In our discussion of Hobby Lobby’s unChristian deceitfulness, commenter O brings up “moral voting” and says Democrats/Progressives/Liberals need “to get into that fight”:
Policy must be founded on the moral argument – an argument too often Democrats/Progressives/Liberals gloss over. Tip O’Neil spoke often of wages, benefits and unions in the language of “family values.” Clearly the Republicans/Conservatives have won the moral framework debate to define HOW to discuss issues; now it is time for Democrats/Progressives/Liberals to get into that fight [O, comment, Dakota Free Press, 2017.07.10 11:02 CDT].
…Democrats/Progressives/Liberals taking of the moral high ground is winnable in the political discussion. That might have been the path of Sanders’ rhetoric that had strong support. I think of “single-issue voters” and none of them vote policy – that single issue they attach to is always a moral issue. The ACA has become a moral discussion and as such has stymied President Trump and fellow destruction Republicans from ending that [O, comment, Dakota Free Press, 2017.07.10 21:44 CDT].
As a person of faith, I am shocked by the meanness and cruelty of the Senate health care bill. We are admonished by scripture to care for the poor, the widow, and the orphan, and Jesus tells us that as we do to “the least of these,” we do to him.
This bill is a kick in the teeth the people the Bible tells us to protect. It will increase costs for working families and take health care away from 22 million Americans, including tens of thousands of South Dakotans. The cuts in the bill to the Medicaid program will devastate the poor and rural areas of our state, and be disaster for women, tribal communities, the elderly, the disabled, and the poor. At the same time, millionaires and billionaires would receive a tax cut.
I know our congressional delegation is of Christian faith. I would encourage them to spend some more time in scripture and prayer. In my professional opinion, I do not see how a Christian in good conscience can support the present Senate bill. l pray that they see the light, repent and help defeat this cruel bill [Bill Walsh, posted to SDDP.org, 2017.07.10].
After seeing the thievery of Greenman from Hobby Lobby, the complete disregard for the women and their born and unborn children by denying healthcare, it is clear that the cult GOP is not Christian at all. I would rank them as Jack Christian, kind of like Jack Mormon but more Pagan, willing to sacrifice human beings for their god of money worship.
I think someone is misleading the flock if they believe empathy and morals will overcome the urge of our D.C. delegation to kiss up.
Tyler Schumacher
2017-07-11 13:30
I’ll give a few thoughts, not necessarily claiming them all to be my views. Some Christians prefer to take personal responsibility for the care of the needy, not just sit back and let the government do it. As memed here.
From the CBO document: “CBO and JCT estimate that, in 2018, 15 million more people would be uninsured under this legislation than under current law – primarily because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated.” (emphasis mine) It certainly increases from there, and you can argue against it, but people aren’t going to want to argue something that is being pushed in such a loaded manner. And some Christians highly value freedom (to not have insurance).
Christians might not want to tax people in an unequal manner.
For people facing bankruptcies, the argument would be that the local communities, churches, private orgs, and individuals should be how people are supported, not the government. As memed above.
For older people having higher insurance costs…I mean, it’s unfortunate, but that’s how (actual) insurance works (more risk = higher costs). The biggest problem the left is making on this issue is pretending that health insurance = health care. The argument seems to be ‘our health insurance is better than your health insurance’ when the perfect opportunity was there to argue that the general system of insurance is not good for healthcare (arguments have been made, but it wasn’t the general narrative).
In our discussion of Hobby Lobby’s unChristian deceitfulness …
As I’ve said in the Hobby Lobby discussion, my understanding is that the Obama Justice Department accused the organization of inadequate oversight, not deceitful behavior.
Bill Walsh writes:
We are admonished by scripture to care for the poor, the widow, and the orphan, and Jesus tells us that as we do to “the least of these,” we do to him.
Christ’s teachings indicate that we should care for widows, orphans and the poor using our own time and resources, not that we should use government coercion to take other people’s time and resources for those purposes.
Cory writes:
Let’s make the health care debate a moral debate. I invite Christians to offer their theological justifications …
Each member of the U.S. House and Senate promises to support and defend the Constitution when he or she takes office. When members vote to spend our tax dollars in ways the Constitution doesn’t authorize, they’re stealing them.
bearcreekbat
2017-07-12 10:06
Perhaps it comes down to the question of why people become Christians in the first place. If it is for the hope of an afterlife in heaven, then one must ask what will get a “Christian” into heaven – actions or beliefs? If all it takes is a belief that Christ is your savior, then why would we expect “Christians” to help anyone in need?
As to Kurt’s argument about using other people’s money to help the poor, it has a major flaw. Once taxpayers pay their taxes, it is no longer “other people’s money.” Tax revenue is now our money and if Christian actually thought their actions mattered, they would want to use these funds to help the neediest among us.
Tyler, private charity can’t cover all the bases. If it could, we wouldn’t need government. Besides, when Christians like Thune, Rounds, Noem, Latterell, et al. see government as a tool to carry out their Christian agenda, why would they suddenly stop when we talk about using government to carry out the agenda of helping the sick, elderly, and poor?
Similarly to Kurt: in a democracy, government is one of our resources. Why not use it to achieve the social ends to which our moral beliefs call us?
Adam
2017-07-12 12:30
In recent days, I became aware of the term Alternative Christian, and I think it’s appropriate for Republicans as they worship some different version of Christ than The Guy in the New Testament of the Bible.
Jesus never sat on a corporate board, or committee, and tried to squeeze as many people out of health care as possible… And, today, Christ is trying to help conserva-Christians realize that they are confusing/justifying their growing racism with their increasing distaste for the poor.
Alaska came up with a workable plan and Drumpfy bought into it.
jerry
2017-07-12 16:11
Great link mfi, if only South Dakota had a governor or a legislature that could do math, we could do the same thing… Just in, cult republicans are now saying they can do math..up to 20 and just ciphering pluses and minuses…Bummer, we loose again.
Bear, you know i”m not a fan of religion, but I would find a religion that is about nothing other than getting into heaven particularly unappealing, especially if the price of admission to heaven is just chanting one deity’s name. What good is such a belief system that looks only to the afterlife and loyalty to one god? Such a belief system seems to lead inevitably to the conclusion that what happens in this life doesn’t matter.
Perhaps it comes down to the question of why people become Christians in the first place. If it is for the hope of an afterlife in heaven, then one must ask what will get a “Christian” into heaven – actions or beliefs? If all it takes is a belief that Christ is your savior, then why would we expect “Christians” to help anyone in need?
Christ pointed out that even the wicked help others when they expect to get something in return. Genuine Christian love, on the other hand, is inspired by the fact that God first loved us.
As to Kurt’s argument about using other people’s money to help the poor, it has a major flaw. Once taxpayers pay their taxes, it is no longer “other people’s money.” Tax revenue is now our money …
It’s yours, mine, and other people’s.
… if Christian actually thought their actions mattered, they would want to use these funds to help the neediest among us.
The neediest among us are generally the ones who end up suffering most when coercive government intervention forcibly redistributes wealth and otherwise distorts the free market.
Cory writes:
Similarly to Kurt: in a democracy, government is one of our resources. Why not use it to achieve the social ends to which our moral beliefs call us?
But if many of our moral beliefs are wrong, we shouldn’t use any resources to achieve the social ends to which our morals direct us. That’s not a unique indictment of government or democracy.
If we are a moral people, we can use government in democracy to solve problems. If we are an immoral people, then no action—ballot initiative, legislative action, private charity—is acceptable.
But if many of our moral beliefs are wrong, we shouldn’t use any resources to achieve the social ends to which our morals direct us… If we are an immoral people, then no action—ballot initiative, legislative action, private charity—is acceptable.
After seeing the thievery of Greenman from Hobby Lobby, the complete disregard for the women and their born and unborn children by denying healthcare, it is clear that the cult GOP is not Christian at all. I would rank them as Jack Christian, kind of like Jack Mormon but more Pagan, willing to sacrifice human beings for their god of money worship.
NOem/Thune/Rounds Christians? Not even close http://khn.org/news/millions-of-kids-fall-outside-senate-plan-to-shield-disabled-from-medicaid-cuts/ When they sit in the Amen corner texting their brokers, here is what will be going on.
I think someone is misleading the flock if they believe empathy and morals will overcome the urge of our D.C. delegation to kiss up.
I’ll give a few thoughts, not necessarily claiming them all to be my views. Some Christians prefer to take personal responsibility for the care of the needy, not just sit back and let the government do it. As memed here.
From the CBO document: “CBO and JCT estimate that, in 2018, 15 million more people would be uninsured under this legislation than under current law – primarily because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated.” (emphasis mine) It certainly increases from there, and you can argue against it, but people aren’t going to want to argue something that is being pushed in such a loaded manner. And some Christians highly value freedom (to not have insurance).
Christians might not want to tax people in an unequal manner.
For people facing bankruptcies, the argument would be that the local communities, churches, private orgs, and individuals should be how people are supported, not the government. As memed above.
For older people having higher insurance costs…I mean, it’s unfortunate, but that’s how (actual) insurance works (more risk = higher costs). The biggest problem the left is making on this issue is pretending that health insurance = health care. The argument seems to be ‘our health insurance is better than your health insurance’ when the perfect opportunity was there to argue that the general system of insurance is not good for healthcare (arguments have been made, but it wasn’t the general narrative).
Cory writes:
As I’ve said in the Hobby Lobby discussion, my understanding is that the Obama Justice Department accused the organization of inadequate oversight, not deceitful behavior.
Bill Walsh writes:
Christ’s teachings indicate that we should care for widows, orphans and the poor using our own time and resources, not that we should use government coercion to take other people’s time and resources for those purposes.
Cory writes:
Each member of the U.S. House and Senate promises to support and defend the Constitution when he or she takes office. When members vote to spend our tax dollars in ways the Constitution doesn’t authorize, they’re stealing them.
Perhaps it comes down to the question of why people become Christians in the first place. If it is for the hope of an afterlife in heaven, then one must ask what will get a “Christian” into heaven – actions or beliefs? If all it takes is a belief that Christ is your savior, then why would we expect “Christians” to help anyone in need?
As to Kurt’s argument about using other people’s money to help the poor, it has a major flaw. Once taxpayers pay their taxes, it is no longer “other people’s money.” Tax revenue is now our money and if Christian actually thought their actions mattered, they would want to use these funds to help the neediest among us.
Tyler, private charity can’t cover all the bases. If it could, we wouldn’t need government. Besides, when Christians like Thune, Rounds, Noem, Latterell, et al. see government as a tool to carry out their Christian agenda, why would they suddenly stop when we talk about using government to carry out the agenda of helping the sick, elderly, and poor?
Similarly to Kurt: in a democracy, government is one of our resources. Why not use it to achieve the social ends to which our moral beliefs call us?
In recent days, I became aware of the term Alternative Christian, and I think it’s appropriate for Republicans as they worship some different version of Christ than The Guy in the New Testament of the Bible.
Jesus never sat on a corporate board, or committee, and tried to squeeze as many people out of health care as possible… And, today, Christ is trying to help conserva-Christians realize that they are confusing/justifying their growing racism with their increasing distaste for the poor.
https://www.vox.com/health-care/2017/7/12/15961644/trump-administration-saved-obamacare-alaska
Alaska came up with a workable plan and Drumpfy bought into it.
Great link mfi, if only South Dakota had a governor or a legislature that could do math, we could do the same thing… Just in, cult republicans are now saying they can do math..up to 20 and just ciphering pluses and minuses…Bummer, we loose again.
Bear, you know i”m not a fan of religion, but I would find a religion that is about nothing other than getting into heaven particularly unappealing, especially if the price of admission to heaven is just chanting one deity’s name. What good is such a belief system that looks only to the afterlife and loyalty to one god? Such a belief system seems to lead inevitably to the conclusion that what happens in this life doesn’t matter.
Adam, “Alternative Christianity”? Alt-Christ—is that like alt-Right?
If so, it makes me want to hit Ctrl+Alt-Delete.
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
Christ pointed out that even the wicked help others when they expect to get something in return. Genuine Christian love, on the other hand, is inspired by the fact that God first loved us.
It’s yours, mine, and other people’s.
The neediest among us are generally the ones who end up suffering most when coercive government intervention forcibly redistributes wealth and otherwise distorts the free market.
Cory writes:
Because many of our moral beliefs are wrong.
But if many of our moral beliefs are wrong, we shouldn’t use any resources to achieve the social ends to which our morals direct us. That’s not a unique indictment of government or democracy.
If we are a moral people, we can use government in democracy to solve problems. If we are an immoral people, then no action—ballot initiative, legislative action, private charity—is acceptable.
Cory writes:
We disagree.