Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Opposition to Health-care Reform Revives Christian Right


Midnight Judges

Recommended Posts

Man, half the time it seems like the Christian right only seems to rally behind causes that aren't very Christian.

Half?

I find it amazing that the so called "Christian" Right spends almost all it's time talking about things that aren't even central themes in the bible. Abortion and Homosexuality aren't the big time sins we are all warned about and yet it takes up 99.9% of the largest supposedly Christian movements time and energy.

Where do they stand on greed for instance? Something that the bible spends a great deal of time covering? Ever heard them get all energized about that?

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Half?

I find it amazing that the so called "Christian" Right spends almost all it's time talking about things that aren't even central themes in the bible. Abortion and Homosexuality aren't the big time sins we are all warned about and yet it takes up 99.9% of the largest supposedly Christian movements time and energy.

Where do they stand on greed for instance? Something that the bible spends a great deal of time covering? Ever heard them get all energized about that?

No.

One thing the "Christian Right" did very well was reduce morality to two issues. I will say that those two issues are important issues, but they are not the only issues nor are they the most important issues. I find it ironic that the "Christian Right" seems to completely forget the major call from the prophets is to care for the orphan, the widow and the sojourner (stranger, alien) in the land. Even more is that the prophets were not prophesying against other nations, no they were preaching against the sin of Israel. Yet the "Christian Right" spends its time preaching against the sin of others all the while ignoring its own sins. Where is the call for helping the orphan, the widow and the alien in our land from the "Christian Right"? Their call is, "pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get a job", and "build a wall on the border to keep the aliens out". What happened is that the "Christian Right" co-opted the politics of the GOP and the two blended so much that after awhile it became impossible for them to tell the difference anymore, and they lost their ability to speak truth to power, because they were too interested in the power that they had to gain.

*edit: disclaimer: When I say "Christian Right" I am referring to the leadership, I know that there are many conservatives who may identify with the "Christian Right" and take offense at what I've written, but my comments are not directed to them, but instead their leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it amazing that as far as I can tell, not one actual member of the religious right has actually participated in this thread, at least as far as I can remember.

There are several folks here that I would consider to be both Christian and right-wing. I am not sure, though, if that makes them a part of the "Christian Right" or not. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conservatives and Republicans do not have the votes to stop this. All they can do is issue the warnings about what will result from the program.

Oh - you mean those hysterical warnings such as "death panels"? "Obama lies, grandma dies"?

We better stock up on KY because what they are about to ram up our collective behind is going to be painful.

That's what many of us had already thought by 2004, after the war spending, Bush Tax cuts, the Patriot Act, domestic malaise, etc.

I forget: the US was in fine shape until Obama won, right?

Unfortunately the only thing that conservatives have are the ability to say "told you so" when this program becomes as bankrupt as Social Security and Medicare and the way to "save" it is to cut benefits.

O.K., then how come conservatives suddenly support Medicare when they are in front of the home town or elderly audiences? Is it possible that some people are talking out of both sides of their mouths?

The Government subsidized program will have an unfair edge on the "competition" from free enterprise as they will be subsidized.

That's an often repeated fear, and I just don't think it is true. Any public option would have to be created which offers similar coverage and costs to private plans. And not only that, but the reimbursement rate has to be at least equal to Medicare, I would think. And speaking of Medicare, it already exists alongside a private system.

We heard the same fears 40+ years ago about Medicare: "It's going to lead to socialized medicine."

That never happened.

But here we are, once again, hearing the same old tired fear-mongering repeated by people, as if they have no idea that this line of attack has been used for every health care reform effort.

The Liberals have it right in one regard, when you rob from Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul. We are creating a nation of "Pauls" The liberal playbook is working much to the detriment of the nation as a whole.

"The liberal playbook"? What is that? You do realize that this is a liberal democracy, right?

We've had supply-side economics, supported by Republicans, which have lead to "trickle-down" tax breaks. Tax breaks which have added to the national debt. and which will have to be paid back by taxpayers who barely benefited from these tax breaks. Tax breaks which largely benefited the upper percentile of wealth holders.

When the gap between the rich and the poor have accelerated during this decade, then, yes, I would say that Peter has been robbing from Paul.

Upward wealth redistribution seems to be working quite well, it would seem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said it was one ideology. However, today it is pretty common for marxists to call themselves progressives & liberals. Also, people who think they have a liberal political ideology but routinely support marxist political agendas are pretty common as well.

Marxists didn't call themselves liberals, because liberals are/were seen as capitalists -- they are not the same ideology. Well, except for those people who don't bother to research this subject.

And Marxists considered themselves to be progressive, but that is different then the American Progressive movement.

What is this "marxist political agendas" of which you speak?

People anything and everything Marxist without knowing what that term means.

Yes they provide funding and medical supplies to healthcare clinics in the US and around the World.

Who is "they"? What specific organizations, and how many conservatives donate to them?

They get private and public funding. So what does that prove?

It's your side of the aisle that chants, "government out of health care" YOU tell me what that means? If the federal government does not match state funds for these programs, then costs will be cut. Who is going to pick up the slack? How many right-wing services fun free clinics or hospitals?

Then where does the vast majority of funds donated by faith based orgs come from since the religious left is a small minority?

The "left" isn't a small minority, and leftists of all sort donate both money and volunteer time to organizations.

Especially left-leaning Christians who believe in social justice who are considered one of the main progressive forces behind secular community organizations. This includes Catholics who donate millions of dollars to such organizations.

http://www.piconetwork.org/news-media/news/archive?id=0283

PICO statement on Senate SCHIP plan

It is a good example, except the PICO National Network is a progressive religious organization. It isn't conservative, but a moderate liberal faith-based organization. That is why they also support the current health care reform efforts.

http://www.piconetwork.org/news-media/coverage?id=0215

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/liberal-religious-groups-back-health-care-reform

SCHIP was opposed by many Republicans and conservatives. Do you remember when Michelle Malkin stalked that 12-year old kid who was receiving SCHIP in Maryland?

No, I think it has a lot to do with their tax dollars possibly funding medical policies and procedures they personally believe are morally wrong.

I didn't think the Iraq war was morally right, but billions of our tax payer dollars were sent there. Of course, years past, I would have been considered a "traitor" for such a sentiment.

I guess my moral imperative is irrelevant, eh?

You finished yet?

That's all you have to say? So basically you are unable to defend the hypocrisy that I just demonstrated?

I guess when there is no defense for it, what can you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...