Note to Ed Schultz: It is the Apocalypse, Friend

Thanks so much for another great editorial.

The usurpation of Christian discourse by the "social conservatives" on the right has indeed only been made possible by media blackout of other Christians groups. I think there is a growing number of people such as myself who are turning to the Christian legacy so as to revive its true power. Fundamentalist groups have maintained influence because they have skillfully packaged their reading of the Word of God and turn pastoral care into a consumer good. But people still long for the love of Christ, and that can only be found within human community that calls us to our higher selves; this is the essence of Christian communion.

Thankfully, the internet and digital technology generally have made communications resources widely available. The challenge is to make loving, truthful speech heard, and to do that writers, readers, and reporters need to step up.

Wow, thanks Diana for putting into words something that's worried me but hadn't come into clear enough focus. Loved the comment by Nat, too. So true!

I am a conservative Christian, but NOT a fundamentalist conservative christian. I think Ed is lumping all the conservatives in the Osteen, Warren, Dobson, Graham camp. Many of us are NOT followers of these present day charlatans. Many of us are concerned about the vagueness of the health care legislation. We are not the blind followers of the religious right, nor are we the shouters at the health care forums. We are people who desire a civil debate of this issue.
Jesus healed for free is a great utopian idea that stems from liberalism's ideal society. But the issue is much more complicated. People I know in my more conservative religious tradition desires that everyone have affordable health care. We just disagree on how to achieve it. I think Ed is off base in his attempt to demonize all conservative Christians.

Having lived in both Europe and the US all my life, I am puzzled as to why the lower economic class people - the ones who would most profit from health care - are the ones most easily caught up in the propaganda against Obama's honorable attempt to bring the US into line with virtually the entire civilized world.

This brilliant analysis helped me to understand the background and motivation of these people, thank you!

Of course, it would be helpful if all these conservative but not fundamentalist Christians would get up off their rear ends and actually take a stand. I clearly remember the outrage every time I suggested one of these 'conservative but not: literalistic, fundamentalist, etc.) Christians was a Republican. They vote 100% Republican, but aren't such a creature.

Yeah, right.

Sure, there are valid questions regarding the health care bills pending. No single rational economist, no single rational doctor, no single rational person who has studied the current system in the US still believes we don't need reform. Since the Republicans didn't do it in all the years they were in power, it is now up to the Democrats.

Nothing is ever perfect, but for the conservative but 'non'-fundamentalist Christians to let health care die because of their distaste for Obama not being a gen-u-whine conservative in their interpretation is to abandon the debate to the wing-nut christianists.

We go around and around on human status for gays and transgender, on abortion rights for women...can't we, just once, accept that maybe, just maybe, there is a reason the entire rest of the civilized world has better health care than the US? That reason being the US is the only country without universal, affordable health care for all?

Nah, that would mean that the conservatives didn't get 100% of what they want.

I think Brian makes a very good point. Just because Christians believe in helping the sick and poor doesn't mean it should be the responsibility of the government.

To get the Christian community, regardless of political stripe or denominational belief set, to get on board with one movement requires a lot of work. It means changing the hearts and minds of many individuals. I find it distressing that progressive Christians would rather shortcut the work by getting the government; that makes the movement on the left just as lazy and small-minded as conservative Christians co-opting the ballot box in the 1980's.

Any power you allow the government to have cannot easily be rescinded. What you allow bureaucrats to do for you now can be turned against you in the future. The solution is to work outside of government for good and insist that government stay out of the way.

Brian West and Tom,
There is a major difference between a very small Christian community and a major (the only remaining superpower) country.
One of roughly 300 million people.

The only way for Christians to follow Jesus very strongly worded choice for us is by empowering the government to help all people.

Do you drive on public roads?
Do you pay your debts, public and private with US currency?
Do you use the Internet?
Do you expect the police/fire department to help you?

You do?

Well, given your argument, you should be actively protesting all of those services.

I also assume you gladly told your parents to forget about Medicare, that you would cover their expenses?

You didn't?

Full disclosure: My husband and I give 20% of our income (10 for each of us) to charities which help people in need. We volunteer our time, too.

What, pray, do you as 'good Christians' do? If you're not donating or volunteering the equivalent of that 10% per person in your oh-so-Christian households, how dare your protest the government aiding people?

Seriously, how would you organize that Christian charity to aid all - Jesus made it very clear that we are not permitted to limit our charitable acts only to Christians.

panthera (and others):

We all implicitly have an opinion about what we believe the centralized, national government should do and is capable of doing well, versus what they shouldn't do, perhaps because we believe they cannot, by definition, do it well. In my opinion, the government can do services like roads and military protection better than any decentralized alternative I'm familiar with. There is a gray area of activities where I'm not sure whether the federal government should be doing this or that or not. I'm certainly not convinced that centralizing power over health care (whether by socializing the care itself or just making the government the primary player in the health insurance industry) is something that our government can do well.

What governments do best (in my opinion, and to over-generalize) when it comes to activities that other entities (families, civic organizations, cities, counties, states, etc.) might arguably take responsibility for is to set boundaries for how those other entities might undertake those activities. Once the central government starts actually Doing things that others might do well, those others generally stop doing them at all--even if they might have done them better.

That's why I say that the more the federal government gets directly involved in health care, the less opportunity the church has to actually obey Jesus' command to take care of the poor and sick. No, they're not doing it now, and that's a travesty. And no, the current system obviously has major problems. But that suggests to me that the government needs to set different boundaries about how organizations and companies need to go about health care and health insurance. The broken-ness of the current system does not, in my opinion, rise to the level of justifying letting the boundary-maker become the primary player in the health insurance (let alone the health care) industry.

So, to review:
* I don't protest roads or military because I think they fall under the category of legitimate roles the federal government can play.
* I'm honestly not sure what my 60-some-year-old mother will do for health insurance when she decides to stop working (or, rather, what she would have done under the existing system). I hope that my mother's self-reliance thus far and my own ignorance do not call into question my integrity in this discussion.
* I don't know whether it matters or not, but if it helps you hear out my arguments, we do give 10% of our income to our congregation. Before I was married, I volunteered weekly for ten years at our local soup kitchen. These days, I just help my wife raise our 2-, 3-, and 4-year-old children; I hope to get back to volunteering to help the poor again before too much longer, and this time to take the kids with me to help. Now, I am not trying to claim that this makes me a saint or anything, just trying to address panthera's concerns, in the hopes that it might be harder to dismiss my arguments (which is the real point here).

panthera said "Seriously, how would you organize that Christian charity to aid all?" Just as we are likely to disagree on what the federal government should and should not do, you're not likely to agree with my answer to this question, either. My answer: I wouldn't. I don't know how to get people to obey God. All I'm trying to do is describe the best reading of the Bible I can muster.

Matthew 25 didn't say "hire someone (via the government) to feed the poor, etc." In that account, Jesus judged between the sheep and goats based on what they, themselves, did or didn't do. I'll be the first to admit that puts me in a pretty bad spot, along with all the others I pointed fingers at in my earlier post. But I'm not just trying to find the truth that makes me look good. I'm trying to find the Truth, and point others, and move myself, to go where the Truth sends us.

I'm not a movement leader. I don't know how to make thousands of churches do what it seems to me the Bible clearly says we should be doing (and churches and Christians in earlier centuries took care of). But it still seems like the best answer to the problem. Centralizing power in the hands of the government sounds like adding to our problems, not solving them.

Mr. Ed says Jesus healed for free. If the government charges us anything, fines, fees, taxes for health care, will Mr. Ed take care of those bills for us? Will he protest and say it's blasphemous?

I think Mr. Ed's model is probably how they care for horses. Not one horse has ever had to pay taxes or copays. Mr. Ed has the Mr. Ed model, but I doubt he understands how human system works.

Should Christian Scientists be taxed for health care, when they never use it?

Obama is NOT the anti-Christ. Though he is just as bad. He is a Humanist.

Read the Humanist Manifesto [s] . . .

. . . and watch it describe this man and his goals perfectly.

Christians know what is opposite to The Church.

Are the President's proposals really about socialized health care? They seem to me to be more about consumer protection in the health arena. Doctors, hospitals, drug companies and insurance companies remain private but they are given directives that require offering affordable services to all citizens. Nothing that comes into my home - food, water, electricity, appliances, TV etc. comes without strong consumer protection regulations to protect all citizens. Shouldn't the same apply to another fundamental right of being a citizen, affordable health care?

The church throughout history has honored individual care for the poor along with the robust development of social institutions to do the same across society. Individual compassion just doesn't scale up the way it should in an ideal Christian society. All Christians should support the foundational principles of the proposed health plan.