Archive for the 'Religious Freedom' Category

A Fluke? Or A Movement?

In case you have been living under a rock, Sandra Fluke is the college student attending Georgetown University who testified before Congress that her birth control costs $3,000 a year and the only way she can get birth control is if Congress allows the President to force religious institutions (like Georgetown) to pay for it, which they then did.  Rush Limbaugh got himself into some trouble when he used a two naughty words to describe someone who wants others to pay for her to have sex.  Judging by family friendly ABC’s new show GCB (originally titled Good Christian Bitches), if only Rush had called Fluke an SP, he would have been ok.

The left wants us to see Fluke like this:

She is a very young, very poor college student who perhaps has acne or cysts on her ovaries that only birth control can fix.  However, Republicans are voting to make Georgetown revoke her rights to buy birth control because every sperm is precious.  In the end, perhaps she wrote a letter to her senator and her senator actually read it, but somehow Fluke came in contact with Democrats in Washington DC who found her story so compelling that they tried to have her testify before Congress, but Republicans hate women and wanted only men testifying so they said no.

In actual fact, Sandra Fluke is a 30 year old law student who can afford $50,000 a year for law school, but can’t seem to find her way into Target or Wal Mart where birth control is $9 a month.  She wants to force her Catholic college and all Americans to pay so that she can have as much consequence-free sex as she can fit between classes.  She also is not random.  Fluke has been an activist promoting the idea of forcing others to pay for birth control and morning after abortion pills.  In fact, she was the president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.  It’s amazing to me that no one blinks at the fact that this seemingly random student somehow ended up as the star witness for the Democrats, even though Pelosi’s office can’t seem to confirm or deny if the two had ever talked previously.  In fact, Democrats pulled their official witness in order to put Fluke in front of the cameras with her false sob story.  The last minute switcheroo violated policy which is the real reason she wasn’t allowed to testify by those mean old women-hating Republicans.

By the way, which is more offensive?  Rush using naughty words to describe her?  Or Obama giving Christian hospitals, colleges, orphanages, churches and other religious institutions the choice of either providing contraception AND morning after abortion pills or shutting their doors?  Even more offensive is Obama’s hardline on religious institutions while he simultaneously cuts military health benefits.

This brings us to the scary question.  What was Fluke doing at a Jesuit-run Catholic university in the first place?  Doesn’t she know the Catholic church’s teachings on contraception?  Actually, she does and that is why she went there.  Fluke reviewed the Georgetown student insurance policies and enrolled in order to change them.  As a liberal activist, she infiltrated Georgetown in order to use the hand of government to overturn their first amendment rights and force her personal, secular ideologies on them.

This line of attack should scare any religious institution.  It’s one thing when liberals are attacking religion from the outside, like ABC’s new anti-Christian show.  I wouldn’t infringe on people’s freedom of speech and I can control my own remote (imagine that).  But this idea that liberal activists are going to be infiltrating religious institutions in order to impose their secular beliefs on the rest of us should be far more alarming than any naughty words used by an entertainer. Should Christian schools start screening students to make sure they are not liberal plants?

I went to a Christian college for two years.  They taught creation.  They would never pay for morning after pill abortions and actually had rules against pre-marriage intercourse.  They had rules against drugs, homosexuality, drinking, and even foul language.  But it was ok.  We knew that when we went there.  I made a personal choice to go there and live under those rules for two years.  That is something people can do in a free society.  This freedom is the core target of the Fluke-style infiltration assault on Christianity.

This is pretty serious stuff.  The Left has a lot to answer for.  Was Fluke a plant?  If so, it is Fluke and Pelosi who should be apologizing to the country for this blatant fraud and attempt to steal our first amendment rights.

Advertisements

Glenn Beck Returns the Right to the Left’s God

I love patriotic rallies.  I love patriotism that recognizes the source of our freedoms and that the founders also recognized the source of our freedoms.  I also love religious rallies and messages that point us to God and the worship of God and Jesus Christ.  Not just worship of a generic god or concept of a higher being, but the one true God.  It’s when you mix the two is when you run into problems.  After all, how can you get a bunch of people together who worship different gods and tell them to return to God if they love their country?

The Left is way ahead of us when it comes to building a national theocracy.  In his criticism of Beck’s rally in DC, Robert Parham of Ethicsdaily.com laments how Beck does not preach government’s responsibility before God of social justice and caring for the poor.  Government fulfilling the role of the church is near to sacramental for the Left.  After all, Jesus tells us to care for the poor and Jesus believed in equality and affirmative action, and Jesus believes that the government should take from the rich and give to the poor, and occasionally Jesus enjoys a joint for medicinal purposes.  Welfare, social security, affirmative action, equal pay for equal work, subsidies for green energy, cap and trade, and progressive taxes are all commanded by the Left’s god and found in the Bible.  But of course, as tolerant liberals, the God of the Bible is not real.  He is not more than a reflection of the true god, which is whatever you personally think god might be.  Confusing, I know.

But the god of the Right is quickly becoming not much better.  This god requires patriotism, love of country, freedom for the oppressed in other countries, Federal laws defining marriage biblically, and individual freedom.  Just as with the Left, the Right’s god must also be universal and cover all faiths.  The worship of this god is the revival that everyone from fundamental Christians to conservative atheists are pushing for.  The moral majority has sacrificed God on the altar of universalist politics.

Don’t get me wrong.  Of course Jesus commands us to care for the poor.  But He commands US, not the government to care for the poor.  Of course Jesus tells the rich to sell what they have and give to the poor and not to hoard their wealth.  But Jesus tells individuals.  You will not find one single place in the entirety of Scripture, except in dealing with the Hebrew theocracy of the Old Testament, where God commands the government to give to take from the rich and give to the poor.  Same with equality and social justice.  These are commandments to individuals.

Also, patriotism is a good thing.  In fact, it’s a great thing.  Marriage is between a man and a woman.  It is a religious institution that the government should get out of altogether.  Worshiping God, the one true God, is a great thing.  Worshiping a fake god or made up universalist god is not only silly, it is basic idolatry.  The goals of the Restoring Honor rally are not bad goals.  But invoking some made up universalist god to spur us towards these goals is the natural failure of the Left and is quickly becoming a downfall of the Right.

Should we sacrifice man’s soul in the name of patriotism?  Should our revival be to the principled god of patriotism that we have created?  Should we tie patriotism and freedom to a god we have made with the wood and gold of our minds?  Should individual principles of caring for the poor and social justice be tied to a God we don’t believe in and the government is prohibited from serving?

By all means, begin the revival in DC.  But make sure we are reviving worship in the one true God.  By all means, love patriotism and country.  Praise God for the freedoms we have and use those freedoms for good and individual charity.  After all, that is what our founders truly envisioned.

Consider the words of Thomas Jefferson’s Baptist minister, who was instrumental in influencing the founders’ views on preventing government establishment of religion or regulation of its practice:

“These establishments metamorphose the church into a creature, and religion into a principle of state, which has a natural tendency to make men conclude that Bible religion is nothing but a trick of state.” – John Leland, 1791

The beauty of America, our Constitutional Republic, and the freedoms we possess, the beauty that must be taught and revived, is that we are all free to worship God, to give to the poor, to love our country, to hoard our wealth, to believe a carved piece of wood can save us, to hate our government, and to sit under a bridge with a cup begging instead of working all day.

The beauty of God that Christians must revive no matter what country we live in is that He loves us and sent His Son to die for our sins, so that if we simply have faith in Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection, we will be saved. God loves us, even when we are His enemies.  God commands us to love one another, to care for the poor, to sacrifice our lives and possessions for one another.

Let’s not confuse the two.


Why I am a Conservative Constitutionalist

Originally posted 4/11/10

There are people in this country who, if they had their way, would shut down every strip club in the country. Many of us wouldn’t mind that. Our neighborhoods would be safer, husbands would be home at night, there might be fewer sexual crimes, and our society would spend less time looking at women as objects and instead looking at them as individuals.

There are people in this country who, if they had their way, would shut down every church in the country. Many of them wouldn’t mind that either. People could spend Sunday morning drinking, Sunday night with a whore, and not feel an ounce of guilt about it. They could walk to work without having to fear someone telling them God loves them, and walk home at night not having to fear someone telling them God hates their sin.

There are people in our country who only eat vegetables, tofu, black bean burgers and the like. They believe that eating meat is disgusting. Then there are others who love a steak and a beer and don’t care if eating that steak makes it 81.5 degrees out instead of 81.4.

This is why I am a Conservative Constitutionalist. Our founders came from a society where their government told them who and how they could worship. Their government sent them to wars, not for protection but for expansion of the empire. Their government did not listen to their voice, but “took care of them”. In exchange, they belonged to the government. Their money was the king’s property, to be surrendered upon demand. Their homes were military barracks on loan to them. Their speech was regulated. Their writings could put them at the end of a noose. What the government said was truth, even when it contradicted fact and conscience.

Our founders created a society of individual freedom. Each man is responsible for the application and management of his own destiny, rights, and pursuit of happiness. The “king” is subject to the same laws as the “subjects”. In fact, not only are the leaders subject to the same laws as everyone else, but they are also subject to popular removal. Every four years we have a bloodless revolution.

I am a Conservative Constitutionalist because I believe in my right to choose – not to choose whether I can kill someone, steal from someone, or break the common laws that we as a nation have approved under the limitations of our constitution, but to choose whether I want to drink or go to church. To choose whether I want to save for retirement or buy a hot tub and work till I die. To choose whether I want to pay more for my health care and eat burgers every day or pay more for the gym and look like an athlete. Whether I want to drive a Hummer or an electric golf cart. These are my choices because the Constitution limits the government’s ability to take my rights away.

I have the right to call my president a god or a moron. I have the right to shoot attackers, whether criminal or governmental. I have the right to let a US soldier whom I hardly know live in my house for half a year (which I did once) or to tell that soldier to take a hike. I have the right to kill someone in cold blood in front of witnesses and be tried by a jury of my peers before society has a right to sentence me to death for it. I have a right to choose who I do and don’t associate with. I have a right to worship my dog or my God however I want. I have the right to vote for someone to be the leader of my nation because I think they have a strong chin and I don’t like that the other guy is a Buddhist. I have a right to live by these freedoms without the fear that another nation, state, city, or homeowner’s association will remove my rights without my consent. I have the right to start a business, make a million dollars, and spend every penny of it (aside from the taxes necessary for efficient government) on Twinkies. I have the right to choose not to buy government-taxed tea.

At least that’s the way it’s supposed to work.

Instead, the government takes 12.4% of my income off the top and puts it towards an underfunded retirement I may never see. The government forces me to buy health insurance from heavily taxed companies – absolutely no different than when the government forced the colonists to buy heavily taxed tea. The government takes almost half of my income. What do I get in exchange? The government spends my money telling me and my family how the government thinks I should live. The government takes my money and spends it to deny fifth, seventh and fourteenth amendment rights to the unborn. The government exempts office-holders from these very laws that they impose on the rest of us. The government calls me a radical and a terrorist, when our own President began his political career hand in hand with real terrorists who have committed real violent acts. The government has decided what my happiness should be, takes my means from me, and tries to pursue it for me.

But the very nature of government is that its own limitations now become my limitations. The government buys my health insurance, but can’t afford to insure my lifestyle. Therefore, I can no longer smoke and drink without paying penalties to the government. And soon, if I eat burgers every day I will not be able to enjoy rationed health care privileges that were rights just a few months ago. I will not be able to start and run a business because the government needs my profits. But I will also no longer have the right to waste my talents as I see fit since the government cannot afford to exist without them.

Instead of making and producing goods and services that people want and need at prices they can afford, the government demands that we produce goods and services that the government thinks we need and want at prices the government demands. That is not conservatism; that is not constitutionalism.

The greater good can only be achieved through the will of the greater majority. When we no longer trust the masses is when the masses become slaves to the Machiavellian few. And when the Machiavellian few are handed the keys to all our dreams and happiness is when suddenly the governing become the privileged and “lobbying” those in power is the only avenue left for happiness. Haven’t we already seen this with the deals in the stimulus and health care bills? It will only get worse.

I am a Republican, but I am a Conservative Constitutionalist first. It is not the government’s job to take care of me, put a roof over my head, provide me happiness, feed me, or buy my health care. It is the government’s job to get out of my way, pave the road in front of me, and keep all others not subject to the same protections of citizenship to our government from hindering me. Anything beyond that is a usurpation of my freedom and individual responsibility.

Moore’s Socialist Gospel

“In my new film I speak for the first time in one of my movies about my own spiritual beliefs. I have always believed that one’s religious leanings are deeply personal and should be kept private. After all, we’ve heard enough yammerin’ in the past three decades about how one should “behave,” and I have to say I’m pretty burned out on pieties and platitudes considering we are a violent nation that invades other countries and punishes our own for having the audacity to fall on hard times.

I’m also against any proselytizing; I certainly don’t want you to join anything I belong to. Also, as a Catholic, I have much to say about the Church as an institution, but I’ll leave that for another day (or movie).”

Thus begins Michael Moore’s letter to Christians at the Huffington Post.  He then proceeds to tell you exactly what he believes about Christianity in relation to Capitalism, why Capitalism is a sin, why we should join him in ending it and why Christianity should dictate how Americans spend and invest their money.  Sounds a little to me like proselytizing.

First of all, if Michael Moore is truly a Catholic but believes that proselytizing is wrong, then he is either a liar or an evil person.  How could someone who believes in heaven, hell and salvation through Jesus Christ be opposed to evangelism?  That would be like a Global Warming believer driving a dumptruck full of leaking radioactive materials everywhere.  Or perhaps flying back and forth across the country in their own private jet.

But more important here is the hypocritical call for Christians to support government socialism because of their faith.  The man who opposes prosylitizing apparently supports a financial theocracy.   Moore’s movie, which confuses Capitalism with government bailouts, is a scathing rebuke aimed at Wall Street fat cats who make as much money as he does.  In the end, his conclusion is not that we should get the government out of the market and stop having the government take from the poor and give to the rich.  His conclusion is that we should give all to the government and let the government give to any in need.  Apparently this is what Moore believes Jesus actually taught.

Moore doesn’t actually cite any Biblical references, which I suppose would require actually opening a Bible.  If he had, he might discover that no where does Jesus say that the government has a responsibility to take care of the poor.  No where does Jesus say that the government should take from those who have and give to those who don’t.  No where does Jesus say that the government should provide universal healthcare.  Whenever Jesus talks about giving to the poor or caring for the poor, he is addressing individuals.  I wonder how much Michael Moore gives to charity every year?  What do you say Mr. Moore, are you willing to give us all a look at your last three years’ tax returns?

Michael Moore needs to take a basic economics class and learn what Capitalism actually is.  Capitalism is freedom and opportunity.  In a Capitalist system, you are free to make billions of dollars.  On the other hand, you are then free to give those billions to the homeless shelter in your city if you so choose.  That is the beauty of Capitalism.  It’s not about forcing the government to rob from the rich and give to the poor, it is about your personal freedom to obey Jesus Christ and give to the poor.  Capitalism isn’t about bailouts, pork spending, government corruption, and government owned companies.  TARP is not Capitalism.  Going to a job, earning money, saving it for your kids college education, giving to your church and charities, hiring thousands of people and giving them the opportunity to do the same, THAT is Capitalism.  Capitalism is about freedom, not religious tyranny from a self proclaimed Catholic who is seeking to impose his ideas of financial religion on the rest of us.  That is why the Constitution prohibits the Congressional establishment of religion.

“It doesn’t seem you can call yourself a Capitalist and a Christian — because you cannot love your money and love your neighbor when you are denying your neighbor the ability to see a doctor just so you can have a better bottom line.”

Mr. Moore, I am not keeping my neighbor from seeing a doctor.  My neighbor has just as much freedom to work, buy insurance, and visit a doctor in a Capitalist system as I do.  If you believe that we are all morally responsible to send our neighbor to the doctor, then again I ask: have you?  How many people is Michael Moore footing the insurance bill for?  There is nothing in our Capitalist system preventing Michael Moore from sending his neighbor to the doctor.  But that isn’t the point, is it.

Michael Moore doesn’t want to send his neighbor to the doctor; Michael Moore wants you and me to send his neighbor to the doctor.  Moore’s idea of religion is the government forcing you and I to pay higher taxes so that the government can give people high quality government programs like Cash for Clunkers, Social Security and Public Schools.

Moore asks, would Jesus be a Capitalist?  Absolutely, and in fact his followers were.  Paul worked as a tent-maker and chose to use those proceeds to fund his ministry.  The Christians chose to sell their property and possessions and chose to share with one another.  Wealthy Christians in different cities chose to house Christians and Jesus on their missionary journeys.  Jesus was poor, but he did not take Roman welfare.  Jesus didn’t command the pagans to fund his ministry.  Jesus healed with His own hands, He didn’t require the government to provide universal health insurance to the sick paid for with taxes on the poor and middle class.

If Michael Moore truly thinks that making money is evil and should be outlawed, I can recommend a few places where he can choose to give the $5 million his movie made over the weekend.

Leave the Czars to the Russians

I have put in my time.  I have researched Article II of the Constitution and the amendments.  I never found the word Czar, nor did I find constitutional justification for such a position.   But Obama has as many as 32 Czars.  He has a TARP Czar, an Auto Recovery Czar, an Afghanistan Czar, a Terrorism Czar (I guess we can use that word if it’s part of a job description), a Car Czar (completely different from the Auto Recovery Czar), a California Water Czar, and rumor has it that as Obama continues his extended vacation over Labor Day weekend that he is going to appoint a Presidential Fill-In Czar.

It’s not just Republicans who disapprove of the President delegating his duties, constitutional and unconstitutional, to these Czars.  Some Democrats, like Senator Byrd, are unhappy that they don’t have a say in approving these Czars.  Of course, I suspect that their issue is more one of the President giving power to the Czars that should belong to Congress, and not so much the constitutionality aspect.

Of course, what is disconcerting is the power given to these individuals in circumvention of the Constitution.  Even Liberal Republican Susan Collins can see the danger of what she called a lack of transparency and accountibility associated with Czars.  The American Thinker calls the Czars commissars, named after the political agents appointed by Communist regimes to implement the dictators policies apart from the normal governmental process.  Is that an invalid assessment?  Rep. Kingston from Georgia calls Obama’s Czar structure a “parallel government”.

What about the idea of removing authority and responsibility from our government and putting it in the hands of these people?  Look at what happened when Bush passed the first TARP bailout that put the authority and responsibility for fixing the economy directly and solely in the hands of the Treasury Secretary Paulson.  Now those powers and responsibilities are solely in the hands of Tim Geithner the tax cheat.  How’s that economy going, America?  And the Treasury Secretary has to be approved by Congress, unlike most of Obama’s Czars.

Is this truly something to fear?  Well, these titles give me pause: Faith Based Czar, Urban Affairs Czar, Information Czar, Pay Czar, Domestic Violence Czar, Technology Czar…wait, back up.  Faith Based Czar??  Nevermind that the government specifically has no jurisdiction over half the things Obama has Czars for according to the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution. Obama is strictly prohibited by the 1st amendment from having jurisdiction over faith.

Here are some other historical titles that should give you pause: Minister of Food, Minister of the Interior, Minister of Forestry, Minister of Science and Education, Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs (Faith Based Czar?), Minister of Aviation, Minister of Economics, Minister of War, oh yeah, and Minister of Propaganda.  I will let you draw your own conclusions.

Before you write me off as an alarmist, let’s examine exactly who Obama is putting in these positions of unaccountable authority.

Van Jones: Of all the environmentalists in the country, Obama chose a civil rights activist, 9/11 conspiracy theorist in Van Jones to be his “Green Jobs” Czar.  Van Jones says he never agreed with the 9/11 conspiracy petition that he signed in 2004, calling for an investigation into whether Bush was responsible for murdering more than 3,000 civilians through the 9/11 attacks.  Great, so our Green Jobs Czar is either a liar or doesn’t read stuff before he signs it.  Well, ok, so that’s par for the course in Washington.

What I find interesting is how little experience Jones actually has as an environmentalist.  When you hire a die-hard affirmative action proponent with almost no environmental experience as your Green Jobs Czar, what do you think the intended result is?  Jones has accused “white polluters” of polluting black neighborhoods.  So much for reconciliation and an end to racism in this country.  And of course, Jones has strong ties to Communism.  You would think after the Jeremiah Wright incident, Obama might know what type of people to avoid in political circles.  I guess that’s what you get for not paying attention in church.

Cass Sunstein: The Regulation Czar has advocated for a ban on hunting in the US and an opt out policy on organ donation.  Basically this means that unless you specifically say otherwise, the government can use your organs when you die.

John Holdren: Obama’s Science Czar is another character with a regretful past when it comes to ideology.  Holdren at one point advocated forced abortions and sterilization.   Of course, that isn’t a new concept either.  Holdren, like Jones, released a statement saying that he had never supported his ideology.  Fundamentally disagreeing with oneself seems to be a requirement for a position in Obama’s government.

Carol Browner: The Energy and Environment Czar Carol Browner is a well known socialist.  Of course, she is well known only because of a great deal of research done.  After Obama suggested her, records of her ties to socialist groups began disappearing off the web.  But for Browner, this is nothing new.  In 2003 a Federal Judge held the EPA in contempt for destroying records and shredding documents during the Clinton administration.  Browner’s were among those.

Vivek Kundra, Obama’s Information Czar, has had FBI troubles and Obama’s first shot at Performance Czar had to withdraw due to tax troubles.  Apparently Nancy Killefer had enough of  back taxes to keep her from getting hired as a Czar but not enough to become the next head of the IRS.

You can call me an alarmist if you want to.  I prefer to use the term vigilent.  If Congress can’t approve Czars, they can’t  impeach them either.

Elementary School Parents Get “Wee-Wee’d Up”

If you haven’t heard, getting “wee-wee’d up” is the President’s new term to describe people who get nervous about his healthcare plan.  When asked to define “wee-wee’d up”, press secretary “Washington Bob” Gibbs said that it meant that those who oppose universal healthcare were bed-wetters.

Well, now a new group of people are soiling themselves, metaphorically speaking, in reaction Obama.  On September 8, Obama is planning to make a speech that will be televised in every public school; and some Conservative parents are not happy.

Apparently older demographics weren’t buying his plans so Obama’s looking for a younger, more gullible audience.  Schools have been given push-polling forms to make sure that the children understand what the President is telling them in his address.  The forms come with a questionnaire for teachers to ask  students, suggestions for writing assignments, and an ACORN voter registration form.

My reaction?  What’s the big deal?  People, these are public schools.  Obama is not going to say anything that they won’t hear over and over during their 12 years under the supervision of the National Education Association.  In fact, look on the bright side; Obama’s speech is going to be televised where concerned parents can actually watch and record it. In his speech Obama probably won’t talk negatively about God and Christians, won’t talk about evolution in relation to human origins, won’t promote homosexuality, and won’t talk about America’s evil past and the evil men who founded her.  I figure that’s an improvement.  In fact, Obama might take the time to encourage the students to stay focused, don’t smoke, don’t do drugs.  Who knows, maybe they’ll do as he says, not as he did.

Actually, depending on what period Obama takes, they just might have to cancel a sex ed class for that day.  Imagine that, your 10 year old just might be able to keep her innocence for 24 more precious hours.

Ok, so it’s not fair.  President George H.W. Bush made a televised speech in 1991 to one school and Democrats flipped. And you were expecting what?  Consistency?  Like when they said we should vote for Democrats because Republicans spend too much?  Like when they told us we should vote for Democrats because Republicans are going to tax your healthcare benefits and make cuts in Medicare?  Like when they voted for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then voted against funding our troops, and now suddenly support the wars again?  Like how Obama is cutting back on environmental cleanup but nobody on the left is even mentioning it?  Like how Obama said he would give 95% of Americans a tax cut and now he is talking about raising taxes on 100% of Americans to pay for healthcare and his debt?

It could be that you were expecting consistency because at some point in your own public education someone told you that life should be fair.

If not for Ted, do it for the Lord

I posted not too long ago about different talking points being used to promote Democrat-style universal healthcare.  There is another one to be aware of.

When the debate first started, Democrats said that healthcare is a right, therefore it should be free.  Of course, a quick study of the Constitution reveals that not only is free healthcare not a right, but the federal government is not even allowed to implement universal healthcare.  Sure, every American has the right to work and earn the means necessary to buy healthcare, just like we all have the right to pursue happiness.  Nowhere does the Constitution say we have the federally-guaranteed right to achieve happiness.  We do that on our own.

We now have the newest talking point.  From the same party that made up the story about Bush saying God told him to invade Iraq, and then complained about Bush saying that for the next five years, we now have learned that we have a moral obligation to implement universal healthcare.  What would Jesus do?  He would make sure that we all have healthcare, apparently including free abortion coverage.  After all, Jesus wouldn’t force that poor mother to carry that baby.

CBS News has counted and already Obama has invoked God more than Bush did.  David Harsanyi wrote about the Democrats’ attempt at a moral majority, citing Obama’s invocation of the Ten Commandments:  “I know there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate, and there are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness”

And all Obama’s people said?  Amen.

If you attended the Kennedy funeral, apparently you have now become party to their mission from God.  Talk about politicizing someone’s death.

Invoking God is certainly not a new thing.  Our founding fathers did it all the time.  Both sides on the civil war made lengthy speeches about why they were the people doing God’s will.  Obama might truly believe that God wants taxpayer funded abortions, a drop in medical quality for everyone, end of life counseling, rationing, and more government intrusion into our lives.  But one would think that Obama would seek to avoid the apparent hypocrisy of telling us what God’s will is for our government so soon after the much-hated Bush left office.

Remember what Democrats said about Bush?  “those of us who say God has no place in the Oval Office had better ring the alarm, as loud and long as we can. If he (Bush) truly believes that he hears the voice of God, there is no telling what God might say tomorrow. This is a man who can launch the world’s biggest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction-biological, chemical, and nuclear-at any moment.If Obama hears the voice of God when it comes to universal healthcare, would it be inconsistent to fear imminent nuclear, biological, or chemical warfare from this President like Democrats did from the last President?

Obviously Republicans wouldn’t take it that far, and Democrats wouldn’t when it’s one of their own.

If you are going to invoke God and tell us that universal healthcare is a moral obligation, then you must be consistent.  Here’s my question: if the federal government of the United States must sacrifice the Constitution in order to destroy the quality of our healthcare system and redistribute wealth until every man, woman and child can afford healthcare because it is a religious moral obligation from Yahweh, then shouldn’t we also make sure that abortion, homosexuality, talking back to your parents, eating shellfish, and mixing garments are prohibited under US law?

“But wait,” you say. “Aren’t those mostly Old Testament laws?”  Yes. So is government-instituted charity.  I’m certainly not saying that God doesn’t want us to give to the poor or help each other out, but God certainly doesn’t instruct the government to do it for us.  In fact, every time Jesus talks about selling all and giving to the poor, He is speaking to individuals.  He never tells the government to take from those who have and give to those who don’t.

So don’t tell me that our government has a moral obligation to destroy the best healthcare system in the world and fund abortion with my taxes.  If you want to win the argument and convince me that our federal government has an obligation to take my money and buy my health insurance for me, you had better show me where it says that in the Constitution.


Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share

Categories