Posts Tagged 'christian'

The Right to Taxpayer Funded Abortion

Imagine if Mitt Romney gets elected, makes polygamy legal and mandates mission trips for young people.  I think we would be pretty shocked at the bold establishment of religion coming from the white house.  Yet we did not have that same gut reaction when Obama established his religion from the white house and got it passed without the required majority support through budget reconciliation. 

This is why the conservative movement has been so unprepared to handle charges that they are oppressing women or denying people rights when we object to being forced to pay for abortion.  Being told that by me not paying for someone else’s birth control, I am denying them the right to birth control is like telling a jungle native that they must be born again and put Jesus in their heart.  It just doesn’t translate.  The argument that healthcare is a right and society must therefore provide it is so ridiculous that conservatives reject it automatically.  But for Obama and social justice, liberation Christians it is gospel truth.

I checked, healthcare isn’t in the constitution.  But neither are puppies, and there are certain things you just have to be cautious about when arguing against.

What is in the constitution is religion and guns.  In fact, the private ownership and practice of both are enumerated rights.  What if I am too poor to afford a gun?  What if my community is too poor to support a church?  How is it that social justice does not then require the government or society to purchase my gun for me?  And as simply as that, for the non-liberation theologian, the idea of society owing me healthcare is defeated.

So why doesn’t this concept fall so easily?  If you listen to the liberal argument, Georgetown is denying Sandra Fluke the right to birth control by not buying it for her.  The right has a “war on women” because we want to protect the religious liberty and conscience of churches and religious organizations.  Conservatives have already ceded the rights of the religious employer in a secular field.  And how easily we let go.  I often wonder if Ben Nelson, Democrat from Nebraska who sold his conscientious objection to abortion funding for an earmark, ever wishes he could buy back his soul.

To understand the religious connotations of social justice in healthcare and why this religion shamelessly trumps the constitution, you have to understand liberation theology and James Cone.  Cone was required reading at Obama’s church.  Cone divided his teaching into dogmatic and methodological teachings.  The dogmatic teaching was the paradox that there is no universal truth.  Not even revelation in the Scriptures is absolute truth.  In fact, God is not in control and the very evidence of that is the existence of racism.

Cone’s methodological approach was contextual-dialectic.  What this means is that scripture has value in the way it relates to the reader’s context.  For Cone, this meant that the value of scripture was how it confirmed his own perception of racism against blacks.  From his perspective, there was no value in the original, contextual meaning of the scriptures.

Apply this to Obama’s thinking, and it makes sense that he would think Jesus wanted him to raise taxes, or that healthcare is a social justice right that trumps the constitution.  It also explains a lot about the ambiguity of Obama’s faith, his comfort level with the Muslim faith, and why he is so eager to impose his liberation theology on the country.  Obama is what the media keeps trying to convince us Santorum is.  Obama is a religious fanatic who is seeking to impose his beliefs on the country.  He is not alone, social justice and liberation theology is the spine of the liberal movement in the United States.  Documents like the constitution have value only to the extent that they endorse the liberal readers personal context.

That is why when a religious employer refuses to buy abortion pills for their employees, they are actually denying that employee the right to have abortion pills and are stealing her rights.  This is truth from the liberal perspective.

If Conservatives are going to successfully defend the constitution, perhaps James Cone should be required reading for us as well.


Selfishness of the Pro-Abortion Movement

Does the government have the right to tell religious institutions to buy birth control and morning after abortion pills for their employees?  Is it enough to have a religious exemption for institutions whose sole goal is to spread their faith?  If you have been asking yourself these questions lately, you are asking yourself the wrong questions.

First, let’s briefly address the exemption for religious organizations who solely exist to share their faith. Those organizations are few and far between.  Very few religious organizations seek to share their faith without also offering humanitarian aid, social work with teenagers, child services, food and training for the poor.  Aid to the poor is one of the largest purposes for the church and for Christians.

The question we should be asking when it comes to the religious exemption, is what about private business owners who object to birth control and morning after pills based on religious principle?  Why don’t they get an exemption?

Here is what this debate really comes down to.  I am a Protestant Christian and we use birth control.  We oppose morning after pills.  Every month we shell out $9 for our birth control pills, and I guess we forgo a date for two to McDonalds to do it.  I would never ask anyone else to pay that $9 for me.  I especially would never ask someone who objected to birth control on religious grounds to pay for it for me.  That is the epitome of selfishness.

I guess there are people out there who can’t afford $9 a month and can’t keep it in their pants.  Don’t ask religious people to give you that birth control or morning after pill.  Don’t ask the government to violate our 1st amendment rights and force us to provide that.

As far as the pro-abortion movement, if you truly believe that “they are just going to do it anyway”, sex among 13 and 14 year olds is a free expression of love, babies are a disease that kill dreams, or whatever, then set up a foundation that collects donations and pays for birth control and morning after pills.   You could form the organization after a charitable model like Toys for Tots and deliver a year’s supply of birth control to needy teenagers every Christmas.  You could call it Kontraception for Kids.  Or how about Planned Parenthood.

Some people mistakenly think this year’s election has anything to do with banning contraception on the federal level.  No, it has to do with whether everyone will be forced to pay for each others contraception.  It has to do with whether the liberals are going to force people to go against their religious objections and pay for something they find morally reprehensible in violation of their 1st amendment rights.  Does the constitution still matter?  That is the question in this debate.  Nobody is threatening to ban birth control.

If you are on Obama’s side and think Christians, Muslims and Jews should be forced to pay for your contraception, stop and think about how selfish that request is.

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.

Why I Favor a Liberal Health Co-op

I’m sure many of you read the title to this post and got the wrong idea.  Calm down. It’s okay. I favor a PRIVATE liberal health co-op.

For a while now I have been asked why I don’t want people to have healthcare.  I have been accused of being immoral, greedy, evil, stupid, and naive.  People I have debated with have conjured up ideas of me standing there, medicine in hand, refusing to act as a child succumbs to cancer.  It all appears to be a natural part of this universal healthcare debate.  People have asked me why it is I don’t want free healthcare.  I think free healthcare is a great idea.  Find me enough excellent doctors who will work for free, including paying all their own expenses,  and let’s do it.

The question has never been whether we want free healthcare or not.  The question is whether we want to pay for our healthcare, or pay the government to buy our healthcare for us.  The question has never been one of morality.  It has been whether we have a responsibility to give charitably to our neighbors, or to give to the government so that the government can give charitably to our neighbors.  The question has never been whether Jesus would want people to have free healthcare.  The question is whether Jesus would pay for His neighbor’s healthcare, or require that the government take His money and buy His neighbor’s healthcare for Him.

I have recently highlighted successful Christian health co-ops that provide healthcare at no profit the way Obama’s unconstitutional public option would.  Here is my question:  why won’t the liberals who want non-profit healthcare that covers the poor do the same thing?  If Jesus would pay for everyone’s health insurance, why don’t liberals get together and start a non-profit health co-op?

This is a somewhat foreign concept, so let me offer some ideas.  They could make payments on a sliding scale.  Hollywood liberals like Michael Moore, liberal Democrats like John Kerry, and the majority of the national media could pay incredibly high premiums that would cover the poor without raising taxes, without violating the constitution, without short changing doctors, and without paying huge profits to the insurance companies.  If this were truly a matter of moral imperative, they would have one already.  They could even name it after Ted Kennedy.

In addition, like a Christian co-op, a liberal co-op could freely choose what to cover and what not to cover without the fear of government mandates.  They could require that you get preventative care in order to keep receiving benefits from the co-op.  They could cover abortions and illegal aliens without me having to pay for it.  They could deny coverage to anyone who chooses to have more than 2.5 children.  They could even deny coverage to anyone whose car gets worse than 20 mpg.  All this without a single penny in deficit spending or any government involvement at all.

If liberals truly care about the poor, I’m sure they will jump at the opportunity to provide a private co-op that covers poor people at no cost.   If nothing else, millionaires and billionaires like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, George Clooney, George Soros, Michael Moore and others could boast how much better and moral they are than the rest of us for providing free healthcare to the poor.  After all, don’t they want people to have free healthcare?  No one should die because they get sick.  No one should go broke because they don’t make enough money.  Isn’t that how it goes?

I support a private liberal health co-op because that would go a long way to fix our healthcare system.  It would ensure that no one is dropped for pre-existing conditions or because they lose their job.  It would ensure that no one goes bankrupt because they can’t afford their healthcare.  It would provide rich liberals a chance to be moral and do what Jesus would do.  It would let them cut out the insurance company middle man and save millions of dollars.  It would allow them to collectively pool resources and bargain with healthcare providers for lower rates.  It would provide competition to other health insurance companies.  They could even have ACORN volunteers manage the trust fund.  All this and it wouldn’t require one drop of government intervention or add one penny to the federal budget.  Then Obama could reform Medicare and use the savings to pay down our China debt instead.

Unfortunately, liberals find it much easier to put your money where their mouth is.

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.

Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share