Four powerful words: “We Can’t Afford It.” These are words that are lobotomized out of the vocabulary of insatiable materialism and politicians. Instead of admitting that we as a nation can’t afford helpful, but expensive programs; we keep spending. (Both Democrats and Republicans Spend, Spend, Spend!) Washington D.C. lives up to the meaning of poli-tics– “Poly” meaning […]
Ed Schultz says anyone who disagrees with Obamacare is a Phony Christian who doesn’t want to be his brother’s keeper.
As the author of Godonomics, where I lay out multiple moral reasons why one might be against Obamacare, let me summarize here. Let’s begin with Schultz’s misquoting of the Bible with his reference to being our “brother’s keeper.”
The Bible NEVER advocates being our brother’s keeper. The only time the phrase is used, is by Cain right after he KILLED his brother. (Personal note to Ed: “When advocating taking care of your brother, it is best not to quote the guy who killed his brother… I’m just saying.)
Being your brother’s keeper is almost a textbook definition of codependency. I have worked with the poorest of poor in Chicago, Atlanta, and Cincinnati. I have worked at a Methadone clinic helping addicts find freedom from addiction; and I can assure you that it is impossible to be anyone’s keeper. Disagree? Try it for one day. Try to make someone else responsible, generous, or work hard; it is impossible. This is why the Bible advocates “carrying each other’s burdens” while affirming each person “carry their own load.” (Ed, this is a actual quotation from the Bible in the book of Galatians.)
A few moral reasons why a “real Christian” might reject Obamacare.
1. All government purchases are third party purchases (using money that is not theirs to buy services they will not consume) and will by definition be more inefficient.
2. The Bible advocates conversion, not coercion by inspiring individuals to help the poor, hurting, and sick -not forcing people to do so. In fact, some philosophy to consider. If God has the power to take from one person to give to another (which he does), and the wisdom to do it with perfect moral fairness (which he could), but chooses not to coerce people, why would we think it would be moral for a group (the government) to do the same?
3. If Obamacare is so wonderful and moral, why have the Congress (who made the bill) exempted themselves out of it? This is a clear violation of God’s call to the rule of law where everyone is under the same standard. (The rule of law was unique to Mosaic Law and is totally abandoned when we have “tax payer” laws vs Bueracrat laws).
4. Since Obamacare covers abortions, I think the Bible mentions something about the morality of killing unborn children. Something about God skillfully making us in the womb perhaps? I think I remember the Holy Spirit coming upon John the Baptist in the womb when he met Jesus in the womb. I think God mentions not murdering in the ten commandments somewhere. But, perhaps Ed Schultz is more of a Bible scholar than those of us who have studied it for thirty years.
5. The Bible warns about large intrusive governments in 1 Samuel 8 where God says, “Forwarn them” that a king-sized government will take what is yours and make it his. This violation of property rights (later mentioned in the story of Reheboam and Ahab’s killing of Naboth to take his vineyard) is a clear immoral use of government to take from one to give to another.
6. Philanthropy magazine and other charital giving magazines always suggest giving to a charity where at least sixty to ninety percent goes directly to the poor, sick, or hurting. They also note that government agencies are some of the most inefficient, corrupt, and wasteful ways to give -with only 30 cents of each dollar going to the sick. (The rest being funnelles to political pork and special interest groups).
Clearly, Ed is a Bible scholar with a superhuman spidey sense to “discern phony Christians.” Cleary he has thought about philosophy, history, the Bible, and Godonomics in a very rational way. Clearly, he is qualified to call Christians phony while he misquotes the Bible directly. I think the only appropriate response to Ed comes from Billy Madison’s principle.
“What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Christians can disagree about Obamacare without being phony. There are moral reasons to question the system. There is space for rational discourse on these issues… I know Christians who agree and disagree with Obamacare. Neither group is phony. If Biblical scholarship is the litmus test for Christianity, clearly Ed is a Phony journalist. 🙂
For more information on the book or DVD series, GODONOMICS, checkout www.godonomics.com