10 Feb

The Convenience Christian [Reader Post]

                                       

That’s the question posed by the creatures of The View the other day.

When it comes to giving to the poor…the Bible does tell us to pay our taxes. And the Bible does promote GIVING to the poor. But…the government TAKING money from one person to GIVE to another is not giving, it is TAKING. Jesus promotes CHARITIBABLE giving. FORCED giving is not giving at all, it is TAKING!

WWJD? Jesus would give and He would encourage others to give. He would not take what belongs to someone else and give it to another.

Unfortunately, when people, (the President, the media, etc.) talk about the Bible, they generally prove to those of us who do read the Bible, that they, in fact, do not read the Bible enough to know what they are talking about. I imagine they are counting on fooling the other folks who, like them, do not read the Bible. Sadly, putting falsehood out there, often works for them.

This came in response to Barack Obama’s religious pontification about how willing he is to pay taxes

“And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody. But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God’s command to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself.’”

And he went on:

“And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’” Obama said, noting Jewish and Islamic teachings say much the same thing.

After his Presidency is finished, Barack Obama will be one to whom very, very much is given. Bill Clinton saw his net worth skyrocket to at least $38 million since he left office. Obama can expect the same very, very much.

Let’s ignore for the moment that Obama’s charitable contributions from 2000-2004 amounted to all of 1%.

No, let’s focus on another quote of Obama’s.

“Abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do unto me.”

Those words were uttered in Saddleback church in Orange County, California, in 2008.

Barack Obama has a brother- a half brother- named George. George lives in a 6 foot by 10 foot hut outside of Nairobi. He lives on less than a dollar per month. Barack Obama made more than $7 million over the last two years.

But never mind that either.

Let’s go back in time- to a time when Barack Obama was an Illinois state Senator and examine how he dealt with the very least of his brothers.

One could easily argue that abortion surviving babies are “the very least of my brothers.”

Barack Obama took every measure to make sure they did not survive.

In 2008 when was running for President, Obama was asked when babies get human rights. He said

“… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.”

Odd. Somewhere along the line Obama was demoted, because in 2001 it wasn’t above his pay grade.

I just want to suggest … that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …

I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

Barack Obama voted four times against saving abortion surviving babies, and there is no argument.

We’ll state at the outset that Obama, along with other Democrats in the Illinois legislature, opposed the “born alive” laws every time they came up, and this is not disputed.

There were varying stories from Obama as to why he opposed the legislation.

Back in 2001, legislative transcripts show that Obama questioned one piece of the “born alive” legislation package because he said it would be struck down by the courts because it gave legal status to fetuses. In 2002, Obama discussed a different aspect of the legislation, which required a second doctor be present at abortions.

But eventually we find ourselves at the heart of the matter.

Obama said he thought that legislation was intended to make abortion more difficult to obtain, not to provide better care for the “born alive.”

In other words, the politics of abortion was more important than the least of his brothers. Obama was and still is utterly dishonest with regard to these proceedings.

Obama has said as far back as 2004 that he would have supported the federal bill and that he would have supported the Illinois versions if they had had a similar neutrality clause. The laws the full Senate voted on in 2001 and 2002 did not have such a clause, but 2003 is a different story.

There was a neutrality clause in the 2003 legislation, but Obama’s committee removed it and then he voted against it because it had been removed. From Jill Stanek:

During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:

Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade. … At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.

This was a lie on two points.

First, there was no such amendment.

Second, both definitions of “born alive” were always identical. The concluding paragraph changed in the federal version. But Obama, as chairman of the committee that vetted Illinois’ version in 2003, refused to allow an amendment rendering both concluding paragraphs identical. He also refused to call the bill and killed it.

The federal paragraph (c) actually weakened the pro-abortion position by opening the possibility of giving legal status to preborn children, the opposite of Obama’s contention:

Illinois’ paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

Federal paragraph (c): Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

At any rate, so what if stopping hospitals and abortion clinics from aborting babies alive and leaving them to die did theoretically “encroach on Roe v. Wade”?

Obama was admitting he supported infanticide if that were true.

More recently Obama has declared war on the Catholic Church, demanding the forfeit of religious freedom. Apparently this is not above Obama’s pay grade either.

Religious groups and pro-life advocates denounced a new ObamaCare mandate requiring health insurance plans to cover birth control and other “preventive care” services for women, with no co-pays. Drafted by the Institute of Medicine and announced last week by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the new requirements will take effect on or after August 1, 2012. As The New American reported last week, social conservatives, pro-life groups, and religious organizations staunchly oppose the new requirements, because they undermine family values and assail moral and spiritual beliefs among Christian denominations. Particularly of concern are FDA-approved drugs such as Ella and Plan B (the “Morning After Pill”) — misleadingly referred to as “emergency contraceptives” — which are in fact abortifacients, designed to terminate a developing baby before or after implantation into the mother’s womb.

Catholic hospitals are speaking out against ObamaCare’s new provision, as it will obligate them to cover birth control and voluntary sterilization services free of charge to their employees.

It’s so egregious that even Chris Matthews is astonished:

YouTube Preview Image

Obama then muzzled Army Chaplains who might have disagreed.

The office of the Chief of Chaplains of the U.S. Army forbade Catholic chaplains from reading, in Sunday masses, a letter about a controversial Obamacare mandate from the Catholic Church’s military archbishop. The move, which amounts to the head of Roman Catholic military chaplains calling the Obama administration un-American, will set the stage for a philosophical conflict between Catholic soldiers and their commander-in-chief.

In the forbidden letter, Archbishop Timothy Broglio encouraged Catholics in military congregations to disobey a federal government mandate — part of President Obama’s health care overhaul — requiring Catholic employers to provide health coverage that includes “sterilization , abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception.”

So what would Jesus do?

He wouldn’t support abortion, Barbara.

He wouldn’t let abortion surviving babies die, Whoopi.

He wouldn’t lie about it, Joy.

And Jesus would not be big on this selective obedience thing.

Barack Obama is a Convenience Christian. Worse, even. Obama is an abominable religious cynic. He’s a smiling visage of religious piety for the adoring lenses but once the lens caps are snapped on will in a second sacrifice religious belief on the altar of political office.

What would Jesus do?

Not this. The least of his brothers deserves better.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome, Politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Friday, February 10th, 2012 at 10:19 am
| 685 views

33 Responses to The Convenience Christian [Reader Post]

  1. Nan G says: 1

    Jesus life and sacrifice did away with a requirement that WE, as Christians, obey the Mosaic Law today.
    He did this by obeying that Law PERFECTLY.
    So, what was the Law about hurting the ”pre-born?
    Exodus 21:22-25 tells us.
    Jesus even quoted some of it as we see at Matthew 5:38.
    He also applied its basic rule as shown at Matthew 7:2.
    We are under the obligation to use Jesus as our model, and HE lived in accordance of that principle.

    BTW, as a side note….
    People on Obama’s side of this issue keep conflating the availability of birth control with funding for birth control.
    They are not the same.
    Women in America can get birth control.
    All of us can.
    Even men can.
    The government funds organizations like Planned Parenthood — that provide all birth control options…. free.
    Forcing religious organizations to pay for birth control, sterilization and abortifacients, does two things.
    FIRST is exceeds the government’s power.
    SECOND it contravenes the limitations the Bill of Rights imposes on government.
    This is not about whether women should have/can get birth control; it’s about with the government can force churches to pay for it.

    ReplyReply
  2. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 2

    When it comes to giving to the poor…the Bible does tell us to pay our taxes. And the Bible does promote GIVING to the poor. But…the government TAKING money from one person to GIVE to another is not giving, it is TAKING. Jesus promotes CHARITIBABLE giving. FORCED giving is not giving at all, it is TAKING!

    Umm, no.

    http://bible.cc/mark/12-17.htm

    Also, from Wikipedia:

    In the Roman Empire, social welfare to help the poor was enlarged by the Caesar Trajan.[4] Trajan’s program brought acclaim from many, including Pliny the Younger.[5]

    ReplyReply
  3. oil guy from Alberta says: 3

    You should see the buffet of stupidity going on at a MessNBC. This is comedy gold watching these choir types placing their ample lips on Obongo’s posterior.

    ReplyReply
  4. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 4

    Hi Alberta:

    You say:

    This is comedy gold watching these choir types placing their ample lips on Obongo’s posterior.

    You are, perhaps, referring to this? –>

    Catholic Charities USA also spoke favorably of Obama’s decision: “Catholic Charities USA welcomes the Administration’s attempt to meet the concerns of the religious community and we look forward to reviewing the final language,” the group said. “We are hopeful that this is a step in the right direction and are committed to continuing our work to ensure that our religious institutions will continue to be granted the freedom to remain faithful to our beliefs, while also being committed to providing access to quality healthcare for our 70,000 employees and their families across the country.”

    and

    We are pleased and grateful that the religious liberty and conscience protection needs of so many ministries that serve our country were appreciated enough that an early resolution of this issue was accomplished,” the Catholic Health Association said in a statement issued after Obama’s announcement.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/dionne-obama-contraception-compromise-women-white-house-does-the-right-thing/2012/02/10/gIQAcCWK4Q_blog.html

    Hi Nan, No one was ever forcing “churches” to pay for it. It never applied to churches. It did apply to church-affiliated institutions, providing mostly secular services (health care and education) and employing sizable numbers of non-Catholics. Anyway, it wasn’t these organizations paying for it; this was compensation EARNED by the employees, no less than wages, sick pay, vacation pay, 401K contributions, etc. This is the employee’s earned compensation, not some sort of gift from the employer.

    It would be no different than the Church trying to restrict the locations where employees could go on vacation (e.g. vacation pay couldn’t be used to subsidize trips to Las Vegas).

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

    ReplyReply
  5. oil guy from Alberta says: 5

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim: Too funny- you quote another choir member from the Washington Compost. I’ve been hearing Bishop Dolan issuing ” fatwas”.

    ReplyReply
  6. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 6

    Regarding abortion: The Netherlands has free love, legal drugs, nationally legal gay marriage, and FREE abortion on demand. Yet their abortion rate is 1/4 the rate of the most conservative, abortion-restricted states in the United States of America, or, rather, the abortion rates in the USA are 4 times that of the Netherlands, even though abortions aren’t free and are increasingly restricted through various legislative “hoops” which are utterly ineffective in making a dent in abortion rates.

    We could repeal Roe v Wade today, and it would hardly make a blip in the abortion curve, although it would create personal hardships, more late term abortions (travel to abortion tolerant states), and more abortion-related complications. With the institution of ObamaCare and universal availability of free contraception and related counseling, abortion rates will plummet.

    What creates demand for abortion isn’t the availability of abortion, it’s the non-availability of contraception. Or poor knowledge of how to use contraception. Who wants to go to a Planned Parenthood clinic, when that organization is vilified and often picketed? And they don’t hand out free oral contraceptives. Women should be able to get free contraceptives and free contraceptive counseling from their own doctors. Better contraception has already driven down abortion rates to close to where they were prior to Roe v Wade and, with universal free contraception, there’s no reason why US rates can’t go down to those of the Netherlands, which would prevent another 900,000 babies per year from being slaughtered, on top of the 380,000 per year which have been prevented by improved contraception available and used since 1985.

    Contraception prevents 100 fold more abortions than the sum total of all anti-abortion political actions, judge appointments, abortion restrictions, Operation Rescue picketing, gory photos of abortions, etc. etc. If you really hate abortion, then you should be 100% behind the efforts of Sibelius, Obama, etc. They are actually going to be doing something to dramatically reduce abortion rates, while all conservatives have to offer is bluster and outrage.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

    ReplyReply
  7. Aqua says: 7

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    Umm, no.

    http://bible.cc/mark/12-17.htm

    Also, from Wikipedia:

    So. Render unto Caesar unto Caesar doesn’t mean you can’t voice your opinion about how much Caesar is taxing you. And I love the way liberals slam religion every chance they get until they believe they have found a way to use Alinsky methods from scripture.
    Maybe you should read Luke Chapter 19. Then you jump on Whitehouse.gov and ask them to pay everyone back 4 times over for the times we’ve been cheated.
    And I know Catholics aren’t known for being well versed in the Bible, but I read it all the way through every year. For every verse you try to skew, I’ll find one that proves you wrong.

    ReplyReply
  8. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 8

    Hi Aqua: You’ll never find a single statement from me which has “slammed religion.” I’ve always been very pro-religion. Religious people receive numerous health benefits and live longer, as well as having the emotional and spiritual benefits.

    The meaning of render unto Caesar is completely clear.

    Sure, involve yourselves with politics, if you wish, but, at the end of the day, pay your taxes. Already at the time of Jesus, Rome had a social welfare system, which, as noted, was greatly expanded even before the Gospel of John was written.

    I was just saying that the implication that Jesus would equate taxation and wealth redistribution as “theft” is utterly wrong. In addition to the Bible, I’ve also read the writings of Pope John Paul II, and it’s entirely clear that he’d be classified as a liberal socialist, by most participants on this blog site.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

    ReplyReply
  9. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 9

    P.S. Aqua:

    Oh, c’mon (Luke citation):

    Zacchaeus was a tax collector (civil servant). But he was “wealthy.” Civil servants don’t get wealthy from their wages. In the case of Zacchaeus, the clear implication was that he was embezzling. He said that he’d pay back 4 times that which he’d stolen. It was a parable about theft and not a parable about taxes.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

    ReplyReply
  10. Nan G says: 10

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:
    Using their position in authority to enrich themselves…..does it happen here and now?
    Oh, yeah.

    D.C. Paid $800,000 In Unemployment Checks To Employed City Workers.
    OSSE bus drivers among top offenders in city unemployment fraud.
    Employed DC Workers Accused of Collecting Unemployment Benefits.
    DC accuses 130 of its own workers of fraud.

    ReplyReply
  11. Greg says: 11

    Barack Obama is a Convenience Christian. Worse, even. Obama is an abominable religious cynic. He’s a smiling visage of religious piety for the adoring lenses but once the lens caps are snapped on will in a second sacrifice religious belief on the altar of political office.

    Who is any one of us to be making public pronouncements concerning the religious sincerity of another?

    @Nan G, #1:

    Women in America can get birth control.
    All of us can.
    Even men can.
    The government funds organizations like Planned Parenthood — that provide all birth control options…. free.

    Some on the right have been working diligently at the state and national levels to promote legislation that would correct much of that, should anyone have failed to notice.

    A lot of women voters have noticed. No doubt they’ll be reminded a few times as November approaches.

    ReplyReply
  12. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 12

    Hi Nan,

    re:

    D.C. Paid $800,000 In Unemployment Checks To Employed City Workers.
    OSSE bus drivers among top offenders in city unemployment fraud.
    Employed DC Workers Accused of Collecting Unemployment Benefits.
    DC accuses 130 of its own workers of fraud.

    I’m with Jesus on this one. Make them pay it back, 4-fold. The only difference between this and the parable quoted by Aqua is that Zacchaeus was a wealthy thief and these thieves were middle class thieves. So maybe, if Zacchaeus has to pay it back 4-fold, perhaps these thieves should have to pay it back 2-fold, in addition, perhaps, to some time behind bars.

    – LW/HB

    ReplyReply
  13. Aqua says: 13

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:
    So let me get this straight. Jesus Christ approved of the Roman Empire? He was so happy with their social welfare programs that He told his followers to happily contribute to said empire to further their social programs? Do I have this straight?

    ReplyReply
  14. Aqua says: 14

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    Zacchaeus was a tax collector (civil servant). But he was “wealthy.” Civil servants don’t get wealthy from their wages.

    Bhahahahaha!
    Title: As Americans get Poorer, Members of Congress get Richer
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/as-americans-get-poorer-members-of-congress-get-richer/
    Senator Bachus being Investigated for Insider Trading
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rep-bachus-faces-insider-trading-investigation/2012/02/09/gIQA21Ui2Q_story.html?wprss=
    Nancy Pelosi Insider Trading on Visa IPO
    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1115/Did-Nancy-Pelosi-profit-from-Visa-stock-purchases

    I could go on, and on, and on. But I’m about to go have dinner with my wife and son. By the way, you’ll notice I have both parties there Larry. I’m not talking about party here, I’m talking about the federal government…..the tax collectors.

    ReplyReply
  15. Tom says: 15

    Why are there two FA posts in a row showing Obama standing in front of a cross? is that supposed to be “ironic” because he’s secretly a Hindu?

    ReplyReply
  16. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 16

    Hi Aqua (#13):

    Don’t put words into my mouth (or into the mouth of Jesus). I never said that. I do take note of the fact that Jesus admonished his followers to pay their taxes and did not preach against government programs to help the poor and less fortunate, even though such programs existed during his ministry. Neither did his followers in the early church preach against such programs.

    Let me ask you something, since you are asking me my opinion of what Jesus would think about governments and their governance. Would Jesus approve of Medicare? Would he approve of Social Security? Would he approve of Food Stamps or aid to families with dependent children?

    These are all just variations on the old, cliched theme: what would Jesus do?

    I don’t know the answers to the above; all I know is that He advised us to pay our taxes and to be personally generous and kind to the poor. He did not preach against the government using our taxes to help the less fortunate.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

    ReplyReply
  17. Nan G says: 17

    @Aqua: You make a great point, Aqua.
    Jesus did NOT ”approve” of the Roman government nor of any human government.
    He only approved of God’s Kingdom as opposed to all human governments.
    He echoed the words of one of the Hebrew prophets who wrote that, to their God, the nations are merely like the leftover drops from a bucket, or like the dust on the scales….in other words of no account whatsoever.
    The warning to his followers to be obedient to man-made governments was only so those Christians might not be imprisoned, so they would be free to preach and teach and live peaceably with all men.
    When Jesus told his followers to pay back to Caesar those things made in Caesar’s image he also admonished them to pay back to God the thing they have which is made in God’s own image, namely themselves.
    All through history man-made governments have tried to cross that line and insist their subjects give God’s things to themselves.
    Christians have and will gone to prison or even to the lion’s in the arena rather than obey the government that insists on that.

    ReplyReply
  18. Tercel says: 18

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim: Just because a Faith based organization runs a soup kitchen or a hospital does not make it secular. It is a biblial admonishment to feed the poor and tend to the sick. It is because of my faith that I give to charity and serve at a food bank and help my neighbor. It is not in addition to my faith.

    Biblically, I don’t think it is theologically sound that if you pay your taxes, you will be credited with giving to the poor, tending the sick and visiting the prisnor. I think biblically, government is God-ordained to keep the peace so that you will be free to give to the poor, tend to the sick and visit the prisnor. I don’t think paying for a proxy to do your service will earn you jewels in your crown. Would be nice though wouldn’t it if all I had to was pay my taxes and consider myself “good”.

    ReplyReply
  19. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 19

    Hi Tercel:

    Just because a Faith based organization runs a soup kitchen or a hospital does not make it secular. It is a biblial admonishment to feed the poor and tend to the sick. It is because of my faith that I give to charity and serve at a food bank and help my neighbor. It is not in addition to my faith.

    Biblically, I don’t think it is theologically sound that if you pay your taxes, you will be credited with giving to the poor, tending the sick and visiting the prisnor.

    Number one, I never said or implied (nor believed) that payment of taxes relieved one of responsibility to personally give of oneself in the assistance of the less fortunate. All I said was that when government collects taxes to provide social welfare this does not constitute “theft.” I supported this by noting the admonition of Jesus to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” in the context of the fact that “Caesar,” at the time, had social welfare programs in place.

    Secondly, a small charity or soup kitchen directly run by a church is not “secular,” but the services provided by a large Catholic hospital or university are, indeed, “secular” services and not religious services.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

    ReplyReply
  20. Wm T Sherman says: 20

    Larry’s all over this thread. The backlash is making him nervous. Face it, Larry: your boyfriend went too far. Even secular people like me see the problem: the mandate violates the First Amendment.

    The Constitution is either the law of the land or it isn’t. This is another attempt to chip away at it. They never stop.

    Larry is happy to participate in misdirecting away from the real issue with a discussion about what Jesus would have done. It’s irrelevant.

    So have you seen Obama’s ‘solution,’ Larry? He’s come up with yet another new Executive Branch mandate that now requires religious groups to contract with insurance companies to provide contraception and abortion products for free. He’s losing it.

    ReplyReply
  21. Nan G says: 21

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:
    You wrote:
    I supported this by noting the admonition of Jesus to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” in the context of the fact that “Caesar,” at the time, had social welfare programs in place.

    Larry, I think you misunderstand what Jesus meant when he said, “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”
    The MONEY was what Jesus was referring to as being in Caesar’s image.
    To this day MONEY is coined in the various images of the government, its leaders, buildings, maps, flags, etc.
    So MONEY can be given to the government when the government demands it.

    What the government chooses to do with that revenue from taxed money is their choice, nothing to do with God, Jesus, Christians or even regular subjects of that government.

    The rulers decide.
    The mere fact that in Rome, as now, a human government chose to take care of some of the poor to whatever extent is beside the point.
    As easily as a government might give away bread, it can stop doing so and the Christian is STILL under obligation to pay tax.

    ReplyReply
  22. Wm T Sherman says: 22

    “Secular services.” Ponder that one for a while, people.

    ReplyReply
  23. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 23

    P.S. What I predict next is a backlash — against the Bishops. The editorial below nicely summarizes what I predict will be the way that this is ultimately interpreted. The Bishops at first launched a blitzkrieg — angry sermons from the pulpit. Two days after the HHS announcement, I went to mass at my local parish church and the Homily began as follows:

    “This President has declared war on the Catholic Church. It’s the same thing that Adolph Hitler did.” I quietly got up, walked out, went to the Church’s website, and sent in a mild note of protest, on the comments/questions page. A couple of days later, I received a very nice reply from the pastor (head priest), saying that he agreed the wording (homily given by a senior priest, not the pastor) was inappropriate.

    Then I read news stories about how every Catholic Church in Florida (etc.) was giving similar homilies (hopefully without the unfortunate comparison of Barack Obama to Hitler).

    The reality, when all the dust settles, was quite something else.

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/views/os-ed-bill-press-020912-20120210,0,1701470.column

    We’ll see how this plays out and how it is ultimately viewed. What I think is that it was the Bishops (and Mitt Romney, et al) who shot themselves in the foot, and not the Obama administration.

    P.S. Wm T: Yes, secular services — like treatment for heart disease, cancer, diabetes, gun shot wounds, bipolar disorder, childbirth, plastic surgery, economics, political science, biochemistry, molecular biology, English, history, engineering, and, of course, football. The sorts of things that go on at hospitals and universities, to which the HHS regulations were directed.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

    ReplyReply
  24. ONE thing come to my mind; JESUS SAID; LET THE LITTLE CHILDREN COME TO ME,
    that is telling a lot, even that there was no pill no abortion, and why now? when the braves spill their blood,
    who will replace them? surely not the haters of AMERICA, BUT OBAMA WANT MORE ABORTION IN AMERICA, this is confusing is in it?
    if a PRESIDENT care for AMERICA, HE WOULD MAKE SURE TO REPLACE THE BRAVES WITH REAL ROOTED AMERICANS TO CONTINUE THE BREED OF THOSE BRAVEST, TO MAKE SURE THAT AMERICA DOESN’T DIE SUBMERGED BY FOREIGNERS WHO WILL NOT CARE ENOUGH TO PRESERVE AMERICA, LIKE THE PATRIOTS OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY, THE CONSERVATIVES OF AMERICA LOVE THEIR AMERICA ABOVE ALL,
    ARE THINKING OF KEEPING AMERICA GENUINELY AS THE FOUNDERS DESIGNED IT SO WISELY.
    AND THEY GOT IT RIGHT ON,

    ReplyReply
  25. Nan G says: 25

    Lefties, like Obama and his petty unionized bureaucrats have strained the gnat and swallowed the camel.*
    Rare, Endangered young whooping cranes will not finish their necessary migration this year, probably dooming them.
    And why?
    Because Obama’s unionized minions stalled their training plane in Red Tape.
    I guess the Real Poor don’t matter.
    Only the salaries, pensions and seniority in paper-pushing jobs matter.
    http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120210/NEWS01/120210027/Whooping-cranes-came-through-TN-end-migration-training-early?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs

    *Matthew 23:23-25

    English Standard Version (ESV)

    23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

    25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.

    ReplyReply
  26. Nan G
    you are a super human being,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  27. Aqua says: 27

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    Don’t put words into my mouth (or into the mouth of Jesus).

    Really? You give us scripture where Jesus tells us to pay our taxes, and couple it with the Roman Empire’s social program, thereby implying that Christ wants us to pay our taxes for the same reason. I didn’t put words in you mouth, you are the one that coupled the two.

    Let me ask you something, since you are asking me my opinion of what Jesus would think about governments and their governance. Would Jesus approve of Medicare? Would he approve of Social Security? Would he approve of Food Stamps or aid to families with dependent children?

    Governments and governance. I think I know where you are going with this one. The Bible basically teaches that it is the role of government to provide for the defense of its people. I know you can cite Romans 13, 1Peter 2, and some others that say we should subject ourselves to authority. I would argue that I know of no one on this board that does not.
    Medicare, Social Security, Food Stamps and the rest? Jesus and the Bible tell us that we should help the poor. If you are under the impression that Christ are the Bible would advocate government redistribution of wealth, I would like to see where you find that in the Bible. Help for the poor should be provided at the local level, not from some massive government program. Through government programs, exactly how am I helping the poor? I have no idea where the money goes. Instead, money is taken from me and spent in ways I have no control over. That is not charity. I do not believe Jesus would approve of any of these. I’ll leave Social Security out of it, because that is something entirely different. As for the rest, promoting these programs does something the Bible says shouldn’t happen, Deuteronomy 15:7.
    I know you will say money is likewise taken from you and spent on wars you don’t care for. That is a valid argument. However, national security is the primary reason we have a federal government. It is the reason for our Constitution and the formation of the United States. To provide for the common defense. The preamble and the entire Constitution is written in support of uniting the several States. “Provide for the general welfare” refers to the States, not the people.
    I give as much as I can to charity, just as I’m sure you and the other people on this board do. That is the role of Christians or other religions that believe the same thing. It is not the role of our federal government but our communities.

    ReplyReply
  28. Aqua
    you are right on, how did the poor survived in the old times, there was none of GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION and no agency, no ENTITLEMENTS, NO GREEN GROUPS, NO ANIMALS PROTECTION GROUPS THE PEOPLE where taking care of their own streets enemies themselves, and it worked well,
    the poor where taken care of and finding work, the problems where resolved on animal treatment with dignity, the bad duds where taken out by the whole small town, there was a knowledge of what was right or wrong, they all survived, rich got richer employed more poor, the poor got help by whole community, the religion was very good in helping the poor, helping also to keep GOD IN THE HEART
    OF THE GOOD PEOPLE working hard to the good of all, they where not centered only of them selves,
    the bible was read to the children and they learned of the 10 COMMANDS AS YOUNG AS THEY BEGAN TO TALK,
    the religious leaders where respected and well received…
    yes HOW DID those people of before today SURVIVED?

    ReplyReply
  29. Nan G says: 29

    Another Biblical admonition,

    “They sow the wind,
    And reap the whirlwind.”

    Hosea 8:7.

    So, what has Obama reaped?
    White evangelical Protestant support for the GOP has grown to 70 percent today;

    80 percent of Mormons now say they identify with or lean toward the Republican Party;

    White mainline Protestants favor the GOP by a 12-point margin;

    White non-Hispanic Catholics now give Republicans a seven-point advantage;

    Even Jewish voters – traditionally one of the strongest Democratic constituencies – have moved noticeably in the Republican direction.

    http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Trends-in-Party-Identification-of-Religious-Groups.aspx

    And it is only going to get worse for Obama.
    He may have just cost himself, the Senate and the House and Dem victories.

    Remember his promise to cut the deficit in half in four years?
    Failed that, too, according to his own numbers.

    Has he even got a leg to stand on?

    ReplyReply
  30. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 30

    Hi Aqua and Nan, Just want to briefly say that I appreciate your thoughtful engagement on this particular thread.

    I’m curious, Aqua, are you a swimmer, or what?

    – LW/HB

    ReplyReply
  31. Aqua says: 31

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:
    I’m curious, Aqua, are you a swimmer, or what?
    Master SCUBA diver. You can either become a master diver or a dive master. If you become a dive master, you usually want to become an instructor. With both certifications you must carry insurance. Even if you are on vacation, diving with a group of people, or on a dive boat, and something goes wrong, you can be sued. So you have to have insurance. I have no interest in teaching, so I went the master diver route.
    I do swim though. I have a pool that love and a swim belt, because it isn’t a lap pool.

    ReplyReply
  32. Aqua says: 32

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:
    By the way, and this is way off topic, I love my doctor. He’s from Pakistan, so I’m reasonably sure he’s Muslim. I’ve never asked and really don’t care. He knows I’m Catholic because we’ve discussed my diet many times and he knows the only time I don’t eat meat is on Fridays during Lent, (which is something I have tried to change). He has been my doctor for almost 10 years. He read a bunch of books on dive physiology and took a class because of me. I’m his only patient that dives. The Northridge quake pushed something into the air that caused me to start having asthma attacks, which I suffer rarely in Georgia. And I have some ear conditions from diving. I don’t know how everyone else feels about their doctor, but mine kicks butt. If for some reason my insurance no longer lists him as a provider, I will pay out of pocket to keep him.

    ReplyReply
  33. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 33

    Hi Aqua: You are a most interesting person. My favorite TV show, growing up, was Sea Hunt, with Lloyd Bridges. I begged my mother to let me take lessons, … alas. I’ve only done SCUBA once (off Catalina Island — kelp forest, garibaldi fish), though I’ve done a little bit of free diving/snorkling. My family is three generations of competitive swimmers, though. My Dad set a world masters record in the 200 meter backstroke, long course (age 95-99; he’s now 98 and still swims an hour a day — Swim or die, goes the saying). My older daughter swam the English Channel and was the 31st fastest swimmer in history (male or female — 8 hours 33 minutes) out of about 1500 who have done it. I swam in college, but talent seems to skip generations (I’m a better runner). But my wife and I still do lap swimming 3X per week.

    Have you seen the case of the American who got married, took his wife on a honeymoon SCUBA diving in Queensland, Australia, allegedly held her under water to drown her to collect insurance, pleaded guilty to manslaughter, served 18 months, and is now being charged with first degree murder in the USA?

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/queensland-scuba-dive-murder-trial-to-begin-in-us/story-e6frf7lf-1226269855095

    When my father-in-laws urologists wanted to whack out his prostate, I flew him out to CA to have radioactive iridium wire treatment by an absolutely wonderful Syrian radiation oncologist named Nisar Syed. This was a much less morbid procedure and my father in law never had a recurrence in the remaining 12 years of his life. My father is Jewish and he was referred to an Arab MD and wondered if this would be a problem. I assured him that he’d receive excellent care (which he did). The Fort Hood army psychiatrist/terrorist was an extreme outlier. Most Muslim MDs work exceptionally hard to earn the esteem of their colleagues and patients, in my experience.

    I was an expert witness in a (now famous) case of state judicial injustice against a superb Pakistani oncologist. There is a website devoted to the cause of correcting the extreme injustice (case is pending appeal). http://friendsofdrdara.com/tag/parvez-dara/ My “take” on the case appears here.

    – Larry W/HB

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>