenty of others there whom He could have healed and yet He did not. (John 5:2-8) Recently, I was involved in an online discussion where someone tried to make the argument that when Jesus said give to Caesar what is Caeser’s that was His way of involving government. I disagreed then and I disagree now. Jesus never expected us to rely on the government to take care of the poor, etc. Also Jesus told us that we will always have the poor (John 12:8 The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.) Not that this is license for us to not take care of the poor, but it is a reminder that no matter how hard we try, there will always be those who are poor.
I can no longer keep quiet about the whole “nationalize our healthcare” movement. I’m not sure what is worse, people who know absolutely squat about healthcare are making huge changes to it; or the fact that most of those people who are making the changes are lawyers.
Here’s the reality. One of the reasons healthcare costs are so high is because no one holds the patients accountable for their own healthcare. Physicians are forced to practice defensive medicine because society has gotten out of control with lawsuits. Medicine is not an exact science, and doctors are not super-human: they are human.
Consider this scenario: A 17 year-old male walks into the ER complaining of chest pain. He appears healthy and has no health problems. He fails to tell the doctor that he has been hitting up the crack pipe and snorting massive lines of cocaine for the past 5 hours. The patient tells him that the chest pain came on suddenly, he has shortness of breath, and he has some tingling in his arms and hands. The patient appears anxious, but otherwise his assessment is negative. The patient does tell the doctor that he has been stressed out lately, but still fails to mention his crack use. The patient’s vital signs are stable, besides some mild tachycardia (fast heart rate), and a mildly elevated blood pressure. There is no family history of cardiac problems, and the patient has no medical problems. He does not take any medications. The physician asks the patient if he has done any illicit drugs and the patient tells him “no”. Based on this interaction, the physician concludes that the patient is likely having a panic attack, and is having some anxiety. He does order an ECG just to rule out anything acute, but does not order a full cardiac work-up which includes labs, x-rays, etc. Before the ECG gets done, the patient suddenly codes (heart stops, stops breathing), and the patient can not be resuscitated.
So, who is at fault? Well, in this case the physician, the hospital, and the nurses involved in the case get slapped with a lovely lawsuit. They called it medical negligence. Say what??? Hmmm, it’s funny that no one questioned why the patient lied to the doctor and failed to tell him about his drug use. This little piece of information would have drastically changed the course of treatment. Sadly, these types of scenarios are what has forced many doctors to practice medicine as if each and every patient is going to sue them. They feel that they have to order tests that they probably don’t need to order. They feel if they don’t run them and something happens, they will get sued. This non-essential testing is a minute cause that driven up healthcare costs.
Then, you have the insurance companies who attempt to dictate to the physicians how they practice medicine. If a physician orders a test that is non-essential, but he orders it anyway, he runs the risk that the insurance company won’t pay because it wasn’t “medically necessary”. They are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.
Second. It TOTALLY PISSES ME OFF when people receive government assistance and they abuse it. Johnny Doe receives Medicaid (state government funded healthcare) benefits. He has been told he has high blood pressure. He gets a prescription for high blood pressure pills. He doesn’t get them filled because he says he doesn’t have any money. FYI: MOST people who receive Medicaid benefits do not pay any more than $5 for any medication, while those of us who pay for private insurance can pay co-pays up to $75. Anyway, Johnny says he doesn’t have any money, but he just got a new I-Phone, and smokes a carton of cigarettes per week. Johnny’s kidneys eventually fail because of his un-controlled high blood pressure that he refused to take responsibility for. Now, Johnny is on hemo-dialysis 3 times a week for the rest of his life! So, instead of paying $5/month to fill his prescription, he now costs Thousands per week (at the tax payers expense) to take care of.
Third. Another scenario. Jane is pregnant. She is about 1 week away from her due date. Jane just can’t take it anymore. She and her mother come up with a plan to use a wire coat hanger to break her bag of water in order to induce labor. Jane is not successful. I think we can all agree she is not the sharpest tool in the shed. Wow! Now Jane has raging infection, and her unborn child is at risk for complications. Hmmmm. Now instead of having a normal delivery, she has complications that triple the cost of the care she will require.
Let’s nationalize healthcare and make people even less responsible than they already are! It’s not rocket science, it’s medicine. It’s not exact, there are advances, and there are set-backs. There are break-throughs and there are break-downs. There is not an easy solution to the problem, but nationalizing the system is not the answer. If people took a common sense approach to their own healthcare, perhaps this would help. If people made an informed decision to purchase their blood pressure medication, instead of crack, then we wouldn’t have such an issue.
Mr. President Obama: Quit chastising the physicians for how they practice medicine, and please don’t threaten them. Perhaps you should tell Johnny to say “no” to crack and “yes” to Norvasc! Tell Jane coat hangers are used for hanging coats, and should not be used as a tool to induce labor. Finally, tell that dead young man that smoked crack and snorted coke for 5 hrs that he is dead because of mistakes that he made, not mistakes that the healthcare team made. Say no to Crack!
I do not believe anyone has a right to health insurance, but as Christians we are obligated to see to it that everyone who needs healthcare is able to receive it. I do not believe Jesus would have left this responsibility to the Romans. We must remember the role the church was given to provide care to widows and orphans. If it was true back then it is true today.
Christ called us to accountability & repentance. There is a lot in the Bible written about gluttony, lust, greed, lack of self control. All of which creates extreme health issues which each and everyone one of us is responsible for. If we see it as the government has to take care of me while I self-destruct it’s a perversion of scripture. So the question really is, do you think Jesus would “approve” of polluting, abusing & over feeding your body which creates health issues, then screaming that you are entitled to health insurance or free health care? It’s not a government responsibility. It’s personal responsibility.
I agree most with the comment by Jon Henderson: “charity to those in need should be handled by the church, not the government and should be applied in a finite way as to limit the development of behavior patterns that encourage people to ignore their own personal responsibility.”
If we took responsibility for our own health first, it’d take a huge percentage of burden off of America’s health care system.
Jesus taught us to be charitable. There is a reason that many hospitals are called “St. This” or “St. That.” They were originally (& may continue to be) affiliated with churches. Because Jesus told us to love our neighbors, to care for the sick & infirm, to help the widow & the orphan… But some people don’t seem to understand that you can’t FORCE people to be charitable. If you force them, then it’s not really charity, is it?
God also seems pretty concerned with free will. He, in his infinite wisdom, gave us free will, the ability (the right) to make our own choices about what we do & say. He knew that our love for Him, and for our neighbor, would be empty if it wasn’t truly ours to give or to withhold. So what would Jesus say about a public option? Well, I certainly don’t speak for Him, but I think maybe he would say that, yes, we should give treatment and care to those who cannot obtain it themselves, but that we should do this freely and with love… Not because our increasingly socialist government is forcing it down our throats!
My goodness, what a misconception this man has on what constitutes a conservative. There have been many good, well thought out responses to this post already left above. All I can really add is that I, as a conservative and as a Christian, get so tired of the assumption that just because I don’t agree with the proposed health care reform means I don’t care about those who are in need. Just because I disagree with this administration’s gross abuse of office does not mean I am unaware of and uncaring of the needs of many Americans.
Conservatives are not in some idealistic little bubble where we’re blind to everyone around us. If anything, the fervor and passion that has awakened within the conservative movement shows that we are MORE aware of the needs of our country.
Just as I don’t assume all liberals to be godless and heartless, I would ask that others not assume all conservatives to be fundamentalist and self-righteous. It’s not fair to immediately assume that those who oppose this reform are un-Christian. What a blatent judgement of the heart and last I checked only God Himself had the right to judge a man’s heart and motvies.
GOD IS MY DOG, my dog is a god
DR=Savior
who really wants Gov to be your savior?
I’d first question his definition of “Christian.”
Stealing from one person and giving to another is not health coverage for all, it’s theft.
The government is proposing nothing short of stealing from all tax payers and redistributing to whomever they determine they should distribute it to. It’s what they’ve done with Social Security (which is going bankrupt because they’ve used the monies however they wanted to). It’s what they’ve done with Medicare (ditto). It’s what this Healthcare “reform” is all about–more of the same.
If I went to a private citizen and forced them to give me their money and then gave it to a homeless person on the street, I would be arrested for robbery.
The government does this daily and yet they are not all arrested and thrown in prison–as many of them should be.
To state that I am not Christian if I am against theft is ridiculous.
I’m just wondering if this claim is right, why Jesus healed so few. This guy is utter non-sense. The last thing Jesus would do is to extract compassion from an individual by force, which is what the altruist left wingers want to do.
Am I to infer from this guys argument that the current health care reform bill is based on Jesus’ teachings? Ha ha ha. My question is: Would Jesus jailed those who wished not to be healed? But this President is so arrogant that he wants to fine those who do not want to be covered under his plan. Yeah, that is very Christian thing to do.
I don’t know if Jesus would support HCR but I will tell you what; we have a hard enough time getting biology classes to teach intelligent design along the theory of evolution, so why not inject as much Christian philosophy into the public? I saw let’s try to close the loopholes for abortion and get some healthcare to the women who chose LIFE, but can’t afford check-up and prescriptions for their kids. Also, let’s hail this as a christian triumph. This would force everyone to confirm to something so Christian. I love it!
I’d say it’s this guy who doesn’t have a clue what Christianity means. We are not saved by the good things we do in Christ’s name, as if we were assuming His approval on whatever our cause happens to be. We are saved because of what He did for us on the Cross. If we could get to heaven by good works, we wouldn’t need the Cross at all. Which seems to be the ultimate point of leftist “Christians” like this guy.
The good Lord helps those who help themselves. With that in mind, I think if asked about the ongoing healthcare debate, Jesus would probably say something like:
“You are entitled to what you can pay for through your own honest hard work.”
Or words to that effect, as I won’t presume to speak for Him. I’m a Christian. Am also a conservative Catholic and proud of it. The question, “Who would Jesus cover”, is not a question that Jesus would ask. One could almost make the argument that this business of throwing Jesus Christ into politics is a violation of church and state. Charity between neighbors is quite different from re-distributionism.
I find it revolting that liberals only view this manufactured crisis through the prism of politics, and nothing else. Health care is not a right and we have no shortage of it. Being a Christian does not mean providing for people what they can and rightly should be providing for themselves. There is no relationship between healthcare and religion, period. What about one’s own personal responsibility to oneself and one’s neighbors?
For all my disgust over the last eight months (and TARP), it’s all a fantastic opportunity for us conservatives to demonstrate clear and positive leadership. In a different vein, Crisis does create opportunity and we have one as well. Let us not miss the opportunity to lead. Thank the Tea Parties for that.
Mae, dear, I respectfully disagree. God does not help those who help themselves. No where in the Bible will you find that stated. God expects us to depend on Him and Him alone, not the government, not some government program, not even ‘the kindness of strangers’ as Scarlett O’Hara said. God said so in the very first of the 10 Commandments-You shall have NO other gods before me. If you read through the Bible, you will find a story of a God who really wants us to depend on His providence and His grace to provide us with what we need. Mother Teresa understood this. George Mueller understood this. Both these people had ministries that depended upon God to provide them with what was needed–whether it was food for the orphans (Mueller) or the ability to continue the work God gave even though the presence of God was no where to be found (Mother Teresa, see ‘Come Be My Light’). God uses whom God will, but God does not expect us to put forth the effort first. I do what I do because God has called me to it, not because I had any dream as a child to do it. God enables and empowers me even on days when I can barely make it out of bed due to health difficulties. It is in our weakness that God’s power shines through most clearly.
OK. Sermon ended.
One last comment. God gave us our Constitution. Before it was written, its authors engaged in much time of prayer, Bible study, and discernment. Health care reform as it has been proposed by the president and the Democrats in Congress is un-Constitutional.
Nancy dear,
With all due respect, I did not say the expression, “God helps those who helps themselves” came from the Bible. You’re the one assuming that, and wrongly so. I would hope you would take the statement at face value, as intended.
Mae
It’s exactly the opposite. When Jesus ministered to people, what did he do? First he met the needs of the person and then forgave them of their sins. He healed people of various afflictions and fed the masses. When something like that happens to someone, what’s the normal human reaction? Gratitude. You have their undivided attention. That’s when people hear the gospel clearly. Jesus did not petition Caesar to set up a government program to feed the 5000 for the rest of their lives; He fed them once, taught them what they needed to know and sent them out into the world. The early church did not lobby for the creation of a government agency to take care of the widows; they elected deacons from among their own numbers to do the job.
When the government provides money to people for doing absolutely nothing people do still have the normal reaction of gratitude – at first. It’s definitely not God that they feel grateful to though, it’s whatever politician has promised to get them more money or other benefits. Of course over time gratitude turns into dependence, complacency and expectance. How can people feel a need for Jesus in their lives when all of their worldly needs are met without them having to lift a finger?
As Christians people ask us some tough questions like, “How can a loving God allow pain and suffering in the world?” The answer we typically give, which can sound a bit cold and uncaring at first, is usually something like this, “if there was no pain or suffering in the world, nobody would ever need God”. Picture if you will the country that some would like us to create. A country where the government makes sure that nobody goes without any basic needs. Sounds great right? Anyone who disagrees with it will seem like a greedy, uncaring person. However, if everyone has all their needs met by the government, what need will anyone have for God?
Now think of it from the other end of the spectrum. Pretend that we could waive a magic wand and make all the government giveaway programs disappear. Yes, there would LOTS of people hurting, confused and very upset because their primary source of income and support has disappeared. Imagine the opportunity for the people of God! Never have the fields been more ready for harvest than they would be then. If the government is not providing everyone’s needs, those who truly needed help would get it from their friends, families, neighbors and churches just like they did in the early days of America. Take a look at any natural disaster, whether it happens here in our country or anywhere in the world and you’ll see the compassion and generosity of the American people, not just those that are Christians.
My hope is that these words will help you keep the priorities of God in mind when you’re making very important life decisions, like who to vote for. Our #1 job on this earth is to glorify God and to share His message of love through his son Jesus to as many as we can. Don’t let ANYTHING get in the way of that!
pt. 2
As far as your argument that the economy has always done better under a democratic administration- first of all, decimating the military(a la clinton) to “balance” the budget, which in turn cause the Cole bombing and 9/11, is not my idea of “doing better”. Also, he had a republican congress, which called for a balanced budget and held a lot of his bad policies at bay. Bush had the opposite issue…a runaway, spend happy, liberal congress to contend with. Now we have a completely out of control, far left controlled executive and legislative branch and how is that working out? BTW,I lived through the carter ’70’s and that was not a cake walk! Here is a chart, in case you missed it:
h/t gateway pundit
The budget wasn’t sustainable, before any additional spending is taken into consideration. And why is it unsustainable? Unfunded socialist programs and interest on the debt.
Here is an excellent article, questioning the methodology in assessing presidential performance, without taking into consideration the “lag effect:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/presidents_and_the_economy.html
The real problem lies with unsustainable federal obligations.
from David walker:
http://www.pgpf.org/getinvolved/citizens-guide/ (pg. 21)
Mae, you are correct in that I made an incorrect assumption as to the source of the statement, but I still maintain that the statement itself is incorrect. My experience of God and my reading of the Bible, my studies in theology have all taught me that God expects us to depend on His grace and His mercy, not on what we can do ourselves. I even pointed out that were I to depend on my own strength some days, nothing would get done. I point to Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. To me this verse says the exact opposite of ‘God helps those who help themselves.’
Mike,
Thank you so much. Your post is definitely food for thought and one that bears re-reading.
Nancy,
You again miss the point. Dana asked for thoughts and I gave them. As far as I’m concerned, there’s nothing wrong whatsoever in what I said. We’re trying to speak to a bigger topic, all of us. Spare me the judgment and the lectures, please.
The expression I gave means, in colloquial rather than biblical terms, that we have to put our own work into life before we can expect assistance from God. In other words, we need to be active and be energetic in our endeavors as a given. The point you’re not getting is that initiative and hard work are mostly absent from the debated legislation and discussions. Those qualities need to be present.
Mae
(pt 1b)
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/brown/090803
“This is a laudable goal; however, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, health care is not defined as a basic human right, but rather is addressed in a much broader context: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a4.htm
The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially…
– in keeping with the country’s institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits;
– the protection of security and health, especially with respect to dangers like drugs, pornography, alcoholism, etc.;
– the freedom to form associations with other families and so to have representation before civil authority. (Section 2211)
Nowhere is there mention of a “basic human right” that must be subsidized by the state. Nor should such a position be supported, since Catholic organizations such as the Catholic Medical Association and American Life League find it problematic, if not draconian. For example, the Catholic Medical Association makes it clear not only that heavy-handed government control of medical practice could result in the American
(pt 1b cont – sorry just having a hard time posting here)
…people losing their freedom to make important decisions about their life and health, but also that http://www.cathmed.org/issues_resources/publications/press_releases/statement_on_health_care_reform/
it is critical for Congress to take the time necessary to address the complex economic and ethical issues involved, and to give the American people an opportunity to review any proposed legislation. Health-care reform encompasses both individual rights and the common good, ethical issues surrounding life and death, and economic issues ranging from taxes and property to economic competitiveness. It is essential that Congress first “do [no] harm” and then enact measures that can respect all of these complex goods…
…Moreover, there should be no rush to approve any program that surrenders control over one’s destiny to a government agency. A government that approves of killing the preborn is certainly not a government one can trust with healthcare.”
A. I’d like to see the resource where Mr. Wubben gets his stats. Even the most pro-“public option” polls that I’ve seen show about 52% against.
B. I’m more inclined to believe that if the Democrats do pass any health care reform, meaningful or not, we will see Republicans regain control of the legislative branch in 2010
C. When did Jesus go into the insurance game. He healed many people that He came in contact with but not all people. Not to mention all the financing/power for those healings came from God the Father, not the federal government.
D. Render on to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and unto God that which belongs to God. Jesus never once indicated a position on nationalized health care one way or the other. In Christ’s government, there will be no need for health care reform because there will be no sickness or death.
(pt 1 aa – can’t get the opening to post at all!)
As far as Christian’s supporting healthcare, this is an excellent response, from a blogger (found in a search- I certainly don’t agree with many statements, on this blog, though):
“Just as with the question of drug or prostitution legalisation – there is a very clear line between endorsing something and believing that something should be forced on everyone by law. Healthcare for all is something that every Christian should be advocating and supporting. Part of our calling as Christians is to (at the very least) pray for the welfare of our fellow man, including strangers and enemies. But what it really should look like is material support in the form of giving, labouring and strategic action in the form of practical service to our community.
However, I believe that Christian support for government-run (or controlled) healthcare is a well-motivated, but mistaken way to apply these principles.
The chief problem with some form of government-mandated care (no matter who ultimately provides it – the government or private companies) is that in order to “give” healthcare to some, it must be taken from others. Christians can and should support giving – but it is incompatible with Christian principles, no matter how noble the goals – to support taking.
Healthcare is a scarce good. It has to be produced by someone – doctors, nurses, technicians, R&D people, chemists and other scientists. In order for us to give healthcare to people who cannot afford it, we must make those people work against their will. They have to go into involuntary servitude for our morals.
Consider the incompatibility of that idea – what kind of “morals” would condone involuntary servitude? How can Christians claim that we are acting on godly motives, if we support and even participate in the enslavement of our fellow man?”
http://zealfortruth.org/2009/08/christian-morality-and-universal-heathcare/
(pt 1a)
First of all, you might want to look at an actual poll to correct your supporting numbers, theory (and not one run by msnbc, who stacks the deck disproportionately with lib voters).
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
(pt1a -second part)
I’m a Christian and take offense at the insinuation that we don’t care about the welfare of others (fyi, ed schultz is not the person to be taking advice on religion, from!). It is always the Christian organizations who are first on the scene to help, in disasters and offer charity, in general. I don’t ever see any atheist organizations! Jesus called on Christians to care for the sick, NOT the government- (he only said to render under caesar that which was caesar’s)! http://silentnomoremajority.newsvine.com/_news/2009/09/09/3242496-stop-twisting-the-bible-liberals-jesus-was-not-a-socialist
As a Catholic, I can only speak for my faith, but as an example, Catholic charities is the largest provider of social services, second only to the government
(http://www.ccregional.org/news.htm). BTW, I am NOT a cheerleader for CCUSA…I disagree with them, on several issues.
(from: http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=1925 pg. 16)
I’d just like to say a few things.
1). The conservative movement/party will not die if Obamacare passes in my opinion. That’s like saying everyone with conservative ideals will all of a sudden lose them if a bill passes. No, I think after seeing the effects of HR3200 (should it pass) the conservative movement will only grow larger.
2). No one can tell you if you are or aren’t a Christian. Only God knows what is really in your heart, if you have really accepted Jesus as your Savior. It’s wrong of Mr. Wubben to say: “If you don’t think Jesus would cover everyone you are not a Christian”, no matter if the statement is true or false.
3). I believe Jesus would like everyone to be covered, sure. Would He want if it it lead to rationing care? Uh, no. Would He like it to cover abortions? I’m gonna take a wild guess and say no. Would He like it to happen through the government? That lends itself to debate. I don’t think there is anyone who doesn’t want healthcare for all. There is just disagreement on how to approach it.
4) Did Mr. Wubben really say the Tea Party movement was a complete failure? I’m gonna say the D.C. police would say otherwise, after their estimate of, what, 1.2 million people? Doesn’t sound much like a failure to me.
5) I wan’t aware the the economy is always worse when a Republican is in office, does anyone have the statistics? I’d like to see them.
So that’s just my two cents. Have a nice night everyone.
Thank you for giving your readers / listeners the opportunity to comment on this person’s view of Jesus Christ. I loved reading the truth about Jesus Christ. He would not support government run health care.