Christians, Please Report to the Health Insurance Reform Debate
As the health insurance reform circus plays out on the Hill, and the big pharma and health insurance industry lobbies pour tens of millions into the fight to preserve their obscene profits, I'm struck by one question:
Where are the Christians in this debate?
I don't mean to call out every Christian. I'm not talking about abortion-clinic picketers. They're a busy and vocal bunch, preoccupied with making sure that women who seek an abortion feel sufficiently hated.
I'm not talking about Christian military chaplains leading crusade prayer groups among deployed US infantry in Afghanistan. As it is, they're on their third or fourth tour of duty and may be too tired to keep up with domestic issues.
Nor am I talking about Republican Christians who decry infidelity, homosexuality and gay marriage in public while conducting extramarital bacchanals in private. Better to keep the doors of that "family" "church" on C Street closed for this fight.
Instead, the Christians I'm wondering about are the millions of ordinary, considered followers of a Bronze Age guy named Jesus, a guy who, to my mind, had some pretty specific things to say about the US health insurance industry and its practices.
I ask because as often as I hear it repeated that the US is a "Christian nation," I find it very odd that Christians who live here generally don't seem to have noticed the evidence that Jesus Christ would have serious problems with the for-profit health insurance industry.
It's an astoundingly wealthy industry that got that way by withholding coverage from the sick at every opportunity. What would the parable-prone healer think of the pay-or-die private health insurance model the US shamefully supports -- alone among the 39 most industrialized nations on earth?
I'm only a heathen flipping through the Bible, but I think I have an idea.
On insurance companies who take premiums, then withhold coverage from its paying and sick customers, Jesus offers no booklets filled with fine print, no long hold times on the phone while He services other customers. He's pretty clear:
You shall not steal; you shall not offer false testimony. - Matthew 19:18
Private insurance companies have held on to billions of dollars by routinely denying coverage for any pre-existing medical condition. What would Jesus withhold to maximize shareholder value?
And Jesus went about all the cities and villages [...] healing every sickness and every disease among the people. - Matthew 9:35
Heal every sickness? Every disease? With nary a glance at a profit projection spreadsheet?
I think it's safe to say Jesus would make a terrible health insurance company MBA.
Speaking of profit, what would Christ think of the salary of AEtna CEO Ronald A . Williams? For his corporate leadership, Mr. Williams was paid over $66,000 per day in 2008.
Is not His message to Mr. Williams -- and to his contemporaries at Cigna, Coventry, Humana, WellPoint and HealthNet -- simple and clear?
Then [Jesus] said to them, "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." --Luke 12:15
Or:
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. - Matthew 19:24.
I'm no bible scholar or expert on the life of Christ. I might just be cherry-picking here. For all I know, there are Biblical verses endorsing price-gouging and commercial empires built upon human sickness. Jesus might have been a big fan of a system that wastes half the money put into it on intermediaries and profit. There might be all kinds of evidence that Jesus wouldn't want universal health care.
But I doubt it.
Follow Rob Warmowski on Twitter: www.twitter.com/warmowski
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Rob Warmowski, Jesus was hardly an atheistic socialist. However, the Democratic (socialist) Party of America would have Christians sell their soul to secular humanism...to deny their Christ while buying in to an evil deception (atheistic socialism) calling itself a good.
The Democratic (socialist) Party of America would simply love to have American taxpayers fund, officially support and encourage the killing of millions of innocent defenseless little children, elderly and disabled and poor persons (1.5 million and growing daily) within our borders and throughout the world. This is clear in their FOCA and in their attempts to remove freedom of conscience clauses, etc.
There are proven ways to get reform without the government running healthcare, but it is awful difficult to demand reform of the healthcare industry by the Democrats. It is very difficult to convince persons you have good intentions for human persons when you base their worth on their productivity and usefulness and conditions of being wanted by others. It is truly disgusting to hear some of these dispicible people pretend to be concerned for others when in reality their only concern for people is their eugenics, euthanasia, assisted suicide, racism, classism...violence and bigotry.
It is peculiar how the secular humanists want to run God out of town on rail and simply rely on violent and bigoted atheistic mankind to have some sort of moral compass that follows his own whimsical ethics and morality. Violence and bigotry are human nature - left to ourselves we are lost.
Faith does NOT demand government action on health care or any other matter. Faith calls INDIVIDUALS to care for each other. Faith calls INDIVIDUALS to give from their own stores. There is absolutely no role for government in the practice of religion - as it should be. The First Amendment secures our right to practice our religion. It is then up to us to actually do that - as individuals practice acts of charity. We need to stop asking the government to practice religion for us.
See Rob Warmowski's Profile
While I'm working on my follow-up piece, I wanted to let you guys know about a great response by Dan Nejfeit here at HP:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-nejfelt/christians-weigh-in-on-he_b_250332.html
And also: thanks to everyone for the discussion and information exchange thus far!
-r
I am looking forward to your new piece! I am in the middle of reading the other article right now. I am wondering why you weren't aware of these activities before you wrote your first article? From Dan's article you can see that many of these actions have already taken place. Prefacing your initial article with the good the Christian left has already accomplished or is working on and then calling out the Christian right would have been much more effective to make your point and more accurate as well. It seems that truly the media has not done a good job of publicizing these kinds of actions and instead has focused on the last little old lady tea-bagger in the last little town in the last bastion of right wing activism.
Rob, even the Catholic Bishops have *renewed* their call for universal health care.Here is their recent statement: http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/2009-07-17-murphy-letter-congress.pdf
Here is an overview of what the Christian Left has been http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/07/proving-ground-for-the-religio.htmlo.html There is even a prayer rally scheduled for health reform. Please follow all the links. 100 events are scheduled. Also, the WashingtonPost wrote about http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/24/7/24/AR2009072403413.html?sid=ST2009072500081
I am looking forward to your promised follow up article
Thanks, MS! I wonder if we'll get one?
I am glad you saw this! I was trying to figure out how to let you know since you might not be checking back at this article.
In his replies throughout this thread, the author has hewed to a single, very leading point while rejecting any attempts to debate the merit of that point. Or, for that matter, any attempts to ask why he brought it up in the first place. We are expected simply to defer to his point of view.
When all is said and done, he'll point out that we ignored his single, simple question.
Along the exact same lines, we have the Republicans criticizing Sonia Sotomayor for not having "answered" their repeated insinuations that she has trouble being objective. They had no interest in her input, of course--they just wanted to imply, over and over, that she's biased, incompetent, inexperienced, etc.
Same ploy here. By reducing everything to a single, biased query, we can suggest whatever we wish while rejecting (as off-topic) any critical points introduced.
See Rob Warmowski's Profile
I've been told a lot of things in this comment stream. I've been told I don't know what social Christianity is (I do). I've been told that not all Christians are alike (even though my piece contains the exact sentence "I don't mean to call out all Christians.") I've been told I accuse all Christians of being fundamentalists (I do not). I've been told there is a groundswell of Christian opposition to for-profit health insurance that has been hidden. (And zero evidence for this has been presented, nor can I find any after much looking - groundswells are by definition hard to hide.) I have been told I accuse Christians of supporting for-profit health insurance (as if that is the same thing as noticing the lack of public Christian protests against it.) I have been told (hilariously) that the US is not a secular nation (yet the framers somehow failed to legally establish any church in the Constitution.)
I have been told a lot of things, but nobody has told me this: where and when the organized Christian protest against for-profit health insurance is.
Please, somebody tell me. I want to write about it, I really do.
Rob, the burden of being so much more enlightened than the rest of us--it must be an awesome one. However, let's look at the details, shall we?
In spite of your comical disclaimer--you didn't mean to call out all Christians--you did exactly that. What else are you doing when you isolate the worst and most conservative behavior of a group, hold it up as the norm, and announce repeatedly that, unless you're given good reason to think otherwise, you're going to assume it speaks for the whole group? Which you'd decided in advance, anyway.
You're not interested in writing about moderate and progressive C.'s--you want to discount our existence so that you can harangue the group at will. Of course, you can call into question the judgment of those who see what you're doing, but there IS always the option of not doing it.
And you misrepresented my position and should (but will not) apologize. I acknowledged that we are a secular democracy in the strict sense of no state church and no official endorsement of religion (read my posts). I said that, outside of that context, our govt. is neutral on matters of faith, and I cited the great, retired Justice David Souter as an example of someone who stood up for the govt. neutrality principle.
You have every right to disagree with me (and Souter and the SCOTUS) on these points, but you have no right to misrepresent my position.
You might assert that you don't intend to call out all Christians and that you don't accuse us all of being fundamentalists, but it is clear from what you write that you actually do. As evinced by the fact that you insist that right wing fundamentalists are our leaders and systematically ignore every point we have raised to instead harangue about Harry Potter. Even the Pope recently came out in support of Harry Potter, saying those stories were good illustrations of the battle between good and evil. There is an article on it here at the HuffingtonPost. So let that one rest.
What you have to say could potentially be an interesting and important point, but it never will be because you are not trying to support and encourage a progressive Christian movement; instead you are just trying to condemn Christians. And it is particularly ineffective, with respect to getting your message to resonate with Christians (if that actually were your goal), to use our Christ to curse us with.
Moreover, as Zanti and others are pointing out, Christianity is NOT a political movement. The fact that fundamentalists behave as if it is just shows how completely off the mark they are. There are progressive social concerns that Christians are consistently involved in. The fact that you haven't acknowledged a *single* one of these things that Christian organizations are involved in (I listed some examples in another post here, and there are many more such as running foster homes for kids who have no safety net) provides more evidence that you really aren't seriously trying to engage Christians in dialogue. If you think of all the progressive Christian issues that you claim you know about, I am guessing you have in mind various anti-war movements, perhaps civil rights movements, and efforts to find clothing, shelter, and food for the poor-- tell me one time that non fundamentalist Christians were organized as political lobbyists? Never. They were and are simply on the side of the poor and the oppressed and fight and have fought with them in their struggles. It is only the right wing that gets involved in politics as lobbyists, with an agenda, similar to a political party where they try to constitute whole wings of a political party.
See Rob Warmowski's Profile
"Christianity is NOT a political movement. The fact that fundamentalists behave as if it is just shows how completely off the mark they are."
MS: to fail to notice US Christianity's modern expressions in politics, and these expressions' far-from-progressive alignment does this discussion a very great disservice.
The plain fact is that political leadership who lead, plan, and organize as Christians are happily pursuing numerous terrifying political movements at home and abroad, and are debasing so many principles of Christ that heathens such as myself can see it from a mile away. I alluded to one such group in my piece, called "The Family." Here are some eyewitness accounts of their works in government:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3n6X_MxHa0
I am working on a piece concerning the progressive Christian response to the for-profit insurance industry; but in the meantime, please don't claim that Christianity is depoliticized in our country. It is anything but.
Once again, I ask if you disagree with my take (and Souter's and the SCOTUS') on church/state separation--i.e., that of govt. neutrality toward religion. Simply put, the government is neither for nor against religion, meaning that it is neither to promote OR get in the way of same.
Clearly, this neither/nor stance leaves no space for our govt. to assume a "secular" stance toward religion, anymore than it allows for the opposite. It's neither/nor. Agree? Disagree?
The more I think about it, the more I think about how downright nutty it is to 'call out' a group as huge and diverse as ' Christians' on a single issue like health care, as if All Christians are expected to have One Christian Position on health care.
Making an argument like 'Collectively, Christians are weak on health care reform' is bizarre. It's like saying that 'Collectively, Jews are weak on financial market reform' or 'Collectively, Muslims are weak opponents of terrorism'. Neither of those statements make any sense, and neither does 'Collectively, Christians are weak on health care reform'.
Seriously, would Huffington Post allow a blog with this headline?
'Jews, Please Report To The Wall Street Reform Debate'
I highly doubt it.
Regarding our govt. being a "secular" one, the great, retired Justice David Souter was a champion of state/church separation. As such, he recognized that the state is to remain neutral on issues of religion. This fact is easily referenced on the Internet.
Neutral means neither for not against. In some instances, it might mean having the govt. back off of religion. In other instances, it can mean cutting off govt. support *for* religion. Depends on the situation. It's hardly the cut and dry issue secularists and theocracy advocates make it out to be.
However, in ALL instances, it's a matter of what the government does or doesn't do, not what believers or groups of believers do. The First Amendment does not dictate how churches or churchgoers are to interact with the government. Our democracy represents all individuals and popular institutions, including (believe it or not) churches and churchgoers. Everyone enjoys the same rights of representation. If a person's rights to representation were in any way dependent on that person's religiosity or lack thereof, then the govt. would have failed in its neutrality requirement.
So, when some secularists insist that religion (and/or people of religion) have to pass through some special hoop to access their rights, don't believe it for a moment.
Government neutrality is a principle recognized and defended by the SCOTUS. I defer to their wisdom.
I love it! :) Nice job. This especially sums it up nicely, "I find it very odd that Christians who live here generally don't seem to have noticed the evidence that Jesus Christ would have serious problems with the for-profit health insurance industry."
I'm an atheist, but I have to agree that the Jesus christians claim to worship would oppose America's health care industry.
Rob Warmowski thanks for this article! Many of us who have blogged her on and off have tried to explain what you put so well: people who claim to be christians should not oppose universal coverage. They get bent out of shape about things like gay marriage and abortion, but when it comes to REALLY helping their fellow citizens they forget to be good Samaritans.
Greetings. A statistic to consider: most Americans want some version of universal coverage, or at least an option for same.
Most Americans are Christians.
Therefore, the majority of Christians have problems with the for-profit health insurance industry.
Logic 101.
heh can you back up your claims?
See Rob Warmowski's Profile
"the majority of Christians have problems with the for-profit health insurance industry."
Great! So at this exquisitely rare moment we've been given to catch up to the rest of the developed world by taking the profit motive out of health insurance, Christian social and political pressure is absolutely visible, funded, on point and out front against...Harry Potter, pregnant women, science curricula and gay marriage.
In other words, the vast majority of public, visible, activist Christians aren't talking about the for-profit health insurance industry. Which means either:
1) US Christians are poorly represented by their activists, or
2) a majority of US Christians actually don't have a problem with the for-profit health insurance industry.
Logic 301?
"The process of transferring food and clothing to the government costs time and money. Then it needs to be re-distributed to the local center, costing more time and money."
Too bad these central points of your post were ignored by the blog's author in his reply, Minimalist Syntax.
Despotic governments throughout history have intentionally starved as many targeted and defenseless populations as they have rescued from famine. In the Ukraine, in the Sudan, in Yemen, in Mexico, in Gaza, in Burma, on and on. Food is a weapon, water is a weapon, FrankenFood is a weapon, drugs are weapons.
Giving government the ultimate power over either the system of food distribution or the system of health care distribution gives the government the power to deny, the power to tinker with the food supply, the power to force dangerous treatments and vaccines- which is why modern globalist liberals crave that power. It's part of their agenda to turn free people into lab rats and cattle. Kept chattel.
Food and health care are the two ultimate needs of humans- keeping the government's hand top most on the spigot of either is a powerful tool for forcing obedience to the rich and well-connected, who implement their caste system through governments.
We should trust a government owned by Monsanto and Big Pharma to deliver universal ethical medicine and food??
Ridiculous.
Trust them to rescue the weak???
Like they rescued the American economy with globalization?
So many 'reforms', so much destruction.
These are all interesting points you make. I never thought of it from that point of view before. However, the remark you are referencing was made by Guitanguran in his response to the issue.
Sorry about the faulty quote attribution. It's too bad the 'Reply' function doesn't let you place what you're replying to in quotes.
In my opinion, when it comes to giving government full control over food and/or medicine, there's ample reason to distrust the motives of any government that collaborates with illegal narcotics smugglers and money launderers, sells arms everywhere, makes war everywhere, and operates a huge police state/prison industry that is fortified by a war on terror supported by so much officially sanctioned BS.
In the early years of Christianity, monasteries served as hospitals and hospices and provided care to the poor of a region. Sometimes, as under St. Basil of Caesarea (4th century CE), the monastery offered so much necessary to the life of the people, that archaeologists can see that the center of a city moved toward the monastery. I think it would be a good thing for Christians to remember one of the true callings of Christians to help the poor and ill. --making health insurance available to all would go a long ways toward this purpose.
I would agree we have marching orders about the poor.
Part of our ministry program at our church includes distributing food and clothing to the poor in the neighborhood, and believe me, our church is in a poor neighborhood.
Sooooo,
Would it be better for us to directly give food and clothing to that person when they show up at our door, or giving it all to the government, telling that poor person he needs to go to a government approved food and clothing center and go through a process of getting approval for food and clothing, and waiting for approval, and maybe not getting as much as he needs? The process of transferring food and clothing to the government costs time and money. Then it needs to be re-distributed to the local center, costing more time and money. Ultimately, the poor person gets less than he would coming to our door and it takes a lot longer for him to get it.
Is that crazy or what?
The government is wanting control of healthcare access and treatment much in the way of the example I just gave you.
Or to put it another way, in this day and age, the Monastery you referred to in Caesarea wouldn't have been able to function without the government involved, wouldn't have been able to offer as much help, and would have suffered delays in providing it.
Wasting resources designated to the poor would be unchristian, wouldn't it Mr. Syntax?
See Rob Warmowski's Profile
Guitanguran: Your analogy is seriously flawed. For it to be a fair comparison:
1) Your food bank would have to be in danger of being shut down by anybody. It is not, it never was and it never will be.
2) The people coming to your food bank would have to be customers of FoodCare, of which you were a branch office. They have cards that say "I get food from you" and they pay for these cards. But you have a computer connected to a corporate HQ that employs thousands of lawyers, lobbyists, marketing professionals, MBAs and CPAs whose job is to, at every turn, deny that those cards get what the cardholders thought they got. FoodCare cannot employ these expensive professionals and still provide the food they said they would.
3) As the people who came to you for this food are denied most of their food, or are told to pay for their food, they begin to starve and go broke by the millions while you shrug your shoulders. Then one day, you turn on the TV to find the news covering a protest, staged by faithful Christians, people who follow the teachings of a guy who, in a manner of speaking, wrote the book on fair treatment and mercy.
Surely these public Christians are yelling about FoodCare, you assume.
They're not. They're holding up a popular fictional book named Harry Potter and yelling about what a heresy it is.
There are still monasteries today that help the poor and provide healthcare. For example, in Greece, the monastery called Ormyllia, which is the largest Orthodox women's monastery in the world has introduced organic farming to Halkidiki (this is necessary where people use malathion as ant poison, believe me!). This will not only help with farming. It should also make a difference in the high cancer rates among farmers who are not well trained in pesticide use. They also have a public health center: http://www.cancer-network.de/cervical/cerv_ormylia.htm it is called: The Center for Public Health, Disease Prevention and Scientific Research, Panagia Philanthropini, (Our Lady Who Loves Humankind)
It does cancer prevention and research and is a center for breast cancer registry relevant to the EU. They do a tremendous job working together with the government of Greece and the European Union.
called
RickRueben said:
"If Christians want to be heard on abortion, the liberals scream, "Separation of church and state! Stay out of politics!".
But now you're urging Christians to accept that they have a special duty to get involved in this issue, and demanding they act as Christians to fix health care???
Quite a double standard."
Actually, what we non-xians object to is when xians try to legislate morality for non-xians based on their imaginary friend's rules. As this is a nation where a majority are believers, we really don't expect government that is free of xian involvement.
This issue is about helping those who do not have access to healthcare, so you're welcome to become involved (unless your god thinks that some people should have healthcare and others shouldn't).
No double standard. Just a lot of distortion from you.
JohnFromCensorNati: "...based on their imaginary friend's rules."
The existence of God does not need to be proven in order for Christian teachings to be valid.
Warmowski says that Scriptures should inform Christian views on the health care debate. Does Warmowski need to prove the existence of God in order to urge Christians to follow the Scriptures he selected?
"The existence of God does not need to be proven in order for Christian teachings to be valid."
I haven't said anything about the validity of xian values. I said I object to xians trying to make me follow their ridiculous rules by force of law. I should be able to buy beer when I go grocery shopping on Sunday (as an example of one of their least offensive, but completely arbitrary god laws).
Now that I've looked at your profile, I'm going to leave you to your Warmowski stalking.
I have a feeling that if he says black, you'll say white.
No need for me to continue to interfere with your fun, Brother Christian.
"This issue is about helping those who do not have access to healthcare,"
Fine.
I just happen to think the government taking the whole thing over is not the right way to do it.
As Margaret Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of everyone else's money.
There's never been to my knowledge a government run program that stayed on budget and met its goals in a timely manner. Or, for that matter was compassionate in its execution.
One of the things Christians are supposed to practice is wise use of their money and resources.
This ain't it.
Why that's important
Am I still helping, or not?
"Am I still helping, or not?"
I think probably not.
"One of the things Christians are supposed to practice is wise use of their money and resources."
I don't know about that, but wise use of money and resources will be of little value to much of anybody who has no health insurance when the hospital bill arrives.
I know, I know. You've got yours. F-ck everybody else. They're stupid, lazy people who are unwise with their money and resources anyway.
Like I said below, I'm seriously considering becoming a Real Christian. I can reap the benefits of claiming that and believe whatever I please. There are no rules (except for the ones imposed on others).
We're right here, voting a compassionate and capable president into office, countering misinformation about the president's initiative, and attending meetings to discuss ways to help the president's goal become a reality. We know that the heart of Jesus's message was not directed toward the specifics of universal health care vs the wealth of insurance companies, but rather toward universal compassion. His mandate was clear in a parable from Matthew 25: Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me...I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
And we look to the wisdom of earlier scriptures:
(Micah 6:8)He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
See Rob Warmowski's Profile
Okay, good. So the question follows: why do you guys allow your social and political pressure to be misdirected so badly? Why does the term "Christian activist" today conjure up only images of overweight, backwater abortion-clinic pickets or protests against "heretical" literature like "Harry Potter"? Where are US Christians as a group when it's time to scream about a tangible atrocity like for-profit health insurance?
Is public moralizing only deemed safe and effective when it's directed against pregnant women or against books? That's the message I'm getting when I see not one action from a single national Christian group on this issue.
"Is public moralizing only deemed safe and effective when it's directed against pregnant women or against books?"
Actually, it's often deemed safe and effective regarding anything sexual and especially homosexual. You do realize that morals are all about sex, right?
"Why does the term "Christian activist" today conjure up only images of overweight, backwater abortion-clinic pickets or protests against "heretical" literature like "Harry Potter"? Where are US Christians as a group when it's time to scream about a tangible atrocity like for-profit health insurance?"
Because except for the Christian Right, Christians try to be unassuming and to do their work anonymously. They don't do it to be identified as Christians. They do it out of love to their neighbor and their enemy and their God.
They are NOT not NOT not not not not n-o-t my social and political views. Those are fundamentalists. It is like asking *you* why do you let Sarah Palin represent your views.
My church is engaged in no public moralizing. We do have an organization called: the Orthodox Peace Fellowship, which is a peace organization. Here is a link to its website: http://incommunion.org/
I also belong to a faith based organization called: murder victims families for reconciliation. http://www.mvfr.org/
One of its goals is to abolish the death penalty. It has recently been reorganized. I became involved when it was led by Remy Cushing. I along with others submitted a statement that was used as part of an amicus brief to the Supreme Court to try to stop the execution of the mentally retarded. I also met with Sister Helen Prejean (Cf. Dead Man Walking) on related matters.
Sometimes I volunteer at the Catholic Worker's Isaiah House which is in the Santa Ana barrio in Southern California (I happen to be Orthodox btw). They house approximately 100 homeless families. Families that there are zero programs for (Arnold the Terminator...). Some people cook food for their meals. I help the little kids with their homework and help them learn to read, because their mothers are usually desperately preoccupied with trying to get food for their next meal.
I also participated in the Fellowship of Reconciliation: http://www.forusa.org/ which works for: "a world of peace, justice, and non-violence." I found out about it through the "Orthodox Peace Fellowship
I didn't realize that we needed to write a progressive Curriculum Vitae to be accepted on the left. ...
I should add,that non-faith-based, I was a community organizer in Minnesota and helped to get Paul Wellstone elected through grass roots organizing. I also helped organize the unemployed to prevent foreclosures, heat shut-offs, and get more access to health care services, in Duluth Minnesota. And I also participated in grassroots canvassing through the coalition the Minnesota Citizens group was a part of and went to Long Island and helped get conservative kook John LeBoutillier out of office.
I forgot to add the link for the Catholic Worker's Isaiah house: http://www.occatholicworker.org/movement.php
Don't you know, "In God We Trust" and "One Nation, Under God" are all they care about.
"I'm no bible scholar or expert on the life of Christ. I might just be cherry-picking here. "
You are correct, sir.
So, Je$u$ didn't care about helping the poor or healing the sick?
I was just agreeing with Mr. W that he in fact is not a Bible scholar and that he in fact is cherry picking, or as we say in the old Christianist locker room, out of context.
The reason he's not getting the response he thinks he should be getting is that in this day and age, a Christian response is not wanted. We're old hat, behind the times, out of the mainstream. Its government that's supposed to be addressing all our social ills, not religion. Forget about what Christians did about slavery or civil rights. Government is much better suited to fix this problem, not those pesky Jesus people. Next thing you know, they'll be spouting off about sin and perdition and quoting the Bible, all the time.
Mr. W and his ilk are getting exactly what they asked for...
What was that thing about rendering to Caesar?
JohnFromCensorNati: "So, Je$u$ didn't care about helping the poor or healing the sick?"
JohnFromCensorNati:: "what we non-xians object to is when xians try to legislate morality for non-xians based on their imaginary friend's rules."
How are you able to juggle that paradox?
Your first quote characterizes Jesus as real, and argues that
His teachings should be obeyed.
But the second quote argues that the rules made by 'imaginary friends' should be ignored.
You can't really harangue Christians over their adherence to Christ's teachings if you call Jesus an imaginary figure in the next breath.
Why would you ask American Christians to assist you in changing the health care system? You insist that the Founding Fathers of the country never meant for the United States to be a Christian country.
Rob Warmowski, on June 17, 2008:
"Their invention's document contains a tiny shred of language that cursory, shallow thinkers and theists always presume is proof the founders had faith in a creator.
In fact, the founders' own actions prove the direct opposite.
The founders' on-paper faith in a divine creator as invoked in the Declaration - as slight and ambiguous as the evidence is - is totally invalidated by the unarguable fact that the founders withheld those allegedly divinely-endowed rights from nonwhites and women.
If the founders really believed that the source of the rights was divine and they had faith in that divinity, wouldn't they act accordingly and carry out god's endowment? Stay out of his way?
Of course, they most certainly did not. "
End quote.
How can you call on Christians for help when you argue that America's Christianity is fraudulent?
Your quote:
"The founders on-paper faith is totally invalidated."
Do you only call the US a Christian nation when your objective is to tar Christians with a broad brush?
There really is a difference between a country that has a majority christian population and a "christian nation".
Exactly right.
Were America to declare itself a 'Christian Nation', this blog's author would be outraged, but the same author will taunt Christians with the charge that 'You're *supposed* to represent a Christian Nation!' if he thinks it can bully them into becoming his political allies.
It looks like Mr. Warmowski only wants to find Christians in his political process when it suits him, and he only wants to find Christians who fit his strict criteria. If Christians want entrance to the political process on issues like abortion or gay marriage, then the Warmowskis of the world are trying to block the entrance.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
