The federal government must immediately adopt legislation to provide a reliable, late-model automobile for every U.S. citizen and resident.
To do so would create jobs. Imagine how many Americans could go to work to produce the new cars that the government would have to purchase!
It would help to reduce the deficit. After all, we now own General Motors. Anything that increases car sales by the government car company would necessarily bring in lots of money to reduce the deficit.
You should hear the sad stories of Americans who do not have reliable transportation! These people are stranded. They can't go to the grocery store. You just can't survive in most of America today without a dependable car.
Health care depends upon it. All of the insurance in the world is worthless if you can't get to your doctor. Also, we're having to pay for the unnecessary utilization of ambulances and helicopters by people who can't get to the hospital on their own because they don't have a reliable car. For some of these people whose health problems make it difficult for them to drive themselves, it would likely save us a great deal of money if we also provided them with a full-time chauffeur.
Providing a new car for everyone is vital to Interstate Commerce. I long ago lost count of the number of people seeking financial assistance from our church who couldn't keep a job because they didn't have dependable personal transportation. The productivity of the nation is hampered by our heartless system that denies personal transportation to millions of people.
Automobile costs have skyrocketed out of control! Some vehicles cost over $50,000 these days. People are plunged into debt just to try to provide transportation for their families. The government could buy in bulk and get the same low, low costs that they achieve in defense contracts.
A car for every American represents the culmination of the dream that our parents and grandparents had for us.
All of the cars should be blue. Dark blue. Turn signals will operate only to the left.
56 comments:
"All of the cars should be blue. Dark blue. Turn signals will operate only to the left."
That's funny!
Or maybe not?
Methinks too much education hath made thee mad. Any fool would realize it's HOUSING that must be provided for everyone.
After all, building houses would provide jobs in all communities, not just Detroit. Or Tokyo. Or Seoul.
The jobs would not require huge factories. Simple hand tools would provide full employment.
Since all government product is hideously overpriced, the effect on the economy would be much more pronounced.
Since nobody would have to pay for these houses, there would be no mortgages, thereby giving the banks which were the recipients of massive bailouts, nothing to do.
Which seems consistent with other government programs.
And I know this is true, because the Word Verification is "aines", which, if I pronounce it a certain way, it completely consistent with congress.
:)
No need to thank me.
The sad thing is someone will read this and think you are serious and agree with it.
You mean he's not serious??
This makes at least as much sense as the government funded baby murder they just passed. I'm sure Don Quixote and the rest of his little trained minions in Enid are super excited about what passed last night.
You're on to something, except that if the turn signals only operate to the left, it'll be too much like NASCAR, official activity/sport/past-time of gun-totin' rednecks, and we can't endorse that, can we?
It's an incredibly bad day for the USA. This day should be declared a day of mourning for our nation. We have done something that I thought I'd never see...we're turning into a socialist nation.
Who in the world voted for this man?
David
"....and the unclean-spirits came out, and entered the pigs, and the heard numbering two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea and were drown in the sea."
Last evening America increased the speed of its rush to the sea.
David: Who in the world voted for this man?
bapticus hereticus: I, one among a majority of others, voted for 'this' man. I, happily so. I would have preferred a more progressive healthcare bill, but realize competing values and the interest of others in addition to my own. And I am not swayed by rhetoric claiming a new morning in the US due to healthcare reform, nor am I swayed by equally silly rhetoric that this bill will ruin the US.
"I, one among a majority....nor am I swayed by equally silly rhetoric that this bill will ruin the US." the Heretic proudly boasted as he plunged into the sea on his way to hell.
CB, is it true that you are working on a doctorate?
Cash for Clunkers, folks. The government has already dipped a big toe into this particular pool. If lefties can swing it before we go entirely bankrupt as a nation, this will happen.
But they'll all be hybrids.
Pop Quiz
Question: Name for the needy without healthcare?
Answer: Clunker.
Question (Fill in the blank): What is ____ that God is mindful?
Answer: a pastor with healthcare insurance
Bart,
Good satire has enough truth in it to make those who agree with you chuckle (Bob C.), to make those who diagree with you flustered (hereticus), and is done in a way that it's funny (Dave Barry) without being mean-spirited. This is good satire. Well done.
Stuart: ... flustered (hereticus) ....
bapticus hereticus: Perhaps another day, Stuart, but not today, for this day I am elated and more assured that given a medical problem, people, yeah even my Christian brothers and sisters on this blog that oppose the current legislation, will receive care notwithstanding a previous condition.
should have chosen a better word than flustered. it was the least offensive one I could think of in the moment.
BH: I'm curious to hear your reaction to the idea of the federal government providing everyone with a car. Good idea or bad idea? Why?
hey it worked for us Aussies.. govt gave the money to us to buy cars with (or whatever we needed most) about two years ago.. we bailed out some of our industries that way.
Steve
Bart: BH[,] I'm curious to hear your reaction to the idea of the federal government providing everyone with a car. Good idea or bad idea? Why?
bapticus hereticus: I am not opposed to for-profit healthcare, but prefer such as a voluntary add-on to basic, adequate universal care that is sponsored by the government via its tax system. Economies of scale of said system will reduce cost far greater than our present system, and without a need to produce a dividend, resources are more available for experimental treatments, complications from pre-existing conditions, and unforeseen contingencies.
I am aware of the economic incentives of systems built on a utilitarian ethic, but such systems insufficiently advocate for the less powerful, thus systems which also take into account an ethic based on rights and justice is needed. To be sure, balancing the competing claims of these ethical positions is no easy task, and at times policy decisions require tradeoffs and compromise among them given the dynamic nature of culture and the situation in which it is experienced. Given this, decisions we make in one generation will likely need to be revisited and readjusted in the next in light of its experience and reasonable expectations for the future.
I believe that every American is entitled to chocolate....lots of chocolate. Thus, I propose to the US congress that we require every family to have a 10 lb bag of Snickers, Hershey's almond bars, and Almond Joys. Plus, every home should have a gallon of Moose Tracks ice cream. And, if they cant afford to have it, then they are to be given this chocolate every week. Taxes will be raised on all the rich making above $50,000 per year to pay for this. We will now have to have a Dept. of Chocolate Distribution to oversee this endeavor. Thus, it will "create" jobs. Every one will be happier due to the chocolate, so less mental and emotional healthcare will be needed.
Alright, who's with me? Baptist Heretic? Anyone?
David
volfan007,
Can I file a conscientious objection to having the Almond Joys based on a sheer disgust for coconut? Or are you going to force me to consume coconut against my will, you evil person you?
Being forced to have coconut chocolate is the end of civilization as we know it!!!!
And your recommendation of Moose Tracks simply proves your status as a right-wing extremists. Everyone knows that Moose Tracks will require Sarah Palin to stay on the national stage, hunting moose to make into ice cream.
Doug
Bother. As a right-wing extremist. Not a right-wing extremists.
Bad grammar is the beginning of the end of civilization as we know it!!!
Drill here for oil. Hunt here for moose!
Doug
Doug,
lol. Yes, I'm for forcing you to eat Almond Joys. You must eat coconut. If not, you will be fined. Your name will be put on a list...a malcontents list...that the FBI and the CIA will be aware of, to keep an eye on you.
Everyone should love Moose Tracks. If you dont, then you need to eat it 3 times a week until you do like it. President Obama will make sure that it's on every school systems menu, and it will be a required item on every restaurants menu. If you cant pay for it, dont worry. The other customers in the store will charged an extra 12% to pay for all of those who cant afford it.
Your Friendly Comrade,
David
Please don't misunderstand...I'm very much a Moose Tracks fan.
But not coconut!!!!
Doug
Doug and David,
I'm afraid that y'all are terribly off base on your chocolate debate. If the first lady has any influence, it will be tofu tracks that we will have forced down our throats.
mmmmm... I'm salivating already.
Now I'm going to need my government paid heart surgery---is this Matt Brady, eminent Pastor of Carriage Hills Baptist Church of Southaven, Mississippi, on the internet??? Or is it another Matt Brady?
Tofu's ok. If you take a very small amount, wrap it in chicken, bread it, and fry it in hot oil. Then, peel the fried chicken off and toss the tofu.
Just remember, though, if the government says tofu is good for you, then you should eat it. They're only out to protect you from yourself.
All kidding aside, I'm not real sure I want to see how high Guidestone raises my health rates on renewal. Methinks healthcare reform is going to cut off my ability to afford insurance.
Doug,
If I'm remembering correctly, O.S. Hawkins said that Guidestone would quit offering insurance if the healthcare bill passed. Well, it has passed.
So, what in the world are we gonna do?
David
David,
Don't know. If Guidestone holds out until the mandatory "no exclusions for pre-existing conditions" goes into effect, I'll be able to get insurance after they quit.
If they don't, or if they raise prices to prepare for the changes and price me out, I'll be toast. I'll find insurance for my wife and kids wherever I can afford it and hope the asthma stays at bay. I wonder how many people like me with potential life-threatening pre-existing conditions will find themselves uninsurable until 2014? And how many will lose their lives from it?
I'm thinking of people that will lose employer plans because of cost changes or their insurance company shutting down. People that are already paying a portion or all of their 'employer' coverage that cannot afford any further increase.
Of course, Guidestone has said nothing yet. Mindful that it's just been 2 days since the vote, but we've seen this coming for months, I'm surprised there wasn't a statement ready to go on the website. I'm wondering if it was just blustering to get us personally involved.
Back to the car idea: I'm for it, if we combine it with the chocolate plan. I will not eat the coconut, but you may certainly make my provided car with an insulated trunk to keep the Moose Tracks frozen!!
Doug
And yes, I avoided the "I'm not worried about my healthcare because God is in control" because only the last 4 words are true. God has been, and remains, in control, but it seems that only in America do we equate that with "so I won't worry about suffering due to poverty or persecution" while the rest of the Christian world realizes that yes, indeed, faithful Christians have both of those things happen. I am worried that we're seeing the collapse of an empire from inside, and we're in it. That there will be precious little in terms of an America to pass on to our posterity.
So, at night, I sleep knowing "God is in control." But in the daytime, I keep busy about the business of the kingdom because I do wonder what's coming next.
David (Volfan),
Interesting point about Guidestone. The new health bill subsidizes health insurance for anyone whose income falls under 400% of the poverty level and who is NOT covered by an "employer's" insurance plan. I'm wondering whether Guidestone insurance is considered an "employer's" insurance plan for pastor's participating. If it's not, the government might now help pastors under the 400% poverty level purchase their insurance. If it is, it seems to me Guidestone could restructure their health insurance policies so it is purchased by pastors as "individuals" and therefore qualify for the government subsidy.
Excellent post.
Bart, Now that was good thinking.
T.A.
r. grannemann
Don’t mean to jump in between you and David W., but I don’t think Guidestones is considered an “employer” plan. I know that my church doesn’t necessarily provide health insurance for me – but I do have so much per month designated as health insurance in our financial report because of taxes. Essentially I pay it out of my own pocket. While that is not true for everyone, I just don’t think Guidestones is an “employer” insurance program.
Now to the other idea – that of the government subsidizing my income so I could afford the increased premiums – I opted out of the Social Security program when I first entered the ministry. As a servant of Christ and the church, I do not believe that it is appropriate for me to be “subsidized” by the government in retirement. So, how can I in good conscience expect to be “subsidized” for my health insurance?
Grace,
Wes
Bart, you are sooooo funny. I've been dying to see what you were going to write. You did not disappoint me. selahV
Doug, I will trade you my Snicker bars for your almond joys. I don't like the peanuts in the Snickers because the remind me of another president who gives me indigestion whenever I think of him.
Bart, I'll take any car but a Prius. At my age a Prius may put me in the hospital and I will be on Medicare and the coverage will not replace my hips should they get broken in an accident.
Volfan, I cannot support March 23rd as a day of mourning. It's my daddy's birthday. And I will forever celebrate that he once was born upon this day. I see this as a day of celebration anyway. I don't think America died with the passage of this bill. I have never seen the engagement of Americans in politics like this my entire life. Even in the hippie days of Vietnam. People are not going to be like them. Moms are rising up to save their country for their children. Never underestimate the power and steadfastness of mothers who organize to protect their young.
We the People lost a battle, but the war is not over. Supremes are still the Supremes, and the Constitution is still the Constitution. Life is good. Jesus is the same. God is in control. He's just letting the Democrats and Pelosi think they are for a bit. That's all. selahV
WesInTex,
Thanks for your comment. If Guidestone is not an "employer" plan, as you say, then I don't know why Guidestone would want to stop offering insurance because the new health care bill passed (since it is the non-employer plans that are eligible for subsidy). Of course, a person for various reasons might not want to take the subsidy.
I don't believe the new health care legislations creates a system that will contain cost (just as our present system does not). Therefore you will see government increasingly trying to dictate cost to suppliers and consumers (we have already seen this in the new legislation taxing "Cadillac" health care plans -- to kick in in a couple of years). The biggest problem that threatens a viable system is the spiraling costs. Without introducing some consumer market forces (which even the present system largely lacks), I don't think we will have the happiest of outcomes.
Doug,
If you eat fried tofu the way you describe, you really would need that tax/debt funded heart surgery. You would be better off to take Miss. Hariette up on her offer of the snickers bars.
I usually don't comment, because I don't have much to add. How do you do any better than what Bart did? That was great.
I will however say concerning the idea that pastor's insurance would be subsidized by the government, I find that possibility to be utterly repugnant. If they get that foot in the door of Guidestone, they will be able to dictate whatever they will to Guidestone. All they would have to do is threaten to pull the subsidies and Guidestone would either have to cave or fold.
Methinks our cherished religious freedom is under attack on several fronts.
r. grannemann,
To be perfectly honest, I just don’t know if Guidestones would be considered an employer program or not. Some churches provide their pastors with insurance as a part of their “package” and a lot of others don’t. Guidestones provides resources to both. So – I just don’t know how to answer that but that as they do provide to both, they wouldn’t be considered an employer program. Admittedly I could be wrong.
Now, agreed, this new government program is not going to do anything to solve the real problems of cost and availability. The truth is that medical costs are going to skyrocket and doctors are going to become very hard to find. The vast majority of “benefits” from the takeover won’t even show up for 4-6 years, whereas the costs start almost immediately. As you said, without introducing market reforms to deal with the actual costs nothing is really going to change except that now the government is going to be much more involved in your daily life.
Grace,
Wes
Matt,
“Methinks our cherished religious freedom is under attack on several fronts.”
Bingo! Oops, as a Baptist that should be “ditto,” my bad.
Grace,
Wes
I am happy that the bill has passed. Because it means the liberals will be defeated in November, and Obama will be a one term president.
selahV: We the People lost ....
bapticus hereticus: As in any decision, its outcomes, intended and otherwise, will, in time, provide a firmer foundation on which to base assertions. However, concerning ‘we, the people,’ and assuming the ‘we’ is defined as a “‘majority’ of us opposing this bill,” the suggestion, based on extant data, is incorrect. For this reader said data are a bit more nuanced and complex than some assert.
There are some in the media incorrectly stating that people such as myself, i.e., those that would prefer as more progressive bill, are against the present one, given it is not about establishing an universal, single-payer system. While it is true the current bill is not one that progressives would fashion (note: and are a bit dismayed, too, about some of the deals made to gain support of the current bill), many, and likely nearly all, progressives would prefer this bill to not passing a healthcare reform bill that has sufficient utility and an ability to provide a foundation for subsequent reform measures.
When progressives, correctly, are included with the more enthusiastic supporters of the bill, those in favor of it (> 50%) outnumber those that do not. Subsequent polling finds that supporters of the bill outnumber those that are against it, as well, even if no single group numbers more than 50% of the sample. Thus, if ‘we, the people’ means a majority of us (likeminded-people) have lost (the vote on this legislation), your statement is incorrect, but if it means that a consensus of Americans are not for it, you would be correct, given a substantial number of people that do not support the current bill. That a consensus is generally preferable to a simple majority, given its ability to facilitate and maintain cohesiveness (but let’s keep in mind that cohesiveness carries its own risk, too), is acknowledged, but democracies, however, do not require such; they only require a majority. When we find ourselves, however, making a good many 51-49 decisions, perhaps civility, humility, and measured language will move us in a direction that allows us to hear more clearly the concerns of the other and allow legitimate concerns to inform problem identification and the development of a greater range of plausible alternatives to resolve, or at least manage, the issue?
You know, Bart, you may be on to something. We just had this nearly trillion dollar "stimulus" package. If my math is correct (an assumption that is never too safe) - that is about $3000 per person (300 mill and 900 billion stimulus) people in the US.
If the gov't had just given that money to each legal resident (and, who cares - to the illegals as well), and instructed them to buy something with it. That would be 12,000 for my family.
If each of us spent 3000 bucks, wouldn't that create jobs? Wouldn't that infuse some life in production, manufacturing?
The only jobs Obama is creating are government jobs.
I laughed at your post at first - thinking it was interesting satire. Now, I am thinking it may actually work!
Dave: If the gov't had just given that money to each ....
bapticus hereticus: In principle, the idea (i.e., stimulus money given directly to individuals) was plausible, and understanding such, Bush did just that, but instead of spending stimulus money for new purchases, many paid off or reduced debt or placed it in savings, thus a significant amount of money did not sufficiently circulate in the economy. Keep in mind many of the powerful individuals behind the scenes fighting stimulus rebates, either to individuals, business, or local governments: the banking industry. Instead of states, small business organizations, or individuals receiving direct governmental support/funding, which does not (or if it does it may carry better terms) require repayment, banks would rather, instead, receive financing from the government, to which they can then lend to said entities, which do have to pay back the funds. Banks are not opposed to the stimulation of an economy (or receiving governmental funds), quite the contrary, they value such; it is that they wish to be, armed with governmental funds, the managing director of said stimulation. One way or another, the government is going to be, has to be, must be involved. Powerful interests are directing said involvement toward Wall Street, almost at the exclusion of Main Street.
Governments have greater degrees of freedom than individuals when it comes to economic decisions, and analogies made at the level of the part (e.g., the family level economics) do not always hold at the greater level of the whole (e.g., national level economics). This is not to suggest that the whole is without limits, but it is to suggest that applying to the whole the limit conditions of the part is to misunderstand the nature and function of the whole. Government is not the enemy, it is a necessary process for civilized society, but it is given to being influenced, just as is every pastor to the highly-involved and highly-contributing members of his or her congregation, and thus needs to be reminded from time to time that it represents the whole (and its burden for meeting its needs) and not just the part, but its constituents need also to be cognizant of the possibility that their perception of the whole may at times be closer to the part.
None of my calculators will even figure trillion dollar digits. Maybe new calculators could be provided for every household!
Rebecca Illingworth
BH, huh? :) you crack me up. "We the People" doesn't include you if you are dancing up and down about the passage of this mess. (It's so messed up that they forgot to include that it insured children they said it would until 2014.)
Progressives are simply statists who want government to control and fix everything. The "WE" I referred to was the "we" that lost the battle this week. Obviously you are not part of the "we". I would never presume to say that anyone who wanted government-run insurance like Canada or Europe, would be against this bill that passed. Of course you would prefer all the goodies, labeled exactly the way you wanted it worded. But Obama spent hours upon hours knocking it into the progressives heads that if the government controls the Insurance companies by demanding they do specific things, insure specifics, deny specifics (i.e. hip replacements for elderly, stints for elderly, payments for second opinions, another test to rule out a disease), then they have what they want. They're just renaming it, it went from government controlled, to public option, to insurance controlled. It's all the same thing.
However, We the People do not want this government intrusion. We the People is how the rights were written, not We the Government, nor We the Progressives. Hope this helps you understand my meaning a bit better. If not, wait till November and I'll try to explain it again. selahV
selahV: ... "We the People" doesn't include you if you ... [support] passage ....
bapticus hereticus: Sadly what you write is that by supporting the bill or wishing it to be more progressive, one cannot legitimately claim oneself as being an American. Even if you do not accept me, I accept you, nonetheless, yeah even if I lose in November.
BH, sadly you still do not understand "me". BH, whoever you are, I completely accept you. I do not agree with you. Perhaps, I do not understand what a "progressive" is in your definition of the word. Progressives, as I understand the term and ideology, want the government to control the American people. They think Americans don't have the brains to feed their children properly so they think government is more capable of making the decisions for their children (i.e. California banning toys in Happy meals; Washington state, Ballard High School usurping parental authority and taking teenage children to get an abortion while on school time and never informing their parent of the procedure; insisting people meeting in homes to study the Bible and fellowship get a city approval and a license to meet;). I could go on and on and on. You get what I see as things that Progressives have no problem with as Americans. So, as far as me not seeing you as an American is ludicrous. Of course you are an American if you were born here or have been sworn in as one.
I don't know you BH. I am saddened that you see the government as the all to end all for America. The more government controls, the more government wants to control. I believe that the day will come (if things like the dems shoved down our throats this week), that Americans like me will have their websites shut down because the government (progressives) will take it upon themselves to define our words as hate speech like Ottawa did the outlandish Ann Coulter. It may not occur in the next ten years. But the more "we the people" are forced to swallow the liberal health-pills, progressive ideology, and statist mindset, the sooner it will happen.
I pray we can make a difference in November to change the course congress is taking America. But it will take far more than a change of congress and the White House resident. It will take more and more people like me who canvas, inform, research, and vote for men and women who believe in what this country was founded upon. Principles, faith and liberty.
Who are you anyway Bapticus Hereticus? I am Hariette Petersen. I am open to hearing what a progressive is, if I am wrong. Am I? selahV
selahV, I would try, as they say, to ‘walk back’ my words, too, if I had stated the following: “‘We the People’" doesn't include you if you are dancing up and down about the passage of this mess.”
Due to a right by birth, I have a legal claim to American citizenship, but this is not in question nor was it how I interpreted your words. What you seemingly, strongly questioned, instead, was the legitimacy of any claim to being a patriot. On this board people have questioned and denied another’s claim as being a child of God, and now one’s legitimacy of being a patriot. In the recent past, on this board, one even stated that it was his intention to completely abolish any aspect of liberalism in this country. Why? The answer to any of the above assertions is painfully obvious: there is apparently only one legitimate perspective, and such is called conservatism, and those that don’t generally hold to such are to be marginalized or denied.
‘We, the people, ’ my conservative sister in Christ, include ‘the progressive,’ ‘the conservative,’ and ‘the all points between.’ It is by the tension of these perspectives that this country has developed a dynamic character able to attenuate inertia, but for said dynamic to be appreciated and valued one needs to be of sufficient maturity, which is surely lacking in many people, as evidenced by their current uncivil rhetoric and behavior. That many people do not like the current healthcare bill is not disputed, nor is it that for those that favor it, too, have concerns; but what is disputed by some, it seems, is a need to behave in a manner that will facilitate and sustain responsible dialogue.
Hey Dave.. worked for us... less than 4% unemployment..
but... we will sell parts of our deserts to pay the bill.
‘We, the people, ’ my conservative sister in Christ, include ‘the progressive,’ ‘the conservative,’ and ‘the all points between.’
1. SelahV, as far as I can tell, has believed the biblical gospel. Kinda hard for her to be your "sister in Christ".
2. While it is true that "We the people" does include liberal whackjobs and left-wing nuts, it is unfortunate. However, they are the minority and should be heard...in the distance...as just a whisper.
3. Simply admitting that, yes, those liberal nuts are citizens does not mean that their ideals or stances are in any way, form, or shape compatible with Christianity. There is ZERO biblical support for mandated government control of health care. Zilch. Not one verse even implies it. Now, if you want to support it, that's your problem. Don't claim that you have biblical support for it, however.
Joe: 1. SelahV, as far as I can tell, has believed the biblical gospel. Kinda hard for her to be your "sister in Christ".
bapticus hereticus: Responses like this, Joe, really require no defense, thus, I will only state in addition to what I have written in the preceding words: “God bless you, Joe.”
Joe: 2. While it is true that "We the people" does include liberal whackjobs and left-wing nuts, it is unfortunate. However, they are the minority and should be heard...in the distance...as just a whisper.
bapticus hereticus: If minority status is the criterion on which a group should be heard “as just a whisper,” then it is the group of conservatives such as yourself that should be heard “as just a whisper,” given its viewpoint is not the prevailing perspective at the moment.
Joe: 3. Simply admitting that, yes, those liberal nuts are citizens does not mean that their ideals or stances are in any way, form, or shape compatible with Christianity. There is ZERO biblical support for mandated government control of health care. Zilch. Not one verse even implies it. Now, if you want to support it, that's your problem. Don't claim that you have biblical support for it, however.
bapticus hereticus: In the public arena, biblical support is not necessary for policy debates and decisions, given the US stance on separation of church and state; however, even given said reality, liberal Christians, nonetheless, have made biblical and theological arguments in support of the current healthcare legislation. Last, given the thrust of your comment (i.e., liberal perspective not compatible with Christianity), I accept that is what you believe, but I am not compelled to exert the energy to argue against such unloving and uninformed statements. I’ll just simply ask God to continue being gracious to you.
Hey Joe, I have not read Ann Coulter's book, How to Talk to a Liberal If You Must. Do you think I need to purchase that book?
I just don't seem to have the rhetorical verbosity, nor the emotional stamina. selahV
SelahV,
When I studied music in college, we had an old saying:
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It just frustrates you and annoys the pig.
When I read stuff by people who profess to be liberal christians I need to remind myself of that old saying. Anyone who doesn't realize that being liberal (theologically and politically**) and Christian are mutually exclusive can only be made to see the truth by the Holy Spirit.
**There is only one group of Christians who are solid, born again believers but also most of the time politically liberal. I'm not going to identify who that group is, however.
Joe, well you've stumped me. ha. but then, I haven't had my afternoon nap. selahV
Joe: Never try to teach a pig to sing. It just frustrates you and annoys the pig.
Singing Pig: "... eee iii eee iii ooo." ;)
For the record I'll say something in regard to the following words of Joe:
"Simply admitting that, yes, those liberal nuts are citizens does not mean that their ideals or stances are in any way, form, or shape compatible with Christianity. There is ZERO biblical support for mandated government control of health care. Zilch. Not one verse even implies it. Now, if you want to support it, that's your problem. Don't claim that you have biblical support for it, however."
and
"Anyone who doesn't realize that being liberal (theologically and politically**) and Christian are mutually exclusive can only be made to see the truth by the Holy Spirit."
The position taken here is that various secular political views, such as a particular view on the recently passed health care bill, have the blessing of God, and the right view can be discerned though the power of the Holy Spirit. While I don't necessarily deny the premise (the OT prophets often spoke to societal practice), I do question the "certainty" with which we can discern God's will among the maze of possible health care policy options.
The SBC, however, has in recent years has promoted the idea that we can. I say this because the ERLC is an SBC entity that promotes and lobbies for very specific positions and legislation on things such as health care, global warming, environmental policy and war in Iraq. Articles on the ERLC web site often claim to speak for Southern Baptists. Baptist Press also consistently writes to and promotes only one position (the conservative Republican one) on such issues. For a religious denomination to strongly promote a particular view must mean (or should mean) they believe they've heard the voice of God on these matters.
While a denomination is certainly free to draw a line of fellowship along any issue they choose, I am more comfortable in a denomination that gives greater liberty on secular political issues than the SBC and focuses more narrowly on matters of faith. I grew up in the Methodist denomination and I remember my dad debating gun control laws with other men at church socials. (Dad was a single issue voter and against any gun control law.) The debates never lead to hard feelings or ostracism in either direction. These men were friends. But I'm not sure that same environment exists in the SBC today. (Certainly it doesn't on Southern Baptist blogs.)
I am more comfortable in a denomination that gives greater liberty on secular political issues than the SBC and focuses more narrowly on matters of faith.
Don't tell me, let me guess? CBF?? Oh yeah, guys like David Gushee and the folks at Duke Divinity School, Wake Forrest, and Mercer are narrow on matters of faith. They are rock solid doctrinally for sure. Haa haa
Post a Comment