"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

Senator Blanche Lincoln's Biggest Re-Election Hurdle is David Sanders, Not Her Vote on Health Care Reform

This past Saturday the New York Times ran a sympathetic article about Arkansas Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln and the vicious radio and print attacks against her in her home state of Arkansas. The ads "take Lincoln to task for voting to allow the Senate debate on health care legislation to proceed and voting 'against our values' on abortion." The New York Times postulates that Senator Lincoln is in for a rough political fight as she attempts to be re-elected in 2010. Some are calling this Senatorial race in Arkansas the most important election in the United States in 2010.

However, the largest hurdle for Lincoln's re-election to the Senate in 2010, at least in my opinion, is not her fateful vote on health care. Her greatest obstacle comes in the form of a politically astute, well connected, former prizewinning columnist--a Southern Baptist named David Sanders. David Sanders? Yep. He agreed last week to become the campaign manager for Stanley Reed in Reed's attempt to obtain Lincoln's Senate seat. In my estimation, Stanley Reed, a man with character, financial means, and genuine conservative intellectualism will defeat the other seven Republican candidates in the May primary and will then face Lincoln in the general election in November 2010. But it will be David Sanders who will make it happen. I've seen him at work. From his office in Little Rock, David will run Reed's campaign with the spirit of a dove but the wisdom of a serpent--that's a compliment for those of you who don't know it comes from Jesus' words to His disciples (Matthew 10:16).

A couple of columnists have questioned David's integrity for leaving his job with Stephens Media after writing columns that questioned Lincoln's ability to represent the Arkansas people, and then closing out his column extolling the exciting possibilities of newcomer Stanley Reed. Those of us who know David Sanders personally laugh at such questions regarding his integrity. David's the kind of person who tells you what he thinks, regardless of how it affects him personally, and what he thinks resonates with intellectual conservatives like Reed and the Republicans of Arkansas. I am friends with Southern Baptists who make their living in the political world--men and women from both sides of the aisle. David Sanders is a man who is making a difference. As soon as the kids are grown, I look forward to David and Becca being in the Governor's Mansion themselves in Arkansas. Until then, the recepient of his political acumen is Stanley Reed.

The 2010 Senate race in Arkansas is going to be a humdinger.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

269 comments:

1 – 200 of 269   Newer›   Newest»
Thy Peace said...

NYT > Senator Cements Role at Heart of Debate.
“I’m thinking about the 450,000 Arkansans who have no health insurance,” she said as she lent her support to an initial procedural step in the most closely watched floor speech of the day. “I’m not thinking about my re-election, the legacy of a president or whether Democrats or Republicans are going to be able to claim victory in winning this debate.”
...
Some Democrats and other observers say they believe Mrs. Lincoln can make a case that her central role in the debate is a positive development in a state where people lack health insurance at a higher rate than the national average. The Democrats’ bill would offer subsidies to low- and moderate-income people to help them buy insurance
.

Also, please check Google Labs Living Stories, for series on The Struggle Over Health Care and Washington Tackles Health Care Reform.

In the end, Senator Blanche Lincoln might lose the election, but ALL the people of Arkansas would be better served by having health insurance.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

2010 is going to be the best year of my life--to see Republicans take back both houses from the baby-killing socialist democrats!

I cleaned and oiled my Marlin 336CS .30/30 tonight. Not sure what that has to do with anything other than it feels good to be a guns and religion kinda guy. :)

K

Liam Madden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Liam Madden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Liam Madden said...

Wade,

I dont' often post to disagree with you, and in doing so now, I do so only in a spirit of brother- hood and cordially.

To get to the heart of the matter: Don't you think that extending healthcare and insurance coverage to many who do not have it is a goal of which our Lord Jesus approves?--He who was a healer and went against Pharisaic opposition in order heal the sick and help those in need. Jesus recognized the sickness of Pharisaic legalism that pretends to a public appearance of righteousness but won't life a finger to actually help the sick.

I think that conservatives and Republicans that use the single issue--abortion--as a shibboleth to determine which candidates they will support or oppose, while they (the conservatives) actively oppose healthcare reform and protect the greedy practices of insurance companies fall short of the gospel. Abortion was not unknown in the ancient world, yet never once in his preaching do we hear the Lord Jesus preach against abortion. We do have many examples of Jesus chastising the Pharisees for not caring for the sick or the injured.

It's strange that you who did so much to defend Dr. Sheri Klouda would celebrate the idea of conservative attack dogs being unleashed on this lady senator whose humanitarian goals and efforts to serve her constituents well are not in question. If the men you champion succeed in smearing her or bloodying her so that she loses the election, I don't see much to celebrate.

Please watch this entire clip of Republican men being extremely rude to a number of distinguished congressional women properly elected to serve their constituents. The men simply do not even want to allow the women to speak, so they keep interrupting them and shouting them down.

Not only is this not the way that I believe our democracy is supposed to work, I feel ashamed when I see men (some of them who probably even consider themselves to be Christians) behaving as these men are doing. I hope that as a Christian man, you do not approve of this kind of behavior:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMdlcnK_MI4

Steve said...

We could simply buy health insurance for the 11% of Americans who don't have it that will supposedly be "helped" by this bill at a much lower cost than the trillions this government takeover bill is expected to cost - even IF we had the money to spend.

Of course, the object was never to help poor people - it is the most incredible assumption of power by our federal government ever contemplated. The aides to Franklin Roosevelt who realized that all their spending did practically nothing for the country must be spinning in their graves.

When handwritten warnings of what this massive bill will do are even being posted in SEIU union meeting areas, you have to have hope that this horrid law will fail and that what shreds of American freedom to choose in the medical field still exist will live to breathe another day.

Rex Ray said...

Is the following funny or sad?

The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long,
building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands
to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table
filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, we shall overcome. Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ants food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles
around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle,
once prosperous and once peaceful, neighborhood.

The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.


MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2010.

marry said...

Blogs are so informative where we get lots of information on any topic. Nice job keep it up!!
_____________________________

PhD Dissertation

Rex Ray said...

RECESSION
When your neighbor looses his job.

DEPRESSION
Whey you loose your job.

RECOVERY
When Obama looses his.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Mr. Blog Administrator?

I OBJECT to the comment by Mr. Madden and ask for unanimous consent that it be stricken from the record as it is hate speech. Killing is a form of hate, and this gentleman seems to enjoy the slaughter of innocent fetuses.

Mr. Blog Administrator,

I rise in support of the objections made in the US House of Representatives by the only party to stand up for the atrocities being push by the liberal agenda.

Mr. Blog Administrator,

I object to the name of my Savior being invoked to support a foolish health care bill that's goal is NOT to give health care to all. Heath Care is NOT a God given right. The Body of Christ should support Heath Care for all only in so far as it is fiscally responsible.

Mr. Blog Administrator,

I move for the censure of Mr. Madden, I second that motion, and I call for the vote.

Anyone who is a fetus killing supporter, while he may be a member of the Body, has lost his right to speak at the table of the sane.


~The Right Honorable Gentleman from Missouri

Christiane said...

An evangelical wrote this:

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/imonk-101-why-do-they-hate-us

John Wallace said...

Liam, I respectfully disagree with your view that the Republican representatives were being rude. As I saw it, it was the chair who seemed to be ignoring the rules of precedence.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Glenn said...

While I share your interest in politics in both Arkansas and Oklahoma, I believe there is a big difference in the two states. Believe it or not, Arkansans actually think before they vote for people and just not the most right wing republican who has the most guns in his safe.

Wade Burleson said...

Liam,

I intentionally did not editorialize on Lincoln's vote to debate health care. You ask a direct question so I'll answer:

I think churches, individuals and charities should be in the business of caring for the poor. I do not believe that is government's role.

You asked.

:)

Liam Madden said...

Hey guys, I'm co-leading our church's fifth volunteer medical team to the north of Thailand in March of 2010. Please pray for our team. The doctors from our church usually treat about 80 patients a day, mostly women and children. They will see about 250 patients in all during our one week trip.

You know fellows, I worked in the health insurance industry for several years while going through college, and later I worked in a university hospital where I saw indigents waiting all day to get seen by a doctor. Working with the refugee ministry at my church, I have driven some Burmese refugees down to Grady Hospital and sat with them all day while they were waiting to get seen by a doctor. Sometimes, they waited all day and never got seen and had to come back the next day and start the waiting all over again.

Fellows, we've got a healthcare crisis in this country. If you knew me, you would never call me a fetus killer.

If you look at Jesus behavior, I believe we can agree that He thought healthcare is a right. Else why did he heal every sick person that he ever met or touched?
The Lord Jesus also said, "If you did not do it for the least of these, you did not do it unto me."

Wade Burleson said...

Liam,

Will pray for you.

You, sir, are doing the real work of health care.

wade

Wade Burleson said...

And, though philosophically I cannot apologize for others, let me at least say I am embarrassed that anyone would call you a "fetus killer."

Blessings Liam.

Wade

Liam Madden said...

Wade,

It seems like an odd position. Even Caesar gave bread to Rome's poor. We have every other kind of public work--roads, schools, etc. Why not public healthcare as well. This week, the public college where I worked provide the H1N1 flu vaccine for all of our faculty and staff free of charge. I am grateful for public works in their various forms, including healthcare. The preamble of the Constitution states various broad aims for the public good--these include to establish justice and to promote the general welfare. Wouldn't you agree that public health is central to the general welfare? In an age when global pandemics can kill more citizens than a terrorists bomb, public health is more than a luxury. It is the frontline in our homeland security.

believer333 said...

"Nope. Many who do not have it don't have it because they aren't willing to work for it."

That may be true of some. But many do not have it because they cannot get full time work. Even if they have two jobs at 19 hours each job, that income is not enough for them to buy health ins. because it is so expensive.

And then there are the seniors who can barely survive on what they have, who only have medicare which does not cover much.

Wade Burleson said...

Liam,

Definitely food for thought.

I am uncomfortable, however, with my tax payer dollars funding abortions for the poor. I am also uncomfortable with the government establishing pay rates for doctors. We have our government entering the car business, and in my mind, that is a far closer analogy to entering the health care business than "highways" and other public works projects.

In other words, the Federal Center for Disease Control already oversees pandemics and would issue government mandates during national crises.

I don't need, nor want, a government mandate when it comes to taking care of my grandmother.

Wade

Darby Livingston said...

"Abortion was not unknown in the ancient world, yet never once in his preaching do we hear the Lord Jesus preach against abortion. We do have many examples of Jesus chastising the Pharisees for not caring for the sick or the injured."

Abortion is killing. Jesus didn't preach against killing? And yes, Jesus healed the sick. He himself left his own kingdom of wealth that was rightfully his and came to earth for the sake of those in need. That's not what you're talking about. You're talking about taking other people's money that is rightfully their's, and giving it to people you think are more worthy of it. Love the poor with your own money Mr. Madden, and let others do the same.

Bob Cleveland said...

Believer333, Medicare is actually pretty good. Couple that with a MedSup, and we're extremely happy with it.

As far as younger folks, the plain fact is that the biggest cause of uninsured folks is people who just don't want to spend the money for health insurance. They'd rather have a flat-screen or a new car.

天真 said...

good blog..................................................

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jasonk said...

"Abortion was not unknown in the ancient world, yet never once in his preaching do we hear the Lord Jesus preach against abortion. We do have many examples of Jesus chastising the Pharisees for not caring for the sick or the injured."

Jesus may not have mentioned abortion by name, but Hippocrates did. And it is his oath that doctors raise their hand to when receiving a medical license.

Wade said...

Joe,

I am in agreement with you on the issue of abortion.

Just a gentle pointer to help you understand that changing the method of the way you present your position might actually help others better listen to what you have to say.

For example, you say to Liam "Your argument is the same one used by moderate christians to argue that homosexuality is not a sin. Christians, on the other hand, recognize the how absurd an argument it is.

I trust that it is unintentional, but you make a distinction between "moderate christians" (small "c") and what they believe about abortion and "Christians" (large "c")_ and what they believe about abortion (the same as you and me). If I were Liam, I would not be able to listen to your arguments because you are suggesting in the way you write that he is not a real Christian.

Joe, you seem to have a penchant to mingle issues with character. In other words, if people don't agree with your position, there's something "wrong" with their character.

I believe you have some great thoughts. I am hoping the package in which they are delivered can be made to look a little nicer so the recepient will be enticed to open it.

Wade

Florence in KY said...

I question that I have a "right to my money." What I have is on loan to me from the Father. If I have money and see my neighbor in need, it is my Christian responsibility to help out. I will gladly pay more for my indiviual health care if needed to help those less fortunate. Even though I am willing, I'm not sure that my premiums will go up. If so, so be it. Blessings.

Darby Livingston said...

"If I have money and see my neighbor in need, it is my Christian responsibility to help out."

Very well said. It is every Christian's responsibility to do this.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
believer333 said...

"Believer333, Medicare is actually pretty good. Couple that with a MedSup, and we're extremely happy with it."

But that is the problem, it has to be supplemented. That eats into retirement income which is sparce for most. I'm on medicare also and have it supplemented. That supplemented cost keeps going up each year. Even with the supplemented ins. there are things that are now out of reach for seniors unless they want to pay what everyone else is paying, such as good dental. It's not a very good system IMO.

B Nettles said...

Liam Madden,
Since you have worked in the health insurance industry and also done overseas medical missions, seeing hundreds per day, you should immediately recognize the difference in providing adequate healthcare--paperwork.

Do you really think that getting the government involved is going to improve that situation? If you do, you are tremendously deceived. I have talked with many physicians and the number 1 complaint about today's system is government and insurance paperwork. That is driving the expense and the lack of time to see the ER folks who are low on the triage list.

Every ER is obligated to provide care as time allows, but the coughs, fevers and colds do fall far down the list and the # of patients that can be seen is dictated by time.

The key is reducing government involvement, not increasing it.

believer333 said...

""If I have money and see my neighbor in need, it is my Christian responsibility to help out."

This is true. And it's a good thought. But it doesn't happen much. It's not a good idea to use that to say we've got the poor and elderly covered. We don't.

Christiane said...

Mr. Madden,

Your Christian actions in caring for the sick add gravitas to your observations.

In my religion, we have this saying, 'it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness'.
I don't believe in curses. I don't think they are Christian.

Mr. Madden, you are a blessing to those people you care for. You are bringing the light of Christ into their world when you share His love with them in a way that alleviates their suffering and gives them hope.

You have heard His Voice and followed Him. Because of this, I can listen to you with respect, whether or not I am in agreement.

May the Peace of the Lord be with you.

Caritas Christi,
L's

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Fariss said...

Just a couple of thoughts, Joe. From one whom you have identified as a moderate or worse.

One, I am a moderate, Baptist Christian, and I have NEVER argued or suggested or said or believed that the practice of homosexuality is anything except a sin--so please be careful in your characterizations. They are not necessarily accurate, and this one definitely is not.

Two, I agree that public money--or Federal money, or tax money or whatever--should never be used to fund abortions. In fact, I am opposed to abortion (except possibly under very restricted circumstances, i.e., maybe in cases of rape or incest, or when it is vital to the health/survival of the mother). So don't go characterizing moderate Christians as being people who opt for abortion. It just ain't so. I know no moderates who advocate it, and have known very, VERY few Christians of any stripe who do, and they weren't Baptists, but were self-described liberals.

Three, my understanding is that illegal immigrants would not be covered under the health-care bill in Congress (although admittedly, I have not kept up with all its frequently-changing details). But I think you go too far in saying, "if you're in this country illegally, you have zero rights to ANYTHING including health care. Now, if some doctor wants to treat you for free or someone wants to pick up your tab, that's well and fine. But the government doesn't have the RIGHT to FORCE us to provide something for illegals to which they are not entitled." Actually, illegal aliens do have some rights to healthcare, and have for years. Hospital ER's are required to provide treatment, at least sufficient to stabilize any patient, or so I understand it. And tell me: what do you make of passages like Exodus 12:49, "The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you," and 22:21, "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt," as well as Leviticus 19:34, "The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt."? You seem to have lots of venom; and while you may have a relationship with Jesus Christ, I just have to think that venom comes from somewhere else.

John

Lydia said...

Wade, Was your title meant to hyperbolic? I certainly hope so! Her vote is most definitely a re-election hurdle. The proof is right in front of us. Democrats have the votes. They could have passed this long ago but for one hurdle: fellow democrats.

Obama is already making deals on money to states and ambassadorships to try and make this happen.

Most of the polls are showing less than 40% of Americans want this plan. And for good reason. It will make an already overburdened system even worse.

Saunders may be good but I can tell you he has a lot to work with, too.

I have a hazy memory and stuff that happened in the early 1990's is not online but wasn't Stephens media the group that gave a bunch of money to the Clinton campaign for his first run for President?

Lydia said...

"To get to the heart of the matter: Don't you think that extending healthcare and insurance coverage to many who do not have it is a goal of which our Lord Jesus approves?--He who was a healer and went against Pharisaic opposition in order heal the sick and help those in need. Jesus recognized the sickness of Pharisaic legalism that pretends to a public appearance of righteousness but won't life a finger to actually help the sick.
"

Here is an example of a left wing culture war.

Liam, my first thought is God would be angered that we sell our souls to a heathen government instead of helping one another.

Why go through a greedy, mismanaged third party that has proven all they know how to do is waste money while they vote themselves more money and pork barrell projects? It amazes me that folks actually think more people will be cared for.

Where in scripture do you see Jesus saying that "government" should do such things as feed the poor and take care of the sick?

We see in Romans Paul saying the government is for law and order. For punishment of wrong doing.

The reason health care is so expensive is because of so much government intervention over the last 80 years.

You might be too young to remember the days of Hospitals built and financed by Christians. They were called the Baptist Hospitals, Catholic Hospitals, Methodist Hospitals, etc. What happened to these charitable non profit organizations paid for by contributions?

Government intervention on all levels killed it.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lydia said...

ipunk is many things--one of those things is NOT evangelical.

Mon Dec 14, 11:01:00 AM 2009

I don't know, Joe. Ted Haggard calls himself an evangelical. To tell you the truth, I don't know what it means anymore.

And I have no idea what the point of the link was for and what it has to do with this topic?

Alan Paul said...

Yeah... I've had enough of political operatives claiming to be Christians and then find out later their behavior was anything but Christian. But I guess I'll reserve judgement until Mr. Sanders rises to national prominence, gets some conservative using his/her Christianity to get elected and then we'll see the stories of how Mr. Sanders ran the campaign and how "Christian" his behavior is.

Sorry for the cynicism, but many times burned... I no longer vote based on whether or not a person claims to be a Christian. The term's definition varies from person to person.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christiane said...

I think the reference does apply here. It helps to read it first before commenting on it, though.

(((( sigh ))))) :)

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/imonk-101-why-do-they-hate

Lydia said...

I think the reference does apply here. It helps to read it first before commenting on it, though.

(((( sigh ))))) :)

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/imonk-101-why-do-they-hate

Mon Dec 14, 05:30:00 PM 2009

I did read it and still do not understand how it relates to this post? Guess you gotta spell it out for this gal. :o)

Lydia said...

Lydia, you know what the point was and what it had to do with the topic. Anyone who opposes Obamacare stands against the annointed Obamassaiah and is, by definition, a hate monger. We're so mean spirited and hateful. All we care about is the companies who make a profit on the backs of the poor, huddled masses.

Mon Dec 14, 05:25:00 PM 2009

Joe, Health care would be a lot cheaper if Government would get out of the business. I believe more people would be treated and treated better and prices would lower. Nothign beats a free market for lowering prices and increasing quality.

Look at the cosmetic industry which insurance does not cover and government does not subsidize.

I also believe that more folks would be giving to charities that fund health care like they did for years before the government got involved.

And what about our churches? We should refrain from building fancy buildings and use the money to help the poorer among us. I think churches are just as guilty...especially the mega's. We do not need new carpet, sound systems, more buildings and events.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alyce Faulkner said...

I noticed John Brummett referring to David as 'young David'. Perhaps we should remind him what a 'young David' can do. Anyone who knows much about David would know not to underestimate him. I look forward to seeing how he handles this campaign and hope to indeed see David in the governors mansion. That would make you a prophet Wade and make most Arkansans very happy, excluding the ever so liberal Brummett.

Bob Cleveland said...

Believer333,

I've had cancer surgery, a knee replaced, and am currently undergoing a series of shots that cost about $800 each. I also spent a little time in the hospital for a TIA, with all the accompanying tests.

Take away MedSup, and Medicare's still done a pretty good job for me.

John Fariss said...

Hey Joe,

You can be rather reasonable & pleasant when you talk about specifics. Why not get that way all the time, and leave the hyperbole and rants to talk-show hosts? (They're all that way, whether paid to be conservative or liberal, IMHO. And I suspect most if not all of them would change their "convictions" for the right amount of cash. Or maybe that's just my cynicism showing.) Anyway, when you talk reasonably, it allows me, and I suspect others, to actually interact and dialogue with the real you.

John

Christiane said...

Hi JOHN FARISS,

Joe can keep it real when he wants to. He likes elephants. People that elephants generally are not bad people, at heart.
Sometimes people just need encouragement. ( Actually, most people need encouragement, come to think of it. )

:)

John Fariss said...

Several of you have said that the government should get out of the health care business, and that church should get into it, as "back in the day" when there was a proliferation of church/denomination sponsored hospitals. I certainly would agree with that. Now can any of you show me where it is happening? Where a church or a group of churches or a denomination is willing to step up and say, "We're going to start a hospital, we're going to pay the construction costs, and we're going to pay for the machinery that makes it run, from a ten dollar bedpan to the multi-million dollar MRI machine, we're going to pay doctors and nurses and orderlies and laundry attendants and janitors and clerks and pharmacists, and if patients can pay, well and good, and if they can't, we're going to be their good Samaritian."

In principle, I agree, government should not be in the business of healthcare. But until someone shows me where the church has stepped up to the plate, I have to go with the US Constitution's preamble, which says "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Healthcare was not what the founders had in mind when they wrote "general welfare," but they did intend the Constitution to be a living document. In the absence of paying our doctors with a chicken or two, when we can, using whatever herbs we can find in the woods as our pharmacy, and churches stepping up, it has rightly come to mean that.

John

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Wade,


You need not be embarrassed by me.

If someone votes for a candidate who would cast a vote in favor of abortion, then that person is a fetus killer. Please don't tell me you are siding with Planned Parenthood to call such procedures by other names, and to omit the use of "baby" and "fetus."

If Liam supports a woman's right to have an abortion, or if he has voted for a pro-abortion candidate, then he is unequivocally, a fetus killer.

And in my opinion, nothing else he "says" he has done is justification for his fetus killing, and at the end of the day all that is rendered null and void.

Liam,

I want you to lay to rest tonight with the thought of a little precious baby fetus recoiling in the womb as the snips get closer and closer to find the back of the neck to snip the little spinal cord, or if the little spinal cord is too hard to get too, then a direct puncture to the soft little skull will do the trick as well--then the poor living soul's grey matter can be sucked out while the mother sits back and waits for her breast cancer to kick in. Does that make your liberal heart pump each day to know the health care you provide for precious fetal souls???????

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christiane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christiane said...

Hi JOE,
Nope. We have a new situation at our house. The 'family room' used to be the 'game room' for football. I occasionally watched.
But, in a moment of weakness, I allowed my husband to convert an upstairs guest-room into a 'man-cave': new giant screen TV and all the trimmings. New recliner-rockers. Etc. Etc. . . .

IT'S HORRIBLE.
HE LOVES IT.

I never go up there because last time I did, the Steelers lost and they all called me 'a jinx' (frown face).
I was so mad, I hid the all 'terrible towels'. :)

Well, I see you still have your enthusiasm for elephants, Joe.
I hope they win and win and win.
We need you cheered up for sure.

Much love,
L's

Christiane said...

ENCOURAGEMENT FOR JOE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rKfvAHbhQs&feature=related

Now, Joe, see how listening to this elevates your mood before your next rant.
This could really help.
If not, at least you know I tried. Your friend, L's

Kevin M. Crowder said...

ENCOURAGEMENT FOR LIAM:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qXi2kDnmhs

Now, Laim, see how watching this elevates your mood before you sleep.

This could really help.
If not, at least you know I tried.

Your friend, K

Thy Peace said...

This is for everyone!

YouTube > John Michael Talbot - You Are My Hiding Place.

Lyrics (Source):
You are my hiding place, O Lord
You saved me in my distress
You are my hid-ing place
You save me from distress
Y-o-u surround my soul
With cries of deliverance
2.Let every good man pray to you
In his hour of need
Flood wa-ters may reach high
But him they shall not reach
Let every good man pray
In his hour of need

CH: You are my hiding place, O Lord
You gaze into the se-crets of my soul
3.A hidden secret wastes my frame
I groan through the night and cry
Through the day
I will confess my sin
My guilt I will not hide
I will confess my pride
And God will forgive

fin: You are my Hiding place, O Lord

Christiane said...

Thanks THY PEACE

Bob Cleveland said...

And with reference to abortion, any abortion, I think the most memorable comment I recall is this:

Every person in favor of abortion on demand .. every one, without exception .. has already been born. Hence, favoring abortion is hypocritical.

Check Matthew 24:51 for a description of Jesus' attitude about hypocrites.

Liam Madden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Liam Madden said...

Kevin,
You're a funny case. I guess you didn't read the papers and learn that taxpayer funding for abortions is prohibited in the version of the healthcare bill that will be decided on soon.

I don't like the win-at-all costs mentality of conservatives/ Republicans who like to brand people (including congresswoman Lincoln) as baby-killers when they are nothing of the sort. Publicly accusing someone (such as Ms. Lincoln, or me) of being or doing something that he or she is not sounds an awful lot like bearing false witness--also considered a great sin--actually one of the top ten. Sadly, this method of murdering the truth is the preferred campaign tactic of the far Right.

Once we realize that taxpayer funded abortion will not result from the current healthcare bill, then we all have to shift to debating other issues related to it, such as the nature of a Christian's responsibility to society as a whole and the role of government.

Wade wrote: "I think churches, individuals and charities should be in the business of caring for the poor. I do not believe that is government's role."

I would not disagree with much of what Wade said in the above quote. Our church has a food bank, a clothing room, emergency assistance ministry, and other. But we are not a hospital or a doctor's office. Private hospitals and doctors may have a role, but will never be able to extend their reach to all of the poorest or those in greatest need. That's where government has to step in.

According to this article dated
2007, (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=46148) our own U.S. government spent 376 million dollars to build 80 health clinics in Iraq. Now guys, you probably thought Bush was great and think Obama is terrible, but I personally will support the U.S. leader who would like to build some medical clinics and provide some healthcare for some AMERICANS.

Debbie Kaufman said...

The fact is that charities, churches, etc. are not providing health care for anyone. So the reality is that one has a choice of no health care, not being able to afford the current insurance, or working for health insurance. Even if the job provides half of the cost to the employee, it is $700 a month for two people on insurance, this does not include kids which raises it further.

Most families will simply have two people working so that both are given a decent cost for health care. The wife from her job and the husband from his, but then you still have to add on the cost of the children, which again raises it to $700 a month. It's a no win situation right now.

Debbie Kaufman said...

I would suggest going online to any private insurance (which several are online) and getting a quote. Quote it for you and your spouse, then you, your spouse and children. That will give you a good idea of the high cost of insurance. I guarantee it is an eye opener. I doubt that anyone would think that those who do not have health insurance want a flat screen TV or a car. Although that could be cheaper than health insurance. :)

RM said...

If any of you actually think that abortions won't be included in the new health care bill are sadly deluded. Its a cornerstone of the Democrats.

BTW, there is free health care available for anyone in the US right now. They might have to wait a while but all they have to do is go into a hospital emergency room and they HAVE to treat you. Of course, they may ask you to pay if you can and that's only right.

One of the government accounting agencies (and it seems there are many) said that Medicare costs would go from $95/month for seniors to $700/month. Wonder how they will like that when voting time comes around?

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"But we are not a hospital or a doctor's office. Private hospitals and doctors may have a role, but will never be able to extend their reach to all of the poorest or those in greatest need."

I assure you Liam, of 2 things...err make that 3.

1. God is not pleased with a nation who spends so far beyond its means as to sell its sovereignty to a foreign nation. The Bible is replete with stories of Israel which apply to us as a guide for civil polity and governance.

2. Wade is right in that churches MUST, through the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ step in to help the poor and afflicted. But to expand this role, we need tort reform DRASTICALLY. Then, churches can hire parish nurses, begin wellness programs, set up free clinics, etc. No one is complaining about the social agenda of your heart Liam. You are a good man for that--I mean it. But your politics and that of your party of choice will lead America to a path even God warned Israel of.

3. I really do love you as a brother in Christ. You can squeeze all the pejorative context you want our of what I say to you regarding abortion. But I say it for the shock value. And believe me when I say, I WANT you to be shocked.



Merry Jesus Birthday!

K

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Fariss said...

Tort reform, eh? That would solve all our healthcare problems, would it?

Let's see now: insurance companies say that because of outrageous awards made against healthcare providers, which they are expected to cover, premiums are as high as they are. Those premiums--or at least a significant percentage of them, maybe most, are billed to physicians and hospitals, who then have to raise their charges to patients to cover them. Indirectly (and maybe directly, I don't know), charges paid by the insurance companies have to cover these higher bills, and subsequently, they have to recoup their losses through higher premiums. It is a spiral effect. You all would agree with so far, right?

The theory goes, if there was tort reform limiting the settlements paid out by insurance companies, there would be a trickle-down effect eventually lowering the cost of insurance for providers, and then, further down the (time)line, lowering the cost of insurance to us, the American consumer. Am I right so far?

Now here is the question: why on earth does anyone think that insurance companies, who being capitalist and having essentially a monopoly, and thus having a profit motive, would pass on these great savings to the consumers? Why does anyone think they would not just keep the difference rather than, out of the goodness of their hearts, reducing premiums? What would keep their executives from having multi-million dollar salaries and golden parachutes, and from paying these profits to their stockholders, who would then buy more stock and have expectations that they would continue to receive big bucks?

Maybe--just maybe--they would pass along some token savings to the consumer, but even though I'm not a betting man--I wasn't one even before I was a Christian--I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut the "savings" passed along would be miniscule, and they'd have all sorts of clever accounting practices to "prove" why it couldn't be more. Some of you don't trust the government? OK, fine; but I don't trust Big Business, and I fail to see any reason why anyone else would, considerering the events of the past 12 or 18 months.

Let me add that this is not a theoritical exercise for me. When I was a security consultant 25+ years ago, industry estimates were that approximately 10% of the prices paid by consumers were there to offset theft, especially internal theft. There were numerous times we were able to identify the sources of losses, and the companies we worked for then eleminated those sources (i.e., fired the thieves, sometimes prosecuted them). But guess what? Not a one of them EVER lowered their prices as a result. Not a fast food restaurant (and our clients included some big-name ones you all eat at), not a convenience store chain (you name it, if it operated in Alabama, they were probably our clients), not a department store (name the ones in Birmingham & Montgomery then, and at least half were our clients), not a hospital (yep, some of those were our clients too), not a single one of them ever lowered their prices as a result of us eleminating their internal losses. It just made a bigger profit for the owners and stockholders. Tell me: why would insurance companies do any different? Come to think of it: one insurance company was our client too, and when we identified a major embezzler, and they fired him and recouped some of what he stole--premiums did not go down one cent.

John

Ron said...

Wade,
You shoud tread softly when venturing into Arkansas politics. I appreciate much of what David Sanders has written about SBC political activities both under his name and his psuedonym. However, as one who gets to read all his political columns in the Ft. Smith Times Record and watch him on the PBS TV show, he is not always so accurate in his state and national analysis. For example his column in ABP praising Robert Novak as his hero troubles me. Novak is a man who publicly revealed the identity of a CIA agent in order to serve the interest of his political patrons, Rove and Chaney. He should have been thrown in jail.

Did you know that Stanley Reed is a former democrat who has praised Lincoln and contributed to her campaigns in the past. Now he is switching to the Republican party in Arkansas which is much more right wing than the national republican party. The challenge for Reed will be getting the Republican nomination in the race when he has no history with the state party. If the health care reform bill is a disaster he might stand a chance of beating Lincoln then and only then. On almost every issue he is identical to Lincoln.

Arkansas democrats are only slightly to the left of the national republican party. Both of our senators, Lincoln and Pryor, are in the blue dog democrat group that works with centrist republicans to try and get some legislation through the divided senate from time to time.

If we want to talk about health care, the hypocrisy of the Republican party is amazing. We in Arkansas are being swamped by inaccurate TV ads and phone campaigns on the heath care bill. My question for the Republicans, is what did you do in the last 8 years when you contolled the White House and Congress to solve this problem. Nothing! The cost of health care rose way more than the cost of living while the insurance companies and pharmacutical companies who own the Republican party were making obscene profits. The Republican party and its anti-capitalist policies established monopolies where we often had little choice over the doctor we could visit, or the price we pay for drugs, had to chose between buying health insurance or clothes and foodand . For those of us who have lived in other countries, we wonder why people can fly to our countries from the US in order to get the health care they need at a cheaper price and with the same quality of care and see a doctor much faster. Why can we buy the same drugs in other countries for less than half the cost we must pay in the states. That is why we need health care reform. I am not endorsing Obama's plan but our politicians need to get together and think of the people instead of their special interest groups.

Steve said...

Each side in the current battle over the power and reach of the Federal Government loves to go straight for the hyperbole and hateful language. Each side looks at the anger required to say such world-stained things and shakes its head at the supposed goodness of the speaker.

A conservative pauses at the loss of freedom and incredible expense inherent in the Reid and Pelosi bills and is shouted down for being willing to let thousands of people die for lack of care. A liberal overlooks the devotion of Congressional Democrats to abortion-on-demand - which just happened to be State Senator Obama's cause for existence and primary calling card - and is bewildered that holier-than-thous see him or her with fetal blood on their hands.

The secret humor reserved to onlookers is just how much louder these partisans' anger shouts than the logical facts they base their shouts on. Political conflicts will always be with you, but how you deal with them - and let them affect you - defines how much this world, or the World above, has hold of your heart.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Debbie Kaufman said...

Joe: As I have pointed out to you before, having been in the health care field for over twenty years and a consumer longer than that, I do know what I am talking about. I am quoting what it would have cost to put my husband on my insurance and vice versa. And that is with the employer paying half of the employees.

Debbie Kaufman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Fariss said...

Ron's comment just reminded me of something.

Up until about twelve years ago, I was insured through the Annuity Board. When insurance for our family was going up from about $800 a month to $900 or a thousand, we switched over to the insurance provided through the CBF, which piggy-backed onto that provided by the American Baptist Church. It was actually the same insurance, but because we were a "younger pool" (so I was told) the premiums were less, and for a couple of years, my premiums went down to 7 or $800 a month, then as I got older, it started trending upward again. That is when I dropped my insurance and began to be covered through my wife. She has worked for doctor's since she returned to the workforce in the mid 1990s, and they get a better rate. Right now, her employer pays about half her premium, and the other half plus coverage for me is a little under $600 a month.

But even working for a doctor, there are still other costs--for instance, their policy does not include dental, and benefits for maturnity are small. The office manager, who is the doctor's brother-in-law, is from Pakistan. And he has gone back to Pakistan for extensive dental work, because even factoring in the cost of travel, it was cheaper. And his wife returned to Pakistan for the birth of their children, because--again, even with the cost of flying half way 'round the world--they would pay less out-of-pocket, and according to them, receive just as good a care as they would have here.

What's wrong with this picture?

John

Liam Madden said...

This post will be a two parter:

Part I:

Going back to the original point of Wade's post. We have seen this cycle go around before. Back in the 80's here in Georgia, we saw the rise of two bright young political stars, both marketing themselves as "conservative" and "Christian" candidates. They smeared their opponents as being pro-abortion and rode to victory on support from evangelicals. Of course, in the end, they did almost nothing to change abortion laws in this country. You may recognize the names of these men, Pat Swindall and Ralph Reed.

In a short time, Pat Swindall was convicted of making illegal campaign contributions to other Atlanta politicians as well as six counts of perjury for lying about his illegal actions, resulting in a prison term.

Even as a college student, Ralph Reed was found guilty of plagiarism and rigging elections. During his days working for the Christian Coalition, Reed was involved in financial misdoings but avoided prosecution by paying off injured parties with Christian Coalition funds (fund given by unsuspecting Christian donor who probably imagined the money was being used for mission or some other worthy cause). As a political consultant, Reed's "worthy" clients included Enron (remember the Enron trader who boasted of bilking grandma out of her social security check). Reed is general credited with orchestrating the smearing of John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina presidential primary, an attack which was successful and ended McCain's campaign. Other shady associations of Reed included Jack Abramoff whose convictions include
conspiracy, fraud, tax evasion and more.

Poor evangelicals who get into politics. Though they may have been sincere in their motives for becoming politically active (though I suspect many are not) how quickly they often succumb to the worldly ways of politics and the temptations of quick financial gain.

Now, as Wade's original post indicates, another bright star of the conservative evangelical world is gearing up to go on the attack against a democratic opponent, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, who supports healthcare legislation and seems to be a person of integrity. When I read about something like this, all I can think is: I've seen all of this before. More often than not, it appears that high profile evangelicals who enter politics end up becoming little more than tools of their more worldly and cynical secular political masters. In the end, they don't end up achieving their stated goals of stopping abortion and other Christian aims, but do end up committing various criminal acts that defraud the public and degrade the public good overall.

I don't know much about David Sanders, so I tend to trust Wade's judgement about his integrity, and I wish him well in his foray into secular politics. But when I read the phrase, "Southern Baptists who make their living in the political world," I can't help but wince a little. When we look at the politics within the SBC during the last twenty five years, we have seen politics of division, personal attacks, and a commensurate rise in cronyism, backroom dealings, improper use of donated funds, and a general decline in the well-being and overall influence of the SBC. It really causes me to doubt whether importing into our national political life more Southern Baptist leaders and their style of doing politics can really bode anything good for the nation.

In fairness, I'm sure that there are many quiet success stories of evangelicals serving with integrity in government and secular politics. But I think visitors to this blog will have to concede a high failure rate of the most high profile evangelical "wonder boys" who have entered politics in recent years and all of the smoke and mirrors and unfulfilled promises they brought with them.

Liam Madden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Fariss said...

Joe,

TN's plan sounds interesting. I would ask: how does one's age factor in? And since the employer pays part, does it do any good for those who are either unemployed or significantly underemployed?

Sorry though--I see your point about competition, but I am still not convinced that it would make any trickle-down very significant.

Liam Madden said...

Part II:

Wade, you've already thoroughly established the the current breed of Southern Baptists is generally hostile to the idea of women in leadership. You've also argued that such hostility is neither rational nor Biblical. It might be interesting to hear more about why conservatives are sure that Reed will represent his constituents better or govern better than Sen. Lincoln is already doing.

An Arkansas blogger had this to say about Stanley Reed:

"You can expect other Republican candidates to immediately question Reed's GOP bona fides. He's been a Democratic primary voter and a contributor to Lincoln and Bill Clinton. He's conservative enough to pass, however, including particularly unappetizing on hot button social issues. His money men will be former Hog and real estate man Jim Lindsey, who has engaged Lindsey to manage his farm property, and Reynie Rutledge, the First Security Bank leader with whom Reed also shares business interests."

Uh oh, sounds like Reed may not be as hardcore a conservative as most Southern Baptist would really like.

But, on the other hand, the same blogger writes:

"Reed can raise money. His name recognition ends at the Farm Bureau and the small political world that follows the UA Board of Trustees, which he once chaired. (His popularity there is mixed. A secret effort by Lindsey to get Reed chosen to succeed Alan Sugg as president of the UA System was scuttled by vociferous objections from some other powerful trustees when it got leaked on this blog.) He has no natural voter base. He'll be looking to pluck votes from the scattered Republican strongholds in a state that has rarely turned out huge votes in Republican primaries."

I guess one of the easiest ways to "pluck some votes" from scattered Republican strongholds is to whip up voter concern about abortion.
Reed could even win by doing so, but it's hard to take seriously Reed's authenticity in attacking Sen. Lincoln on moral and religious grounds when it is known that he has given campaign contributions to Sen. Lincoln in the past and also been a supporter of Bill Clinton.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ron said...

John Farris,
I could give many examples such as you mentioned. Even factoring in the $1000 to $1500 cost of a round trip ticket and the cost of food and lodging while there, many people fly to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Thailand and other places around the world for medical with doctors trained in America and top equipment and fast admittance and still save much money.
The IMB advices its missionaries in most circumstances to get their physical exams, medical treatment and drugs if possible before they come home on STAS in order to save money and time. I wasn't like that when I first went over seas. What has happened to our medical care system? It is so politicized there is almost no way to know all the reasons for the mess we have gotten in. It is a major reason for our financial problems also,

Anyone outside Arkansas who wants to try and use logical and reasoning to understand it will be disappointed.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Debbie Kaufman said...

Joe: Your ummmm.....apology is accepted. :) Now, go to any insurance site, pick any...and do a quote, this is addressed to anyone and everyone. Do it for a family, even those who announce a cheap rate(without disclosing the real cost). What I have quoted is pretty average for insurance.

Debbie Kaufman said...

And as John has given in his example, insurance costs can be higher. Meanwhile the cost of stay in the hospital, surgery and aftercare, is another topic along with the power that insurance companies now have to say who can have what kind of treatment. They are for profit organizations after all.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ron said...

I meant to say anyone outside ARkansas who wishes to use reason and logic to understand its politics will be disappointed. The usual definitions of Republican, Democrat, liberal and conservative do not apply.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lydia said...

"For example his column in ABP praising Robert Novak as his hero troubles me. Novak is a man who publicly revealed the identity of a CIA agent in order to serve the interest of his political patrons, Rove and Chaney. He should have been thrown in jail.
"

Ron, First of all, Plame was NOT undercover. Secondly, everyone on her block knew she worked for the CIA before the story broke. It was all much ado about nothing trying to get Cheney. And the Plame and her hubby milked it. Did you see their VF layout?

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lydia said...

"Now here is the question: why on earth does anyone think that insurance companies, who being capitalist and having essentially a monopoly, and thus having a profit motive, would pass on these great savings to the consumers? Why does anyone think they would not just keep the difference rather than, out of the goodness of their hearts, reducing premiums?"

Competition. In order to stay in business. In my state back in the early 80's there were tons of health insurance companies vying for business. The pool of customers was national.

As a college student, I bought my own policy for 30 bucks a month.

Then our Governor had an accident and decided that folks should be covered for everything. So he regulated the industry in our state. Now the pool was only citizens of the state. We went down to only 5 health insurance companies and premiums skyrocketed. The others pulled out. One of the regulations was that a provider had to cover everything. So a single male was covered for maternity when maternity used to a rider you added on.

This was right before the HMO regs which added more bureaucracy and costs once again went up. When they were supposed to go down. What is up with that? Government.

Why has everyone forgotten how a free market operates?

And I have to wonder if Medical schools are now going to be government subsidized? Who is going to want to spend all that time and money to make 50,000 a year? It would take 50 years to pay back the loans. So will they have to lower the standards for entrance to attract students? Yes.

Lydia said...

Joe: As I have pointed out to you before, having been in the health care field for over twenty years and a consumer longer than that, I do know what I am talking about. I am quoting what it would have cost to put my husband on my insurance and vice versa. And that is with the employer paying half of the employees.

Tue Dec 15, 11:58:00 AM 2009

Debbie, I know trauma surgeon, family practioners, Internists, Nursing Home executives who would disagree with your position. They are in the health care field and very much against this health care plan. They know it is only going to bring rationing.

It costs that much for you because of government intervention.

As a matter of fact, let me give you some information about government that ought to scare you. The trauma surgeon,who also sits on the board of a hospital said that they were not going to give the flu vaccine to their workers. Why? Because It was rushed to production before the results were all in and studied. That is your government for you.

I just heard on the news today that some batches are being recalled.

Lydia said...

I would suggest going online to any private insurance (which several are online) and getting a quote. Quote it for you and your spouse, then you, your spouse and children. That will give you a good idea of the high cost of insurance. I guarantee it is an eye opener. I doubt that anyone would think that those who do not have health insurance want a flat screen TV or a car. Although that could be cheaper than health insurance. :)

Tue Dec 15, 08:28:00 AM 2009

Debbie, How much is Obama's plan going to cost you? Keep in mind they wanted to make buying insurance mandatory (jail time) for 4,000 year.

Where do you think the money is going to come from to fund rationing and a huge bureaucracy that will accompany all this?

And why isn't Congress going to be on the same plan?

Have you heard the latest? They have already planned a 'medical device' tax for such items as toothbrushes, tampons and adult diapers. They are now medical devices.

Where will it end?

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christiane said...

ADVENT REFLECTIONS

O Wisdom, you came forth from the mouth of the Most High and, reaching from beginning to end, you ordered all things mightily and sweetly. Come, and teach us the way of prudence.

"From the mouth of the Most High I came forth, and like mist covered the earth". Wisdom is here personified, present with God at the beginning of creation. This is a prefigurement of Jesus, the eternal Word of God, the "logos" John described in the opening of his gospel. Wisdom is the foundation of fear of the Lord, of holiness, or right living: it is wisdom whom we bid to come and teach us prudence. The cry "Come" will be repeated again and again, insistent and hope-filled.



People forget.
Or maybe they never 'saw it'.
A highly respected and favored person was given a choice to cooperate with the Incarnation.
A CHOICE, out of respect.

And being 'full of grace' and unafraid, the respected person said
'Yes'
'be in done unto me according to Thy Will'
An assent.
No 'domination' from an 'Authority' was used at all.
People forget.
Or maybe they never 'saw it'.
Or maybe it didn't matter to them?
'the spirit of domination' was not present at the Incarnation

There exists a beautiful icon, in which Mary, pregnant with the Messiah, gently embraces and comforts a weeping Eve.

How little we understand.

Lydia said...

Joe, you mean like the government appointed group of experts that decided to recommend mammeograms only after 50? Good thing we are debating health care instead of living government health care or that would NEVER have been repealed.


There will only be more of that.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Fariss said...

Lydia,

To my question, "why on earth does anyone think that insurance companies, who being capitalist and having essentially a monopoly, and thus having a profit motive, would pass on these great savings to the consumers?" you answered, "Competition. In order to stay in business. In my state back in the early 80's there were tons of health insurance companies vying for business. The pool of customers was national." Hey: back in the 70s and 80s, my health insurance was pretty reasonable too. Of course, I was younger back then. And the only time I used it in the 70s was when, as a Montgomery Alabama police officer, I got food poisoning. Then I found out why my coverage was so reasonable. I had to get up off my guerney and hold my vomitus long enough to sign a $300 check to Baptist Hospital before they would admit me, the insurance paid so poorly. I understand the doctor got a whopping $4 a day for treating me. Yeah, competition was great for me back then.

I know that competition works sometimes; but I also know that it does not always work. Price-fixing may be illegal, but it still sometimes happens when there are millions and billions of dollars profit to be made. Did you read my final comment in that entry? "This is not a theoritical exercise for me. When I was a security consultant 25+ years ago, industry estimates were that approximately 10% of the prices paid by consumers were there to offset theft, especially internal theft. There were numerous times we were able to identify the sources of losses, and the companies we worked for then eleminated those sources (i.e., fired the thieves, sometimes prosecuted them). But guess what? Not a one of them EVER lowered their prices as a result. Not a fast food restaurant (and our clients included some big-name ones you all eat at), not a convenience store chain (you name it, if it operated in Alabama, they were probably our clients), not a department store (name the ones in Birmingham & Montgomery then, and at least half were our clients), not a hospital (yep, some of those were our clients too), not a single one of them ever lowered their prices as a result of us eleminating their internal losses. It just made a bigger profit for the owners and stockholders. Tell me: why would insurance companies do any different? Come to think of it: one insurance company was our client too, and when we identified a major embezzler, and they fired him and recouped some of what he stole--premiums did not go down one cent."

John

Lydia said...

John, there are always going to be bad guys. But when the market opens up and more folks can go into business, it only takes one guy to lower prices, grab a nice market share and the others follow.

The key is the consumer. They have to take responsibility.

I know a guy from Jordan, a CPA, that opened several convenience stores in low income areas. He is selling stuff for almost double the cost of the chain convenience store a few miles away. And he is raking it in. Why?

Because when you are buying groceries at a convenience store on food stamps you do not care about the cost so you don't plan. You simply expect it to be there and receive instant gratification.

That is what happened with Health Insurance. We never asked how much the doctor visit is because insurance covered it. And we paid 10 bucks for the visit. That was not sustainable as prices were rising due to government intervention and price fixing.

I have had an Internist give me some indicators on what has happened in the cosmetic surgery industry. Costs have come way down over the last 20 years while quality has gone up overall. (There are still quacks out there in all fields) But seriously, How can that be?

I am not saying Insurance should not be reformed, it should. Government needs to get out of the health care business.

Another big problem started when companies did not want to raise wages so they gave out benefits instead.

Ron said...

Lydia,
You said, Ron, First of all, Plame was NOT undercover. Secondly, everyone on her block knew she worked for the CIA before the story broke. It was all much ado about nothing trying to get Cheney. And the Plame and her hubby milked it. Did you see their VF layout?
How do you know that? Do you live on her block? Where is her block?

So it was really no big deal. Is that why a special prosecutor was called. It was against the law. Whether some knew or not, putting it in the national press placed others in risk. Ask the CIA agents she worked with if they felt it was no big deal. Novak should have been thown in jail and Chaney and Rove with him.

Lydia said...

John, One more thing..government cannot protect us from everything. And government often turns out to be the bad guy in terms of bureaucracy and arbitrary rules. Then there is NO where to turn for relief. We are stuck.

This is one of my favorite government health care stories. A young single mom I know has been trying to get her daughter health care from the state because she has none. So, she takes a day off work unpaid and goes and sits in a government office all day and meets with the social worker. She brought everything they told her to bring. Except one problem. They forgot to tell her about one document. So, she had to take another day off work, unpaid and sit all day to give the sw the document and begin the process. Long story short, she took 4 days off work unpaid to get the ball rolling only to find out she has to check in 2x every month. That means 2 days off work unpaid in order for her daughter to get a health care card.

Now, fast forward. She has to take her daughter to the doctor only to find out she has to be on teh phone at the doctors office for an hour because the government cannot find her account. They are mean and rude to her accusing her of having it cancelled. She didn't but the government did without telling her.

Welcome to government health care.

But now she does not have to worry because we found a way to get her on a group plan that is very reasonable and a group of Christians are paying for it.

Lydia said...

"So it was really no big deal. Is that why a special prosecutor was called. It was against the law. Whether some knew or not, putting it in the national press placed others in risk. Ask the CIA agents she worked with if they felt it was no big deal. Novak should have been thown in jail and Chaney and Rove with him."

Tue Dec 15, 07:01:00 PM 2009

First of all, Plame wasn't a covert operative who met the five-year foreign-service requirement for secrecy. She had a desk job.

Secondly, the real scandal in all this is that she worked hard to get her husband, Joe Wilson, the assignment to Niger and he had NO security clearance and no background to do this. Why? There is a reason.

In fact, Wilson did not want folks to know about his wife's backroom tactics to get him the assignment so he lied in his NYT op ed piece and in his book! Which is why he was furious when it came out.

And what is the big deal about special prosecutors. We know how political it all is. Just think Ken Starr.

Christiane said...

Some would disagree.
Those that say Plame was 'outed' think that the ones that outed her are guilty of treason.

The surfaced e-mails may shed some light on the subject, we shall see.

Lydia said...

No, we won't see. That is the whole point. If it was so horrible to be outed then why so many paid photo spreads in so many magazines?

The point was she was not covert. Had not been for over 5 years.

Christiane said...

So there is a time-limit, and after five years, we can 'out' our spies?

Too many collateral deaths will result, I think, for that to be a policy.

Treason surrounding the Plame outing is being mentioned in the news, but it has a new twist: some sort of info on Pakistan and nuclear info being sold.
Supposedly, outing Plame was done to 'cover up' a U.S. high-level official's treasonous involvement.

People don't just get 'outed' for no reason. And it is considered treason against our COUNTRY to do it.

Thy Peace said...

I feel bad for Scooter Libby in this episode. I understand both sides of the issue here.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Lydia: This vaccine was new. It was rushed out because of public pressure, so if anyone is to blame it is us. We wanted a solution and we wanted it now. I did not take the flu shot nor have I for several years even when I was a health care worker.

As for the adult diapers etc. contrary to what Joe has said I do rely on facts, and would ask for a link or citing that would give credence to what you have said.

I am saying that we need to do something. Fact: Health care in it's current form is out of sight expense wise. I would also ask you if you plan on passing on the medicare/medicaid when you reach retirement age. Are you going to forgo getting this? It too is government funded.

Lydia said...

I am saying that we need to do something. Fact: Health care in it's current form is out of sight expense wise. I would also ask you if you plan on passing on the medicare/medicaid when you reach retirement age. Are you going to forgo getting this? It too is government funded.

Wed Dec 16, 01:34:00 AM 2009

Debbie, No one has a choice unless they are stinking rich to opt out of medicare because of price fixing. So, I will have no other optiona. Government has made the rules and set the standard.You do realize that medicare is broke, too. Right?

Debbie, I could care less if you believe what I say here. Check out the medical device tax for yourself.

And the government rushed to get the vaccine out because THEY created a panic. Right in time for the health care debate.

Lydia said...

I am saying that we need to do something. Fact: Health care in it's current form is out of sight expense wise. I would also ask you if you plan on passing on the medicare/medicaid when you reach retirement age. Are you going to forgo getting this? It too is government funded.

Wed Dec 16, 01:34:00 AM 2009

Debbie, No one has a choice unless they are stinking rich to opt out of medicare because of price fixing. So, I will have no other option. Government has made the rules and set the standard.You do realize that medicare is broke, too. Right?

Debbie, I could care less if you believe what I say here. Check out the medical device tax for yourself.

And the government rushed to get the vaccine out because THEY created a panic. Right in time for the health care debate.

Rex Ray said...

If anyone,
Thinks Obama’s health care for elderly will be as good as the present, will they explain how on Dec 6 how 42 billion cut from ‘home health’ made it better for the most vulnerable Americans?

Competition keeps businesses honest. Without competition, power of government to give; has power to take away.

What once was ‘over the hill’ will change to ‘over the cliff’ for the old folks!

Rex Ray said...

On abortion,
Once I heard an evangelist tell how his mother treated him different than his brothers and sisters. Nothing he could do seem to please her, and it broke his heart.

Not until he was grown did he learn he was the result of a 15 year-old girl being gang raped by German soldiers.

In mid-live his mother heard him preach for the first time and accepted Jesus.

Gene S said...

This stuff is getting interesting. First, Wade posts something which might be controversial and then we jump on it with both feet---ending up, usually where our philosophical position was to begin with.

A good thing comes from the education contributed in the process. Would it not be nice if religious higher education worked the same way these days???

Most of it is skewed like Fox News and simply adds fuel to the fire of people who already have made up their minds.

I have noticed of late how the typical Republican Campaign runs:

(1) Some pointing out of issues which says why my position will be in place should you vote for me.
(2) Money flying into the campaign from Corporate America hoping for political favors despite maligning any money spent since Obama took office.
(3) Conservatives and Corporate heads violently denying anything other than good "Free Market Economy Entrepeneurship."---translated that means, "We have figured out how to screw you with the price of fuel / bank fees / no money loaned BUT all used in bonuses to executives / Political Action Committee--what's that!!!"

Government will not change for the better until those who vote stop stupidly calling smelly manure a bunch of roses.

The typical American is so naive it is not funny!

Whenever intelligent discussion degenerates to name calling, we are in trouble in religion or politics---OR both!

This Public Health Debate is about the most wishy-washy / nonsensical / political diatribe I have witnessed in a long time. Little makes any sense at all EXCEPT we have thousands sick and dying because they can't afford health insurance.

Health Insurance is so expensive hardly anyone can afford it--BECAUSE the health industry is raising charges at 3+ times the inflation rate. A part of that is to help pay off the ambulance chasing Lawyers causing more expensive tests to be run just to protect the Doctor's hinnie from a lawsuit.

Here, in a nutshell is what viscious cycle we have with a sick person:

Get sick = go to Emergency Room = waith 4-6 hours for attention = get sicker & exposed to more germs = get treated = get Staph infection = need more expensive medicine over negligence = hire lawyer who contacted you without your request = get greedy not noticing the lawyer will get 30%+ in his representation = malpractice company hires their expensive doctor to defend client = legislature has great new laws in place to guarantee lawsuits = economy crashes putting more unable to afford insurance = Yatta/Yatta/YATTA!!!!!

And, by the way, "GAWD BLESS AMERKA!"

Lydia said...

Gene,

Republicans are just as guilty for socializing medicine for the last 50 years.

Gene S said...

NOBODY gets a free ride on any of this. In the beginning representation was a civil service where the representative had to pay his own way or get the help of some supporters.

Now it is a profession--usually pursued by someone with a legal degree--when the person enters a poor man and leaves with millions in the bank / a private retirement reserved for Congress / along with health care outside Medicare, I smell a rat!!!

AND that is just the tip of the iceburg. It is EXACTLY--in 200 years--a recreation of what our ancestors left England and Europe over with smile on face while throwing up seasick on little wooden ships.

The rich were getting richer while the poor were getting poorer / if you had money and social standing lawlessness was the least of your worries / the right person with the right lawyer could legally come away with millions when the investor had nothing / laws were written by lawyers, for lawyers, to make lawyers wealthy nit-picking laws based on the 10 Commandments long forgotten!!!

It all sounds to me like the Pharisees of religious fame are never restricted to the Temple. These days anyone can say something with his fingers crossed behind his back and say, "Oh, I swore on the tithe table and not the food tithe placed on the table--S-O-O-O-O I don't really have to live by the oath!!!

Gimme a break!!!!!!!!

Gene S said...

By the way: My daddy gave me a good definition of Republican vs. Democrats:

"A Republican is nothing but a Democrat who made some money and wants to keep it all---AND pay little or no taxes on his Corportion!"

Darby Livingston said...

I don't know the definition of republican or democrat, but I know the definition of thief and greed.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Liam Madden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Liam Madden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Liam Madden said...

Joe Blackmon and KM Crowder,

Merry Xmas guys, and I mean it. But hey, don't kid yourselves, failure to extend healthcare to those in need will kill babies just the same as an abortionist's tools. Sins of omission (though less noticeable) are just as serious as sins of commission. You guys would rather support politicians that pervert our government into a global war machine (leaving countless innocent civilians dead in its wake--including women, children, and yes, dead babies) while neglecting its own citizens here at home.

Conservatives are always saying, "I don't want my tax dollars spent for this or that--it's immoral." But I don't hear many of them say what a terrible shame and a waste the Iraq war has been. Don't you think that to spend several billion dollars to bomb a country back into the stone age and then spend a billion more to rebuild it while the poor of this country and their children go without is a sin an crime? I don't agree with your logic and I am not as quick to place blame and judgment as you two. But according to your logic, if you voted for the men who made those decisions, then the blood of the innocent is on your hands, and its much more blood than you say I have on mine.

If the money wasted on the Iraq destruction and reconstruction had been spent on repairing our country's infrastructure, think how many unemployed Americans could have been usefully put to work building schools, repairing roads, and yes, providing some healthcare to our own people.

Joe, Kevin, think about the war, the cost, and the waste of lives. Think about the babies who will die without adequate preventive care. Your idea of good Samaritanism is too narrow. I'm sure some of you will say, "Well, I'm a good Christian. If I saw someone hurt or in need, I would never neglect them." Such an answer is an easy out. It doesn't wash for the age that we live in. Such reasoning shows that the Good Samaritan story has become too familiar to us--that it has lost its original shocking meaning and its challenge to extend our range of compassion to persons and cultures that are outside of our own neighborhood.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christiane said...

Hi DARBY,

You wrote this:
" don't know the definition of republican or democrat, but I know the definition of thief and greed."

Bravo !!!!

Moving away from labels and centering on the moral law is a step in the right direction.
The laws written on our hearts by God: those we can trust to guide us. The labels? Even Lord Christ tried to show us that a label was not important. That 'Samaritan', hated but not hating; despised but not despising; reviled, but not reviling. That Samaritan cared for a helpless stranger at the side of the road.


In the end, we are all either brothers and sisters,
or we are neighbors.
'Love thy neighbor' is a commandment.

The labels? What labels? Are they ways of dividing 'us' from 'them', so we have an excuse to hate, fear, persecute, and neglect the 'thems' ?
Or is the real question in our world this:
And 'who is my neighbor?'

Who, indeed.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gene S said...

Joe--

I have tried mighty hard not to put a name to the monkey climbing the tree so those looking see more of his tail----BUT----I think you just won the prize!!!!

Whether punctuated correctly or not, what you are saying--and the lack of respect you are showing our current President elected just like your hero--Georgie Bush--further proves H.L. Menkin was right:

"Conservatives are but our Contemporary Ancesters"

Gene S said...

Joe / KM--

I beg you to go to this website along with the rest of us:

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

There are to-the-minute figures along with points of comparison for human services programs vs. war expenditure.

Then, please explain to me why we can't afford healthcare reform.

ALL THIS MONEY up to last year was voted and spent at the behest of the "W" Administration--That's George W. Bush III / Dick Cheney / with private contractors getting filthy rich along with weapons manufacturers.

I'm not kidding---I expect some explaination from you wise and devoted Christians!!!

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gene S said...

Joe--

You are trying the classic Conservative Republican ploy---when you have no answers, just start calling names.

As an Emory graduate, I know how to think critically although I was never taught what to think!!

Now, O gutless one--do you dare answer my questions?????

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christiane said...

Thank goodness for 'independents'.
There are a lot of Christian people out there who are not of the Republican 'persuasion' on grounds of moral law and conscience.

Especially now, as the Bible is being specifically re-written, and more is surfacing about shenanigans such as C Street, where the 'Republichristian powerful' are said to be held to a 'different Christian standard' in the eyes of their religious 'counselors'. Keeping each other's secrets about their infidelities is not what I would call 'Christian' counseling. Especially as more and more of the inhabitants of C Street climbed onto the infidelity bandwagon.

Sometimes, I think people are getting into deep waters where they are coming close to mocking God. And, to giving scandal against Christianity, which is truly one of the great sins.

What I like about the 'independents' is that they can chose to vote according to their own priorities as to what is best for our common good as a nation. That is a powerful freedom.

Gene S said...

Joe--

I'll do you a favor so you don't have to take off your shoes to count above 10:

War Expenditure:

Bush = $758.6 BILLION ('91.5-end)
Obamma = $156.5 BILLION

Scripture:

Jesus--"Love the Lord your God will all your heart, mind, and soul AND your neighbor as yourself."

If the Samaritan is the Jew's neighbor, then the Muslim/Moslem/Hindu/etc. is our neighbor!

Now set aside your "W Forever" posters and your letters from Georgie the gunslinger--and kindly go to the website!

And how much did you give his campaign and how many Moral Majority bullentin inserts did you put in your church to jeapordize your tax-exempt status????

Gene S said...

L's, baby-

Ya done stopped preachin' and gone to meddlin'!!!!

Truth always comes out eventually!!!

Except for Joe, et. al., who enjoy living in the past-----naively!

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christiane said...

Gene, you wrote: "Truth always comes out eventually!!!"

I agree and I can't wait.

Gene S said...

Mighty Joe (kinda reminds me of Mighty Joe Young / King Kong's Cousin) says:

If you took any Greek exegesis classes at Emory, you really, REALLY need to ask for your money back. There is NOTHING in that verse, expressed or implied, that suggests for even an INSTANT that America has no right to defend itself against its enemies or to fight them. I'm embarrassed for you that you'd even pretend that was a logical application of the text. By your reasoning, America should never engage in ANY war. WWII--we should've let the Axis powers win. They're our neighbors, after all.

Gene says:

(1) I took basic Bible at Emory and Greek at SEBTS--actually taking Greek when newly married is a bad idea (my little beautiful bride would be sitting in our little den in our little apartment saying, "Gene, are you through memorizing vocabulary yet--I'm lonely.") Joe probably would have kept on memorizing rather than "meet the needs" of a new bride with all his intelligence.

(2) There is no problem with exegesis--the observation of Jesus (who happens to be God's Son and God Incarnate) is pretty clear. He NEVER advocated war! So to be truely a follower of Christ means NO WAR!

(3) Now, there are times when the Jesus way seems not to work. To "turn the other cheek" to Hitler in WWII proved foolish and just cost more lives the worse it got. If I were the American President, I would say, "War is Hell, so let's give 'um Hell on this one!!! In other words, step your foot 1" over the line I have drawn in the sand means an M-1 Carbine between your eyes and I pull the trigger with a smile on my face!

(4) Sadly, evil people sometimes require equally demonic responses which are, admittedly, outside "love your neighbor and forgive." Have you ever had a drug addict put a pair of stiletto barber scissors 2" from your liver and demand your keys to get out of the State Mental Hospital of NC???

I have!!!

In that case, had I had a gun, I would have blown his brains out with no second thought!!! Better him than me! Since there were 4 locked doors between me and any help, I wisely reasoned with him, got locked in a linen closet, jammed the nursing station door open so I could call security when I could, mule-kicked the grate out into the hall, AND enjoyed seeing him returned to that hospital within 2 hours between 2 BIG Wake County Deputies, AND go to the Spruill Building for the Criminally Insane--just an extension of Central State Prison on the Dorothea Dix Campus!!!

Capiche??????

There is a time for love and there is a time for a gun! I actually preach a sermone entitled: "The Whip or the Towel?" which deals with Jesus using the whip on the money changers, and the towel on his Disciples fighting and fussing over who would sit at his right and his left.

In simple terms: Jesus beat the Hell out of the moneychangers at the Temple, and, should we have misguided religious zealots crash planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, they would get the same treatment from Jesus as the moneychangers.

Distort or destroy the way of God which is the way of love and forgiveness--AND the whip comes out in Jesus' hands.

Now, Joe old buddy--I have given you an answer you will understand with your "war mind."

Do you now dare to go to "Cost of War?"

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gene S said...

Gottcha Joe!!!!

Beneath that Conservative Christian facade lies the true personality of a----Pharisee????

Or Conservative Republican--I can't see there is much difference, my angry brother!

Gene S said...

Joe--

Just tried to email you, but it got returned with the message there is no account under this name.

Perhaps, you need to copy and paste it next time.

You can put all your hostility on me in private, but expect the same in return per my story above about the drug addict with barber shears at my liver.

Lydia said...

"A Republican is nothing but a Democrat who made some money and wants to keep it all---AND pay little or no taxes on his Corportion!"

Wed Dec 16, 09:34:00 AM 2009

So, your daddy did not know history either. Do you know the birthplace of the Republican party?It isn't Boston or Virginia.

And I suppose John Corzine is broke? Jay Rockefeller? Shall I list all the rich democrats for you? The Kennedy's? I especially like the ones flying around on private planes with 20,000sq ft homes who preach on global warming. Those are my favorites. :o)

Gene S said...

Joe--

If you can't figure out how to convey your email, here is mine:

Gscrbr5@redscable.com

Lydia said...

"Thank goodness for 'independents'.
There are a lot of Christian people out there who are not of the Republican 'persuasion' on grounds of moral law and conscience."

So that is a round about way to say that people like me are immoral and have no conscience. Very nice, Christiane. What happened to all the 'love'?

cynosure said...

Gene, of 137+ replys I decided to go to the bottom and read up. Thanks for being number two from the bottom ("bout where you belong" I saved time because I stopped there I've better things to do. I'm a little in the dark about who was the nut in the mental institution.Oh,I just checked back and now you are on the bottom thats proper. I've yet to read anything you have said that actually warranted a response other than disdain.
Jim Sadler

Gene S said...

Lydia--

The definition was tongue-in-cheek. I readily admit there are many rich representatives / corporate moguls who still hold the Democratic name in their relationships.

What is most interesting to me as a "Son of the Southeast" is that when riches came our way what were solidly Democratic States quickly became Republican as money and corporate relocation moved south.

Now the battle for the vote in America tries to portray Democrats as left-wing givaway-to-the-poor / tax-and-spend "liberals."

That is no more across the board true than Republicans portrayed as fiscally tight-fisted / no new taxes / supporters of free enterprise / anti-abortion/gay believers in every word of the Bible.

In reality, each party is trying to control and fight no matter how badly the public suffers. We are suffering enough already---how about quit bickering and spending our taxpayer money for nothing.

Right now I'm ready to give myself my own bailout: Translated, it means, "kiss my tail--I'm not paying any more taxes to you wasteful fools!"

How about if 3/4 of us taxpayers sent in our IRS forms with a big "KISS MY TAIL!" printed across it. Could or would they try to jail all of us rebellious Americans in the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave"--er, land of the over-taxed and relm of the fearful????

Gene S said...

Jim--

Opinions are like ears and asshole-everyone has some!

I checked you profile: insurance / mid-west--I, too, have an insurance license as well as Series 6 Securities.

The Series 6 means "tell the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Read a little more here or at my blog: babyboomlearner.com

You may come to realize there is more beneath the surface!

Lydia said...

"What is most interesting to me as a "Son of the Southeast" is that when riches came our way what were solidly Democratic States quickly became Republican as money and corporate relocation moved south.
"

I guess rewritten history blanks out the rich greedy plantation slave owners who were DEMOCRATS.

The curious thing about America is that in the 30's and 40's it was the intellectuals and wealthy who were attracted to the communist underground. But the biggest problem is that no one could tell them apart from the liberals in government so they operated freely.

Darby Livingston said...

Thief: A person who steals
Greed: An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth

I actually had in mind the kind of thief who uses government instead of a gun to get what he wants.

And I actually had in mind the kind of greed that wants others to pay for things that people didn't feel like earning for themselves, yet feel entitled to. That's the kind of greed Jesus said to be on guard against.

Gene S said...

When looking at reality in America vs. ideals, we have many time come up short:

Women could not vote
Blacks could not vote
Sorry, lazy, indigents get excessive welfare money
Health costs rise a 3+ times inflation
Congress people get special retirement and health benefits they deny to citizens
ETC!!!

However, some have been corrected. No one party can take the credit.

How much of this correction can be attributed to the Church calling for a "just society???"

Lydia said...

Darby, good distinctions on the definitions. I had not thought of that.

Christiane said...

Lydia,

I am right about what I am saying: there are many Christian people who could NOT support Republican values, as these values have changed direction to become more extreme in the last decade.

My brother, a life-long Republican, voted Democrat for the first time in his life on strong moral principles.
He said he couldn't, in good conscience, continue to support that party. I took him at his word.
He was a Christian when he voted Republican and he is still a Christian man.
It wasn't HIS FAITH that changed.

The actual 'implication' has become the other way around:
if you DARED to vote Democratic or DARED not to support a a Republican candidate, you 'could not possibly be a Christian'.
For many people, Lydia, that stand alone has scandalized voters and turned them away from the Republican Party.

You won't hear myself or even most Americans saying that 'if you vote Republican, you 'could not possibly be a Christian'.

Lydia said...

You won't hear myself or even most Americans saying that 'if you vote Republican, you 'could not possibly be a Christian'.

Wed Dec 16, 05:30:00 PM 2009

Of course you do not word it like that. You wrap it in innuendo and cover it with sugar but the sentiment (and insult) is the same. You said I am immoral and have no conscience.

Of course, voting for a man who made the withholding of medical care for born alive aborted babies his big issue in the Ill legislature is the epitome of morality and a good conscience?

And that is a direct statement. Not an innuendo.

Gene S said...

Christiane--

You have hit the nail exactly on the head about Republicans claiming to be "righteous" while accusing Democrats of "being of the devil."

Starting years ago the Moral Majority used to send out bulletin inserts a month prior to the election. It appeared to be an analysis of political position for each candidate---NOT

When I read the details, it was the super-christian vs. devil's disciple breakdown of position. Strangely, all the Democrats were "of the devil:" abortionists / gay lovers / war haters / etc. EVERY divisive element of the campaign was on the table.

No minister wanting to keep his church's tax exempt status should be stupid enough to put such biased and political garbage before church members---Especially if he prefaces it as an "unbiased report on candidates."

No rational person should be stupid enough to buy into PR managed descriptions of the opponent. In fact, if most candidates were as wicked as their challenger says, NEITHER ONE SHOULD BE ELECTED UNLESS YOU WANT CROOKS AND CRIMINALS!

This could just be the problem with American politics these days--most really decent people shy from the frey--they think they have better things to do than be vilified!

It is a sad day without much ethics attached despite all the talk of a new transparency in government!

Lydia said...

No minister wanting to keep his church's tax exempt status should be stupid enough to put such biased and political garbage before church members---Especially if he prefaces it as an "unbiased report on candidates."

Of course such things have never happened in democrat circles. Can you say Rev Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? Or how about the Rev Jeremiah Wright...

Christiane said...

How does a person get from:

A. "There are a lot of Christian people out there who are not of the Republican 'persuasion' on grounds of moral law and conscience."

B.

C.

D.


to this:

E. "You said I am immoral and have no conscience."

Gene S said...

Lydia--

This garbage is happening on every side of the poliical aisle, AND it is unconsionable to me.

Why do Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton get their presence and words in all things controversial?

Answer: Money!!!!!

People foolishly support the splitting of America, hoping to get more than their share of the profit!

When everything comes down to "HE WHO DIES WITH THE MOST TOYS WINS" we have reached a new low in civilization--about as low as the Roman Empire which expired after 400 years with mercinaries in the place of citizen soldiers / the Coliseum and its entertainment being more important than honesty and good representation / the idea superiority was the right of Romans despite whom they controlled (Judea/Briton/France/Constantinople)

It did not work then, nor will it work now. Our national history is 200 years old. Will we last another 200 to match Rome????

Only a society attempting and achieving "liberty and justice for ALL" deserves 400 or more years.

If we fail, it we be our own fault for deserting the dreams of the Founding Fathers and those who have given life, itself, in pursuit of that glorious dream.

It can become a nightmare any day, depending on our honesty and integrity!

Rex Ray said...

To All,
Snopes.com http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/wilders.asp
says this speech 'Last Man Standing' was truly given.

If changes the way I look at Israel. If it’s not scary, you're braver than I.

Rex

Liam Madden said...

Joe,

I'm not writing to debate here. I usually don't get into the nitty gritty here on Wade's blog as much as I did this time. I respect your views on abortion. Sad to say that it used to be done more casually. I was a straight arrow in high school and college (good Baptist boy, no pre-marital sex for me, that sort of thing) but I knew two girls who had abortions to end unplanned pregnancies. One was a preacher's daughter. One day, I saw her sitting out in the rain, just sitting there crying. She had no umbrella, no raincoat, and made no effort to get out of the rain. Later, her friend told me she'd been down to Atlanta to get an abortion earlier that day. Later, I wondered why she sat in the rain; did she feel like she needed to be washed clean? I'm afraid there's not enough rain for that.

I think that you and I would both agree that we live in a fallen world, and that everyone needs to look to the Savior to find our way out of this mess.

Darby Livingston said...

"I think that you and I would both agree that we live in a fallen world, and that everyone needs to look to the Savior to find our way out of this mess."

Fitting words indeed. Well said.

Cap Pooser said...

I may have missed it, but did anyone point out in the U.S.Constitution, article 1 section 8, where the powers of congress are listed which allow any funding for health care? If it is not there, the 10th amendment reserves the power to the states or people. Also, the Stupek amendment and the Senate version allow for abortion on demand, since they allow for exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Doe v. Bolten has interpreted that as abortion on demand.All a woman has to do is say she was raped, or her emotional life , economic life or some other aspect of her life would be affected and she qualifies. Stupeck is a sleeper for abortion on demand at taxpayer expense. Indeed, my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

Cap Pooser said...

I may have missed it, but did anyone point out in the U.S.Constitution, article 1 section 8, where the powers of congress are listed which allow any funding for health care? If it is not there, the 10th amendment reserves the power to the states or people. Also, the Stupek amendment and the Senate version allow for abortion on demand, since they allow for exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Doe v. Bolten has interpreted that as abortion on demand.All a woman has to do is say she was raped, or her emotional life , economic life or some other aspect of her life would be affected and she qualifies. Stupeck is a sleeper for abortion on demand at taxpayer expense. Indeed, my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

Christiane said...

A History Lesson:

"Resolution On Abortion, adopted at the SBC convention, June 1971:

WHEREAS, Christians in the American society today are faced with difficult decisions about abortion; and
WHEREAS, Some advocate that there be no abortion legislation, thus making the decision a purely private matter between a woman and her doctor; and
WHEREAS, Others advocate no legal abortion, or would permit abortion only if the life of the mother is threatened;
Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Convention express the belief that society has a responsibility to affirm through the laws of the state a high view of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life, in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother "


Things have changed.
But not before 1973, because when Roe vs. Wade was first passed, the SBC approved of it.

With that in mind, you begin to wonder about the motivation for change in the attitude of the SBC.

An observation: in the seventies, a much-younger and not so wealthy Pat Robertson set out to amass support. He needed the support of Roman Catholics. And their money. He was one of the first to use the abortion issue and to tie it to politics. But he wasn't the only one. The money flowed in.

Soon, as his wealth and prominence grew, others took note. And more and more of the 'moral' majority signed on to the bandwagon.

Now, they didn't go all-out for 'the sanctity of life'. Oh no.
It was still 'acceptable' to practice the 'death penalty'. And, once those babies were born, well, funding care for the born from tax dollars was much frowned upon.

So we have a very strange mix of 'values' out there, and quite an 'evolution' in attitudes surrounding the abortion issue. Lots of changes, yes; lots of reasons for change, yes.
Not all of them wholesome.

But, you know, 'that's okay' if it saves an unborn child's life. (The old 'ends justify the means' game.)
But for some, it all had nothing to do with the life of a vulnerable child. Sadly, the only motivation for them was to see that the right people get elected. And to get elected, you needed money and votes.

Wouldn't it wonderful if 'sanctity of life' really caught on?
As in 'respect for the dignity of all human life' ?

But that would require change of a different sort.

Rex Ray said...

Is anyone listening?

Fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe.

Muslims do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Why did Obama exaggerate the one million Muslims in America to nearly seven million? Was he bragging or complaining?

Lydia said...

A. "There are a lot of Christian people out there who are not of the Republican 'persuasion' on grounds of moral law and conscience."

B.

C.

D.


to this:

E. "You said I am immoral and have no conscience."

Wed Dec 16, 07:23:00 PM 2009


A.means: That if you are of the Republican persuasion then you must believe in immoral law and have no conscience.

What else can it mean?

It was MEANT to insult. But since you are never direct and hardly ever called out for your backhanded insults you won't admit it. So you can continue. I simply called you out for once.

You are as slippery as an eel, Christiane.

I will take directness any day of the week even if it is mean.

Gene S said...

Liam tells the inside hurt and pain of a girl who decided to break out of her SS religion and enjoy the college wild life. Her pain and guilt over an abortion should motivate caring people of faith to express forgiveness and love rather than further disdain!

L's gives us a historical note showing the moving and shaking of politics and money to make abortion a mountain of guilt and political lies. George Bush (claiming his Super-Chistian status) never was clear about fetal tissue research nor could he completely get away from it.

It holds many keys to discovering how tissue can be transplanted without rejection as well as to re-grow a vital organ using the patient's own tissue. I believe this research to be noble and necessary, but the super-righteous condemn people to misery and death with their arrogant and narrow heads held high.

What is most interesting to me is that those who yell loudest over abortion being evil extend their yelling to cheers over invading the Middle East and Capital Punishment. Yet, they see no disconnect with obsessing over sanctity of life for a fetus and sending soldiers and criminals to their death. Some have killed doctors to "save life"???????

Is this inconsistent or what????

Motivation is always important to analyse any historical decision or event. Here is what I see among Southern Baptists or late:

(1) Takeover having more to do with political power than Inerrancy--Wade just had a major blog on this!
(2) To the victor went the spoils so every institution and Agency is now run by the CR "Kings." They have reached an undeniable plateau in giving / growing.
(3) Now the young trainees in CR are pointing their gunsights at the 1979 winners and blaming them for the mess so they must go = 3 leadership slots vacant--the most important being the NAMB which has messed up every attempt a nationwide media evangelism!
(4) All this is sugar coated with "God is leading us to select _______ to be the next President and God is in it." REALLY?????

In L's historical vein, take note of the mission emphasis in 1979 when CR took over:

BOLD MISSION THRUST was the title, and it involved major expenditures in money and people to literally share the Gospel to the ends of the earth. Baptist TelNet (now owned by Pat Robertson for a fire sale price) was in place to broadcast the gospel to anyone with a satellite dish and TV, no matter how remote the location.

We had funding and manpower. The display at Houston was awe-inspiring! We could now literally do what we had been saying from the founding of the SBC = "Carry the words of the Great Commission into real action everywhere!!!"

Here we are in 2009 in a mess. We are cutting back on mission expenses. We no longer have TelNet as a tool owned by the SBC. Our mission leaders have generated major rifts within their staff and agency--most of it over EGO and DICTATION OF WHAT YOU WILL DO.

The one conclusion I make is: God DOES NOT bless a mess!!!!!

Gene S said...

Rex--

I just had time to chase down the speech you wisely cited. It points out problems so much greater than a war against terror and I had not considered how vast neighborhoods in America and around the world have placed the Muslim world in most major cities.

I grew up in Atlanta and can vouch for it there and even in litle 50,000 people Rocky Mount, NC.

My further comments and the speech may be simply found at:

http://babyboomlearner.blogspot.com/2009/12/will-terrorism-be-conquered.html

Like you, NOW I'm really scared!!

Gene S said...

I add a small word of caution quickly shared with me from a good friend reading my blog:

In a HP/De Tijd profile dated December 2006 the party was described as a cult, with an extremely distrustful Wilders only accepting fellow candidates completely loyal to him, and compared to the SP led by Jan Marijnissen but without reaching that degree of organizational perfection.[8]

Our own, Dr. XXXXXXX, just last night gave a wonderful picture presentation and discussion of his medical mission trip to a 100% Muslim part of India. He was never threatened, was heartfully welcomed, even as he was by the Muslim people of rural areas of China over the past several years, and we saw grateful people who are only “nominal” Muslims by most accounts. That does not remove the reality of extremist Muslims, but the real challenge is why the followers of Jesus who call ourselves Christians have failed to engage our own people is a sufficient way to lead them to find true and lasting value in our faith! This has nothing to do with Islam, or Hinduism, or secular humanism. This is a failure on our part to be attentive to the real message and life of being a disciple of Jesus Christ. The world must look at us and wonder what it is that makes us so “loving” and how “wonderful we care for each other and the world” without judgmentalism (note the ism on the end of judgment). No one can really come to the faith of Christ until “they want it.” It cannot be manipulated or forced or coerced, but must be lived in such a way as to call into question their belief that all we are is a bunch of arrogant judgmentalists.

Corrie said...

"Her pain and guilt over an abortion should motivate caring people of faith to express forgiveness and love rather than further disdain!"

Amen, Gene!

And, yes, we must analyze motivation to get down to the nitty gritty of why things happen or why people do the things they do. Jesus could looked at a person's heart and not their actions and could see the motivations of their heart and why they did the things they did. That is why He went after the pharisees in an aggressive manner and dealt very gently with the sinners.

For everyone else....Doug Phillips of Vision Forum has deemed those who would do anything medically to save the life of a mother when she has an ectopic pregnancy to be one and the same with a woman who would throw her own children out of the boat to be eaten by sharks in order to save her own life.

http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/life/why_the_life_of_the_mother_is.aspx

He sees those who believe that in order to be pro-life one must also do everything to preserve the life of the mother to be not so much pro-life at all. He would have the woman wait until her tube ruptures before anything medically is done or else that woman is killing her child. Obviously he doesn't understand that where there is no medical treatment of ectopic pregnancies 1 in 3 women die. And even if the woman lives after a tubal rupture there is often massive damage done to her reproductive organs, huge blood loss and much medical intervention (ie surgery, blood transfusion) in order to stop the bleeding and save her life. Not to mention the massive pain she often experiences before and after the tube ruptures.

He would rather see women suffer all of that even though there is really no chance for that fetus to survive in the fallopian tube. He doesn't understand that a woman who is going through this does NOT want her child to die, that that child is a WANTED child but it will not survive because of where it is implanted and that her future reproductive health and life is in danger.

"WHEREAS those theories which justify the killing of the unborn child on the basis of the circumstances of conception (as in the case of rape and incest), or even the life of the mother (ectopic pregnancies) are completely false because they are based on unbiblical and humanistic ethics, unbiblical definitions of “self defense” theory, and a rejection of the personhood of the child; and"

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Corrie said...

Joe,

Your position is what the pro-life groups take on ectopic pregnancy. Phillip's is not in line with pro-life organizations.

After reading all this talk about the government, I want to be like the ostrich that sticks her head in the sand.

But, one thing I do know, I do not want the Christian Taliban to come to power and set up a theocracy.

I would rather take my chances with the current way things are run. :-)

I refuse to go back to denim dresses and big hair bows. I just won't do it.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gene S said...

--------Corrie vs. Joe--------

Corrie 2
Joe 0

Look out, Joe--she's smart and not prone to male bowing!!!

I love it!

Darby Livingston said...

"This, in my book, is the ultimate no-win scenario. There is no "right" answer to this."

As Liam noted, we live in a fallen world and aren't meant to get out of it without a Savior. There are certainly times when these kinds of decisions have to be made. I would suggest grace and compassion in such instances, trusting that the Master of all creation is able to make his servants stand.

Christiane said...

ECTOPIC PREGNANCY

In my Church, there is NO OPPOSITION to operating on the mother before rupture of the tube occurs, in order to save her life.

The thinking goes like this: it is known that ectopic pregnancy will very likely kill the mother and the operation is done for the purpose of saving her life.

It is known that termination of the pregnancy WAS NOT SOUGHT as the primary motive for the surgery.

That is the thinking of my own Church, wherein 'sanctity for life' has been consistantly a teaching. Even in the Didache, written in the first century, there is mention of the sancity of life.

Caritas Christi,
L's

Christiane said...

Dear LYDIA,

The listing of letters in my example is an analysis pattern of how someone's statement ends up being interpreted by someone else, in a way that requires a lot of 'assumptions' being made on the way to that final interpretation.

The 'interim' letters represent a chain of thoughtful assumptions that lead to the 'interpretation'.

It is a 'classic' pattern.
Lot's a people do this.
It is a known pattern in families where disfunctional communication patterns are studied by counselors to try to identify and explain what 'patterns' are being used that might be causing misunderstanding and pain.

'Slippery as an eel',no.
MSEd in Guidance and Counseling, with training in communication patterns in family therapy, yes.
I just noticed what I think is a pattern and thought I would present it so that you might consider what stages you went through in order to arrive at your 'conclusion'.
Presenting the A-B-C-D-E pattern wasn't done to hurt you, Lydia.
I showed the pattern because I know that you are bright enough to understand what might be going on there.
As I said, all of us use the 'pattern' at times, without realizing it;
and, sadly, that most certainly leads to a lot of misunderstanding and pain in our communications with one another.

Caritas Christi,
L's

Darby Livingston said...

L's,

You're talking around Lydia's point. She wasn't questioning your use of logic, although you used that to suggest she might be dysfunctional. She was wondering why you always speak of love and tolerance all the time, yet chastise without proof those who don't see things like you do. Lydia is not the only one to see it and be frustrated by it. Lydia and I disagree on the issue of gender roles. But we disagree knowing the other person's side without impugning motives because we interact clearly. You, at times, write things in a sketchy way that you can then wriggle out of later if need be. It comes across as condescending or fake, whether that is your intention or not. On this post, we're not talking about "some Republicans" but we're interacting with each other. So which "some Republicans" did you have in mind? I think that is Lydia's point. I hope this helps.

Christiane said...

Hi DARBY,

There is this to think about:

If respect is given to a person, it must be considered that they operate by a PERSONAL set of values that is specific to them and that the formation of their consciences is an extremely personal thing.

Many on 'the right' reject that thinking. They may insist on a 'lock-step' devotion to a group that espouses, at least verbally, their own set of values, which they wish to claim are the 'only acceptable values'. And so, individual conscience is then thrown to the side as a reason for excluding one's self from the 'lock-step' group.

It's kind of like 'conscientous objectors' in the military. Sometimes they serve as medics on the field of battle, or chaplains on the field of battle. But, by their own conscience, they do not kill on the battlefield. Do they risk getting killed? Oh yes, and many have been injured and killed in their service.
Are they often vilified. Yes. By people who don't understand that no one may interfere on that holy ground that exists between a man's conscience and his God.

Darby, I appreciate your explanation. There is so much pain out there already. I have no wish to add to anyone's upset, least of all Lydia.

Actually, I may have put it out there that many, many Americans now view the Republican Party poorly, but for the wrong reasons.
It's not the Republican governmental and economic ideology that they are shocked by.
From what I can see, the Republicans doing the 'shocking' are wanting that to happen, but it has backfired because it comes out looking like judgmental hypocrisy at best, and something else at worst.
Thought-provoking? I certainly hope so. I WANT this country to have a strong HEALTHY two-party system with a sound system of 'checks-and-balances' in place. Most Americans do.

Darby, thanks for helping.
Love, L's

Darby Livingston said...

L's,

Thanks for responding. Do you not see your explanation being just as applicable to Democrats? It seems to me we all vilify whomever we want based on personal presuppositions and desires.

Gene S said...

Darby--

I am amazed you would try to defend the 2nd party when L's clearly said she wished for a 2 party system that worked. Nothing ever works well if there is only 1 side. That translates into King or Dictator.

Across our US economy and philosophy, we seem to have less real debate and more uniformity. The recent Healthcare "Debate" seems to be nothing but people talking past one another using half-truths and fear tactics to pass whatever the heck the thing is.

In the last couple of days there is talk of "tacked on" measures--who knows if any of it has to do with basic healthcare.

Someone once said a camel was a horse designed by a government committee! The bottom line is that when representatives view any measure only with a eye to re-election, you DO NOT have the ideal of a government "of / by / for" the people who pay taxes to fund it.

Somewhere between Anarchy and Dictatorship there has to be a better way. I think Jesus, the Christ, was all about people learning how to get along and forgive one another as God has forgiven us for human failure!

Can you believe prior to WWI there was no Income Tax!!!! What was supposed to be a temporary tax to pay the debt of war has turned into a fear-induced heavy burden generating billions which our government delights in wasting on whatever whim strikes them!!!

I smell 200 years ago in England and Europe recreated by those who left if with smiles on faces despite horrible sea sickness on the journey to a "Land of the Free."

Christiane said...

Hi DARBY,

I understand, yes.
But the majority of Americans CAN respect a moral stand on the part of anyone, and they don't understand when that respect is not returned.

My point in my statement was that there are many Americans, who, on grounds of personal moral beliefs and personal conscience, cannot accept the Republican extremists mantra as things now stand.
My brother, I gave as just one example. He is what you would call a 'mainstream' Christian with a basically Republican governmental outlook.
He is not accepting the 'baby killer' labeling of the far-right.
He is a pediatrician and is often called upon to be present when a child is delivered prematurely.
He does support abortion in certain medical cases. He does not perform abortions (God forbid).

Morally, you couldn't meet a finer man. Darby, you would like him, and I think he would like you.
My brother is a Methodist who converted to his wife's religion in order to bring up the children of their union 'as a family'. As a Catholic, I understand and respect his decision. He teaches adult Sunday School. He has told me that he would study for the ministry if he were not a physician.

The fact that he doesn't support the Republican party at this time does not mean that he does not respect the rights of others to do so. No name-calling from him.
Or from me.

The element of concern is this: that people of faith sometimes mix religion and politics together in a way that hurts both. Is this what is happening? I ask the question. I haven't got any answers. Love, L's

Darby Livingston said...

Gene,

Good points.

L's,

"The element of concern is this: that people of faith sometimes mix religion and politics together in a way that hurts both. Is this what is happening? I ask the question. I haven't got any answers."

Well put. You are certainly right about this, and it comes from all sides.

Gene S said...

It warms my heart at Christmas to see good discussion without rancor.

Good question / observation about mixing politics and religion. It is like mixing up nitro-glycerine: 2 volatile and unstable things put together make both into an explosion waiting to happen and people get hurt in the blast.

Even Jesus' followers had their problems: Peter & Paul is a prime example. They decided to split up and each do his own mission rather than having a constant fist fight over Gentile vs. Jew.

Baptists used to do that when Autonomy was part of the picture. You could say or do whatever you wanted, but a local church or individual in it didn't have to leave if they had a different notion.

NO LONGER TRUE!!! If you notice the politics of ego and the religion of the Pharisee combined to destroy what used to be the largest Protestant Denomination and 2nd largest Christian group (Catholics have more members) in America. Even those in power now cannot deny significant lowering of giving to the CP and people joining our churches.

What's wrong??? Why are so many new churches refusing to put "Baptist" on the church sign???

Have we mixed religion and politics despite our founders of the Baptist faith screaming, "Never leave the land of SEPARATION of CHURCH AND STATE!

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gene S said...

Joe--

If I were hearing it from women who pays the price in any pregnancy, I would be more convinced.

Like most anti-abortion people, you portray the procedure as if it is performed readily after the first 3 months----NOT TRUE!

You vilify the doctors performing the procedure---the majority have not forgotten their Hyppocratic Oath to perserve life.

A natural abortion--miscarriage--takes place in certain situations. Not all of them would have resulted in a deformed child. It just happens in a certain predictable percentage of pregnancies.

Since we now have the power to extend life, why would we run from the power to deal with life before 9 months has expired?

Again, I underline---few, if any women submit to an abortion with a clear conscience. If you heap coals of fire on their heads as a man who NEVER GETS PREGNANT, I just view it as "He doesn't know what he is talking about!"

Lydia said...

"Now, they didn't go all-out for 'the sanctity of life'. Oh no.
It was still 'acceptable' to practice the 'death penalty'. "

This must really cause confusion for you when you read the OT. Some of God's laws command a death sentence if broken. So, the Giver of Life, Who knit us in the womb has commanded humans to put other humans to death. How do you deal with that?

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darby Livingston said...

"Again, I underline---few, if any women submit to an abortion with a clear conscience. If you heap coals of fire on their heads as a man who NEVER GETS PREGNANT, I just view it as "He doesn't know what he is talking about!"

Gene,

This is nonsense. I'll prove it to you.

Again, I underline---few, if any serial killers rape and kill with a clear conscience. If you heap coals of fire on their heads as a man who NEVER RAPES AND KILL, I just view it as "He doesn't know what he is talking about!"

Doesn't have as tolerant of a ring to it that way does it?

You're simply misinformed about 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions not being readily performed. That's one of the biggest lies the abortion-rights lobby fosters, and apparently you've bought into it. I've done extensive research into the stats, though a very simple Google search is all it would take to disprove your statement.

Darby Livingston said...

"How do you deal with that?"

Simple: Say that was the Old, this is the New.

So you have to go to Paul's example in Acts where he says if he did something worthy of death (implying there was such things), he'd gladly die, or Rom. 13 where Paul expresses the purpose of government. I guess people today think swords were used back then to cut cookies.

Lydia said...

"Many on 'the right' reject that thinking. They may insist on a 'lock-step' devotion to a group that espouses, at least verbally, their own set of values, which they wish to claim are the 'only acceptable values'. And so, individual conscience is then thrown to the side as a reason for excluding one's self from the 'lock-step' group."

Sort of like those who say that anyone who opposes government run health care do not care about people and want to see them die?
Those lockstep "acceptable values"?

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lydia said...

"How do you deal with that?"

Simple: Say that was the Old, this is the New.

So you have to go to Paul's example in Acts where he says if he did something worthy of death (implying there was such things), he'd gladly die, or Rom. 13 where Paul expresses the purpose of government. I guess people today think swords were used back then to cut cookies.

Thu Dec 17, 04:53:00 PM 2009

Darby, I should have explained it better. I was thinking more along the lines of ALL the attributes of God when I wrote what I did because the subject of capital punishment is lumped in with sanctity of life.

Personally, I am not sure where I am on captial punishment anymore. But, I certainly do not buy the argument that abortion and capital punishment are the same thing.

(They also used stones!)

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christiane said...

Who is saying that they ARE the same thing?
They are connected, however, in this way: 'the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Praise be the Name of the Lord.'
The idea of 'life' coming from the Lord of Life. There are SOME who feel this extends to all human life from conception to natural death. For them, only He Who gives has the right to take away.
Does this preclude the right to defend yourself, if attacked? For a very small minority, it does. For most, it does not.
Does it preclude the 'death sentence'? For more and more Christian people, it does. There are still many Christian people who feel differently. Each is operating on their own honest beliefs and should be respected for their convictions.

Joe Blackmon said...

Great News!!! The struggle against Obamacare goes forward thanks to one of the few Democrats with sense--Nelson of Nebraska. He's holding out over abortion coverage. The American people can still have a victory over Obama and the rest of the bad guys.

Christiane said...

A HEALTH CARE revelation came when a physician appeared before Congress to testify that she, as an agent of an insurance company, had been told to deny claims indiscriminately, and would be paid according to the money that she saved the company.
She told of a man whose claim she denied, knowing that it would be a sentence of death for him. Her words, spoken through tears, were this: 'I denied that man a chance to live, in order to increase profits.'

NOW.

If a person opposes what the insurance company did to this man, through the doctor's 'cooperation',
does that mean the person 'supports government-run health care',
OR
does it mean that the person wants the government to STOP the right of insurance companies to make a profit from the indiscriminate denial of treatment needed by its clients? Particulary when the denial leads to certain death?

Maybe the real enemy for everone out there is the middle man who makes his money by denying sick people their needed, paid-for benefits, in order to make a profit.
Take him out, and we all win.

Caritas Christi,
L's

Joe Blackmon said...

For them, only He Who gives has the right to take away.


That's right--He also has the right to delegate that authority. And He has to the government in some cases for the punishment of crimes.

Romans 13:3-4 (NASB)
3For (D)rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;

4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

Christiane said...

JOE,
The people who see it differently from you are also convicted to feel as they do.

The truth is: people are made by their Creator to see things from different perspectives, and then to they are to share their gifts with one another.
Trick is to do it in a way that allows for a spirit of understanding to prevail. We have lost a lot of our civility in this country. We need to regain it in order to work towards the 'common good'.

Joe Blackmon said...

The people who see it differently from you are also convicted to feel as they do.


A difference of opinions or viewpoints does not mean that one of those viewpoints is not wrong. Mormons are convicted to believe the theology they believe and they will spend eternity in hell all the while here on earth they have strong convictions that they are right.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 269   Newer› Newest»