Beliefnet
Lynn v. Sekulow

I like to think that my outrage is in relative proportion to the outrage that generated it in the first place.  I have never been known to give any politician a “pass” nor to overstate the gravity of a politician’s anti-separation errors.

So, as in my earlier blog, or in this interview with Fox News, I said what was on my mind about President Obama’s use of religious language to get people to rally around his health care plan.  Similarly, I have criticized the way the President has initiated his version of the “faith based initiative.”  It is my hope that this kind of specific criticism is useful.  More will come if changes are not made.

The comments to the rabbis last week were not as egregious as President Bush calling in religious figures to bless entry into the Iraq War after the late Pope John Paul II had opposed such action.  The comment about “bearing false witness” was clearly designed as a Biblical reference.  It wasn’t as sneaky as President Bush’s coded message about “power, wonder-working power” he slipped into his 2003 State of Union address right from the Baptist hymnal.  By the way, I didn’t issue any press releases or organize any Internet campaigns about either of these actions; I just answered questions honestly when asked.

However, what is really the issue here is whether the President is violating anyone’s constitutional rights by either (a) offering reproductive health coverage in some but not all plans that people can get after the healthcare overhaul he envisions and/or (b) reimbursing physicians for talking to people about “end of life care” options.  These are both red herrings that you and many of your compatriots are talking about.  Where are the unconstitutional provisions about these topics in any bill the President has endorsed, even in principle?

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click here. 

Previous Posts
Join the Discussion
comments powered by Disqus