What Would Jesus Insure?
Joseph Loconte is a senior research fellow at the King's College in New York City and a frequent contributor to The Weekly Standard.
One of the most embittered complaints from critics of George W. Bush was his use of religious imagery to promote a domestic agenda. Religious liberals lamented that God and the Bible had been "hijacked" by Bush and his social conservative allies. Self-styled "prophets" such as Jim Wallis of Sojourners even accused the president of "idolatry" for the way he blended God-talk with his faith-based initiative to alleviate poverty.
That was then. Today, with a president who shares their political priorities, the apostles of liberalism don't seem worried about conflating the city of God and the city of man. Their religious enthusiasm is directed, for the moment, at ensuring passage of Barack Obama's health-care reform agenda. Detractors are not just mistaken, but morally debased: that's the gist of a fiery campaign led by the religious left and stoked by the president himself.
"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," Obama told religious supporters during a conference call last month. The reference, of course, was to the ninth commandment from the Decalogue. According to President Obama, the false witnesses include those who worry that a national health plan will open the flood gates to federal support for abortion. "You've heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion," Obama said. "Not true." Under this formulation, opponents of health-care reform join the sorry ranks of adulterers, thieves, murderers, and other miscreants.
A coalition of religious activists--who have just completed a "40 Days for Health Reform" campaign filled with declarations, petitions, rallies, and candle light vigils--seem to share the president's views. Groups such as the National Council of Churches (NCC) complain that reform efforts are being "victimized by narrow political interests." The NCC and nearly every leading voice of the religious left either welcome federal funding for abortion or pretend that objections are overblown. Jim Wallis, an advisor to the White House, insists that public money will not pay for abortions under the president's plan and scolds the "angry mobs" who say otherwise: "I have said that one important moral principle for the health-care debate is truth-telling." Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good likewise reject as "false" the "extreme claims" that taxpayer money will underwrite abortions. "There is absolutely no expressed funding of abortion in the bills under consideration," the organization states. "Health care reform is far too critical to be derailed by frightening hyperbole or deliberate misinformation."
Thanks to president Obama, there's plenty of hyperbole to go around. More importantly, the president's sanctimonious style--"these struggles always boil down to a contest between hope and fear"--cannot disguise his intention to use health-care reform to advance the pro-choice cause. He considers "reproductive care" to be "essential care" to be covered by his public-insurance plan. In an address to Planned Parenthood in July 2007, he assured activists that his plan would provide "all essential services, including reproductive services." Contacted afterward by the Chicago Tribune, a campaign spokesman confirmed that "reproductive services" included abortion. The president and his allies view this as a matter of conscience, as a "moral obligation" of civic-minded taxpayers.
What ought to trouble the conscience--especially the religious conscience--is the shameless dissembling about abortion funding in this debate. The legislation now moving through the House of Representatives (H.R. 3200), and backed by the White House, explicitly authorizes the government to offer coverage for all elective abortions. Yes, federally funded insurance plans would cover the cost of abortions--exactly as President Obama has promised--and thereby overturn existing prohibitions. It requires no prophetic gift to realize that a national approach to health care would enshrine federal support for abortion as a political and moral principle. The logic is unambiguous: When government subsidizes an insurance policy that includes abortion, it subsidizes abortion. And whatever government pays for, society gets more of. Only a "false witness" could claim otherwise.
Nevertheless, this is just what the latest gaggle of religious progressives are defending. Their coalition includes the United Methodist Church, the National Baptist Convention, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the United Church of Christ, and the Presbyterian Church (USA). A somewhat shadowy organization called the New Evangelicals is also on the list, alongside the Gamaliel Foundation, which got attention during last year's presidential campaign because of its radical anti-Americanism and extremist redistribution schemes.
It's one thing to underwrite the lethal use of force against the unborn as part of a nationalized health-care system. It takes a certain moxie, though, to persuade oneself that such plans warm the heart of the Almighty. Yet this is how defenders of the president's agenda, including the president himself, like to talk. Passages in the Bible about compassion, justice, and the plight of the poor are grafted into policy speeches and legislative proposals. In a recent pastoral letter, the National Council of Churches cites the parable of the Good Samaritan, who helped a stranger "in desperate need of health care." The not-so-subtle conclusion: get behind the president's plan. "Will you join us in this witness to the Christ," the letter implores, "who still brings Good News to all?"
Religious progressives are not the only ones, of course, who tend to politicize the Christian gospel: Too many conservatives, with Republican help, have played the same scandalous game. In this case, though, liberal Christians apparently need reminding that the "good news" of their historic faith--the message that still sends persecuted believers resolutely to their deaths--has nothing to do with universal health care. It is the belief that God sent his Son to die for the sins of mankind, to rise from the dead, and to offer forgiveness and life to anyone who would trust him.
What Jesus might think about government-run health care is anybody's guess. But his attitude about false prophets--"a brood of vipers"--should make the religious left just a little anxious about the righteousness of their cause.
By Joseph Loconte
Reprinted with permission from The Weekly Standard
Weekly Standard One of the most embittered complaints from critics of George W. Bush was his use of religious imagery to promote a domestic agenda. Religious liberals lamented that God and the Bible had been "hijacked" by Bush and his social conservative allies. Self-styled "prophets" such as Jim Wallis of Sojourners even accused the president of "idolatry" for the way he blended God-talk with his faith-based initiative to alleviate poverty.
That was then. Today, with a president who shares their political priorities, the apostles of liberalism don't seem worried about conflating the city of God and the city of man. Their religious enthusiasm is directed, for the moment, at ensuring passage of Barack Obama's health-care reform agenda. Detractors are not just mistaken, but morally debased: that's the gist of a fiery campaign led by the religious left and stoked by the president himself.
"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," Obama told religious supporters during a conference call last month. The reference, of course, was to the ninth commandment from the Decalogue. According to President Obama, the false witnesses include those who worry that a national health plan will open the flood gates to federal support for abortion. "You've heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion," Obama said. "Not true." Under this formulation, opponents of health-care reform join the sorry ranks of adulterers, thieves, murderers, and other miscreants.
A coalition of religious activists--who have just completed a "40 Days for Health Reform" campaign filled with declarations, petitions, rallies, and candle light vigils--seem to share the president's views. Groups such as the National Council of Churches (NCC) complain that reform efforts are being "victimized by narrow political interests." The NCC and nearly every leading voice of the religious left either welcome federal funding for abortion or pretend that objections are overblown. Jim Wallis, an advisor to the White House, insists that public money will not pay for abortions under the president's plan and scolds the "angry mobs" who say otherwise: "I have said that one important moral principle for the health-care debate is truth-telling." Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good likewise reject as "false" the "extreme claims" that taxpayer money will underwrite abortions. "There is absolutely no expressed funding of abortion in the bills under consideration," the organization states. "Health care reform is far too critical to be derailed by frightening hyperbole or deliberate misinformation."
Thanks to president Obama, there's plenty of hyperbole to go around. More importantly, the president's sanctimonious style--"these struggles always boil down to a contest between hope and fear"--cannot disguise his intention to use health-care reform to advance the pro-choice cause. He considers "reproductive care" to be "essential care" to be covered by his public-insurance plan. In an address to Planned Parenthood in July 2007, he assured activists that his plan would provide "all essential services, including reproductive services." Contacted afterward by the Chicago Tribune, a campaign spokesman confirmed that "reproductive services" included abortion. The president and his allies view this as a matter of conscience, as a "moral obligation" of civic-minded taxpayers.
What ought to trouble the conscience--especially the religious conscience--is the shameless dissembling about abortion funding in this debate. The legislation now moving through the House of Representatives (H.R. 3200), and backed by the White House, explicitly authorizes the government to offer coverage for all elective abortions. Yes, federally funded insurance plans would cover the cost of abortions--exactly as President Obama has promised--and thereby overturn existing prohibitions. It requires no prophetic gift to realize that a national approach to health care would enshrine federal support for abortion as a political and moral principle. The logic is unambiguous: When government subsidizes an insurance policy that includes abortion, it subsidizes abortion. And whatever government pays for, society gets more of. Only a "false witness" could claim otherwise.
Nevertheless, this is just what the latest gaggle of religious progressives are defending. Their coalition includes the United Methodist Church, the National Baptist Convention, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the United Church of Christ, and the Presbyterian Church (USA). A somewhat shadowy organization called the New Evangelicals is also on the list, alongside the Gamaliel Foundation, which got attention during last year's presidential campaign because of its radical anti-Americanism and extremist redistribution schemes.
It's one thing to underwrite the lethal use of force against the unborn as part of a nationalized health-care system. It takes a certain moxie, though, to persuade oneself that such plans warm the heart of the Almighty. Yet this is how defenders of the president's agenda, including the president himself, like to talk. Passages in the Bible about compassion, justice, and the plight of the poor are grafted into policy speeches and legislative proposals. In a recent pastoral letter, the National Council of Churches cites the parable of the Good Samaritan, who helped a stranger "in desperate need of health care." The not-so-subtle conclusion: get behind the president's plan. "Will you join us in this witness to the Christ," the letter implores, "who still brings Good News to all?"
Religious progressives are not the only ones, of course, who tend to politicize the Christian gospel: Too many conservatives, with Republican help, have played the same scandalous game. In this case, though, liberal Christians apparently need reminding that the "good news" of their historic faith--the message that still sends persecuted believers resolutely to their deaths--has nothing to do with universal health care. It is the belief that God sent his Son to die for the sins of mankind, to rise from the dead, and to offer forgiveness and life to anyone who would trust him.
What Jesus might think about government-run health care is anybody's guess. But his attitude about false prophets--"a brood of vipers"--should make the religious left just a little anxious about the righteousness of their cause.
By Joseph Loconte
Reprinted with permission from The Weekly Standard
And so the poor will be denied health care if in need because of this?
Anybody's guess?!?!? It's not like we have a book containing his teachings or anything.
--Matt: 8:16-17 "When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses"
--Matt 9:35 "And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people."
---Matt. 15:30 "And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus? feet; and he healed them"
---Luke 14: 13, 21 "But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind. . . So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind."
Did he charge people money? Did he make sure they didn't have pre-existing conditions? He was hailed as a great healer. He healed the bind, the sick, the lame, the dumb, and the maimed. He cared for the poor and the sick.
Paul, one of Jesus's most famous followers seemed to think that loving your fellow human was very important ---
---1 Cor. 13: 8, 13 "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. . . And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."
I have never seen a "Christian" people behave so un-Christ-like as the right-wing protesters against health care. Instead of faith, hope, and charity they have reacted with rash judgement, fear, and hate.
You can't be a civil person when the person you voted for is president. I am amazed Mr. Loconte seems to be advocating an abandonment of Christian ethics simply because he disagrees with their position.
(Not to mention completely side-stepping the fact that Jesus Christ was on of the biggest advocates for the sick and disenfranchised peoples whom would be the primary beneficiaries of the proposed health care reform plan.)
Perhaps Mr Loconte was trying to play "devil's advocate." Too bad he comes off as playing the Anti-Christ.
These acts of healing and caring for those who had a need were not done in any way by a government or any other organization. Not once did Jesus press any other person into service against their own desires to care for someone else.
Not one time did Jesus teach in any part of recorded Scripture that the responsibility for meeting the needs of others rested with any government or ruling authority to marshal the people to provide for them. He didn't even make the case, as even some "conservative Christians" do, that this duty is the role of the church.
No, read the Word of God again. And again. And again. Hopefully until you truly understand.
Jesus is speaking not to government, not to churches, not to any other organization, but to YOU. If you are going to live out the Words of Jesus then it is up to YOU to do these things.
Your attempt to bring about this "form of godliness" by forcing everyone to participate in your vision for what life should be like is not anything like what Jesus did or taught. His instructions to His students were to teach others how to do what He showed them to do. Not a one of those students ever ran for political office with the charge to remake the culture into one that looked out for the downtrodden. No, they themselves went to the downtrodden, and they themselves met those needs.
By relying on the perceived power of man to accomplish the end you are seeking, you may very well be denying the power He promised you when you believe and follow Him.
They do not want the competition that would be there if we have a public option.
Their goal is to get richer any way they can.
This is a capitalistic society in which there should be competition. The biggies also make it harder for smaller insurance companies to get a foothold because changing insurance companies can mean that pre-existing conditions are not covered. When that happens, it is too costly to change companies. Health care insurance should be as competitive as car insurance.
What would Jesus do? What comes to mind is what Senator Ted Kennedy said at Robert's funeral: He would ?see wrong and try to right it. He would see suffering and try to heal it. He would see war and try to end it.?
Point 2. But if he WERE still alive, it is virtually certain he would not be involved in the corrupt, trivial political process of today. And for the conservative claim on Jesus: HA! Based on the bible version of his life, I believe he would be 180 opposed from those hypocritical cons who only seem to care about political power and money. And their mistress or prostitute of choice, of course.
Point 1. Who cares if he dies a million years ago? The truth doesn't change.
22,000 people die each year because they do not have access to medical care. Of the industrialized nations we have the highest infant mortality rate. Our infant mortality rate is twice as high as the mortality rates of Sweden and France. Apparently Joseph LoConte would rather let babies die than to tread on the slippery slope of socialism.
I might add that if we examined the reasons women seek abortions - a lack of income and a lack of medical care might be high on the list.
A health care system that guarantees medical care for everyone would save lives. And the most cost-effective way of doing this is to provide public option - such as letting people buy insurance through Medicare. If we opened health care to everyone - and if we provided family planning services - we could drastically slash the number of abortions.
The religious right wing refused to understand that. But that's nothing new. Jesus encountered the same sort of religious hypocrites in his day and age. The pastors of right wing megachurches are simply stealing in the name of the Lord. They represent the money changers Jesus drove from the Temple - and the Bible doesn't record all the words Jesus actually used - but I'll bet they'd be pretty unprintable.
You have just entered the Twilight Zone.