I'm reposting some comments I recently left at two different blogs (Between Two Worlds, First Things: Evangel:
steve hays March 21, 2010 at 3:49 pm
A nonbinding executive order–which is trumped by judicial precedent.
Moral of the story, the Democrat party is a total loss. “Pro-life Democrat” is oxymoronic in practice. Same thing with the “conservative” Blue Dog Democrats. They all march in lock-step with the liberals.
steve hays March 22, 2010 at 10:09 am
“I guess God’s not sovereign anymore… Too bad, huh?”
Why did you bother to post a comment? Does this mean you don’t think God is sovereign anymore?
steve hays March 22, 2010 at 8:10 am
One Salient Oversight:
“As far as health care and Christians are concerned, the practice of the state taking a person’s wealth and redistributing it to the poor and punishing those who refuse can be found in Deuteronomy 24.18-22. This was when God required farmers to leave some of their produce behind so that the poor could ‘glean’ what they could from it. This command was seen in practice during the book of Ruth. You need to understand – this was NOT charity. It was a COMMAND from God. The verses in Deuteronomy that I have pointed to when taken in context quite clearly show that God expected Israel to obey his commands and those who did not were punished by the legal system that God set up (eg Deut 24.7).”
i) When passages like this refer to “aliens,” the term denotes legal immigrants.
ii) In addition: “It is noteworthy that with this statute the landowners did not harvest the entirety of their fields or groves and give a certain percentage to the local authorities or religious officials to redistribute. Rather those who qualified for this assistance actually had to go out into the fields or climb trees and work for their food,” J. Hoffmeier, The Immigration Crisis (Crossway 2009), 87.
“Can someone please help me understand how the pro-life democrat is a myth?”
Because they ally themselves with liberal Democrats who support abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, &c.
“That seems to be a wide sweeping generalization that is quite frankly untrue.”
Your sweeping denial is frankly untrue.
“However, their pro-life position does not just stop at abortion, it includes the sanctity of human life with regards to war, to poverty. to the orphan, to adoption, to the alien etc…”
As if conservative Christians ignore these issues.
steve hays March 24, 2010 at 8:57 am
“1) My statement regarding Christian democrats that I know having a robust pro-life stance which includes the sanctity of life with regards to war, to poverty, to the orphan, to adoption, and to the alien was simply to point out that it is untrue to say that a pro-life democrat is a myth.”
i) “Prolife” is an idiomatic label that refers to one’s position on abortion.
ii) I judge “prolife Democrats” by their actions, not their stump speech.
“I am currently working on a campaign for a pro-life democrat who is a passionate follower of Jesus Christ.”
i) Well, Stupak seemed to fill the bill until he betrayed the cause at the last minute.
ii) There’s not much a “prolife democrat” can do in a party dominated by abortionists. It’s not the individual position that matters, but having a working majority. If you’re consistently outvoted, then you’re in the wrong party.
“As far as your statement ‘as if conservative Christians ignore these issues’ I must say that I never said conservative Christians do ignore these issues. That being said I would say that in general the republican party has not been as responsive to these issues as the democratic party.”
Democrats aren’t genuinely responsive to these issues. They have lots of responsive rhetoric, but their policies are counterproductive.
“While I do not think that all of the social welfare programs are implemented in the best possible fashion, it is much easier to extend grace to a failed program that has the right intention behind it.”
Democrats don’t care about solutions, just symbolism.
“I have heard too many conservative talk show hosts wine and complain that government is taking their money away to help the poor and marginalized with social welfare programs and yet I do not see a robust solution being offered. In light of this, I would have to say that with regards to these social issues the democratic party has come closer to expressing the heart of God in these areas.”
You’re deceived by feel-good rhetoric. Moreover, the “poor” are not all of a kind. The Bible distinguishes between those who are poor through not fault of their own and those who are poor due to their reckless lifestyle choices.
“Also, the response of the republican party to war has been absolutely heinous and far from capturing the heart of God. ”
What I find “absolutely heinous” is Obama’s policy of attacking those who defend us while defending those who attack us.
“There has been to much a sense of superiority and pride that has been communicated.”
Are you including yourself in that indictment?
“I am not saying the democratic response is necessary the right one, but please Steve be fair in the discussions. There is already too much polarity in government today and to say flippant things like ‘the myth of the pro-life democrat’ only adds to the discord. It would be more accurate and helpful to say that you are disappointed by the response of those democrats who claim to be pro-life that are currently in congress, than to say that there is a myth to being a pro-life democrat.”
I’m not disappointed by Democrats. They’re behaving exactly as I’d expect, given their party affiliation.
And there’s nothing “flippant” in my statement. Democrats are what Democrats do.
March 23rd, 2010 | 8:06 am | #7
“Greed, Gluttony,Avarice come to mind. I don’t see too many churches lining up to help those who have had medical problems and need financial help. When was the last time that a church offered to cover the cost of a major medical procedure because the patient had lost their job and hence their insurance?”
When was the last time you offered to pay for somebody’s costly medical procedure?
The only money churches have is from donations by parishioners, most of whom are middle-class or working-class wage-earners, and many of whom are retirees on fixed incomes.
Of course, if the tax burden were lower, that would free up more disposable income to donate to Christian charity. Ever bother to consider that?
And it’s well-known that, despite the tax burden, Christians are far more generous with their disposable income than unbelievers.
March 24th, 2010 | 8:40 am | #12
“I’d love to be able to sponsor a patient. Unfortunately, my own health care costs (including premiums) last year ran about $10,000. That for me, is more than I pay in property and income tax put together. That’s why we need to do something about health care and why Collin’s list of what’s wrong with government is so hokey. If churches actually stepped up to the plate (there are some who could afford NOT to build excessive facilities) then maybe the government wouldn’t have to step in.”
You seem to think the average church has deep pockets. Where did you get that idea?
You also disregard the issue of cost containment, viz. tort reform, interstate competition, customized health care plans (where you can buy the coverage you want rather than a state mandated package).
Obamacare will increase the cost of healthcare, not decrease the cost of healthcare.