Here's the thing. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council was on the Ed Show on MSNBC the other week talking about healthcare. He said the reason for FRC's opposition to the public option, and especially single-payer, is that though it's true that Christ did teach to heal the sick and help the poor, that was a mandate to Christian individuals. Or, he said something to that effect. I'm gonna have to find the transcript for you, ain't I? Well . . . later.
So anyway, I wanted to be sure I correctly understood some of the basics so I checked out FRC Action's website. Here's their list of what they support:
1.Constitutional and legal protections for life in all stages from conception to natural death.Yeah. So basically they're against gay marriage, abortion, and "assisted suicide." I'm pretty sure they promote (silent) prayer in school. Apparently they're against the estate tax (I need to say here that contrary to the title of their article that I didn't read, seeing as how the estate tax currently only applies to, like, the richest .5% of citizens who don't need it and don't usually reinvest it, it won't create jobs); they don't see the racism surrounding the healthcare debate; they're more concerned about the un/fortunate Americans who have healthcare and are at no risk of losing it than they are of those who don't have squat. Oh yeah, and God forbid an undocumented worker need medical treatment!
2.Preference in public policies for heterosexual marriage and the traditional family.
3.A strong national defense and foreign policy rooted in national interests and ideals.
4.Tax and fiscal policies that strengthen rather than weaken America's families.
5.Restoration of the constitutional balance in relations between church and state.
6.Judicial restraint and respect for the original intent of the framers of the Constitution.
7.A renewal of ethical monotheism and traditional Judeo-Christian standards of morality-the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God"-to which the founding fathers appealed in the Declaration of Independence.
Of course, as I recall, God said to treat immigrants fairly.
But anyway. I just wanna make sure I basically understand the Christian right's political position. They think the government should determine who can marry whom. They think the government should determine the choices a woman makes with her body or a terminally ill person who pain makes with their lives. They don't want federal funding supporting abortion or euthanasia. They want the government to mandate prayer in schools. Then of course there's "intelligent design" and the fact that they want to stress their myth that the writers of the Constitution meant for this to be a "Christian" nation.
Did I miss anything?
All that action by the government; but when it comes to healthcare, Jesus only gave an individual mandate.
Huh?
Mr. Perkins has a "funny" theology of the Church. The Church, per Paul's analogy of the human body is One Body, in Christ. There is no individualism, whatsoever, as a member of the Body of Christ. Thus, all injunctions are delivered to the totality of the believing community. This is why Ananias and Saphira were struck dead (somewhere in Acts, maybe chapter 6): for not sharing all they had with the community and keeping something for themselves. Kind of socialistic, eh?
ReplyDeleteAdmin issues first - Because of some confusion on my part, bloggers comment system were enabled and disqus comment system, which I prefer, was disabled. Hopefully I've fixed the problem.
ReplyDelete@ Serious Femme - Thanks for reading my blog and for your comment. Now, I don't want to be a stickler, but I'm about to be. You're right that they both dropped dead, and whenever some misogynist starts using Adam and Eve to explain why men shouldn't listen to women, I'm reminded of these two. Cause this lady followed her husband right to the graveyard.
But they died because they lied about how much they gave in relation to how much they had. They said they were giving all the proceeds from saling their home when they weren't. Keeping some of the money wasn't the issue. Lying about it was the issue. Kinda like when someone finds a $50k but only turns in $25k to the police.
That said, I completely agree with your sentiments. To the extent that every person can be their own person and have their own style, there is individualism. But, to the extent that any one person is out on their own, there is no individualism, I agree. We're all responsible for each other. Now, no one had to give anything in being a part of the Church in Acts. They just decided to. It seems to have happened organically. Right? There's nothing to suggest it's mandatory, right? But in the whole scheme of things, I absolutely agree that the teachings of Christ and the entire Bible are socialistic.
Now, let's be quite clear, right? It's not like everybody makes the same for whatever work they make or produce or whatever. So you can have extraordinarily rich people and painfully poor people in the same economic system. Right? The issue is that no one is left completely destitute whereas they have absolutely no way to provide for themselves. And exploitation is absolutely not allowed.
Right now, I'm watching the Ed Show and a cut from PBS with Sen Coburn talking about neighbors helping neighbors. To your point, what better way for neighbors to help neighbors than to use the vehicle of the government? "Eh, duh?" Sen Coburn.
Admin issues first - Because of some confusion on my part, bloggers comment system were enabled and disqus comment system, which I prefer, was disabled. Hopefully I've fixed the problem.
ReplyDelete@ Serious Femme - Thanks for reading my blog and for your comment. Now, I don't want to be a stickler, but I'm about to be. You're right that they both dropped dead, and whenever some misogynist starts using Adam and Eve to explain why men shouldn't listen to women, I'm reminded of these two. Cause this lady followed her husband right to the graveyard.
But they died because they lied about how much they gave in relation to how much they had. They said they were giving all the proceeds from saling their home when they weren't. Keeping some of the money wasn't the issue. Lying about it was the issue. Kinda like when someone finds a $50k but only turns in $25k to the police.
That said, I completely agree with your sentiments. To the extent that every person can be their own person and have their own style, there is individualism. But, to the extent that any one person is out on their own, there is no individualism, I agree. We're all responsible for each other. Now, no one had to give anything in being a part of the Church in Acts. They just decided to. It seems to have happened organically. Right? There's nothing to suggest it's mandatory, right? But in the whole scheme of things, I absolutely agree that the teachings of Christ and the entire Bible are socialistic.
Now, let's be quite clear, right? It's not like everybody makes the same for whatever work they make or produce or whatever. So you can have extraordinarily rich people and painfully poor people in the same economic system. Right? The issue is that no one is left completely destitute whereas they have absolutely no way to provide for themselves. And exploitation is absolutely not allowed.
Right now, I'm watching the Ed Show and a cut from PBS with Sen Coburn talking about neighbors helping neighbors. To your point, what better way for neighbors to help neighbors than to use the vehicle of the government? "Eh, duh?" Sen Coburn.