A moral obligation or amoral obligation?
Published: August 19, 2009 in The New York Times: President Obama sought Wednesday to reframe the health care debate as “a core ethical and moral obligation,” imploring a coalition of religious leaders to help promote the plan to lower costs and expand insurance coverage for all Americans. “I know there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate, and there are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness,” Mr. Obama told a multidenominational group of pastors, rabbis and other religious leaders who support his goal to remake the nation’s health care system.
Regarding what Mr. Obama refers to as "misinformation", he went on to say, "These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation. That is that we look out for one other, that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper. And in the wealthiest nation on earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call."
Are you kidding me? Seriously...Mr. Obama seems to be really confused about the role of government and the extent of individual liberty. It's long been established in America that your rights end where mine begin, but apparently, Mr. Obama believes the rights of government supersede, and may be ever increased, over that of the individual. He is correct in saying humans have the moral obligation, but not in the application by or oversight of the government! We have accountability to our Creator for our action or inaction to "the least of these". Our participation and support of local churches is God's plan, as laid out numerous times in the New Testament. Think of it this way, if both plans could hypothetically become flawlessly successful, which one would promote the Kingdom of Heaven? Which one would have people praising God for submission to His will and the humility and love shown to strangers?
It's ironic to me that the speech mentioned above, made to a multidenominational coalition of religious leaders, was was made by the same man who chose to not select a house of worship for his family. It was reported that the White House had selected the chaplain-led service at Camp David for their family church, but the Huffington Post claims (so it must be true) on June 29, 2009, that the White House even denies that report. So, what we have is the leader of the free world afraid to be seen as a practicing Christian, other than to say he is one, telling religious leaders that he "is his brother's (and sister's) keeper." I'm not sure if I'm more saddened by Cain's denial of responsibility or afraid of Obama's clamoring for it.
Regarding what Mr. Obama refers to as "misinformation", he went on to say, "These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation. That is that we look out for one other, that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper. And in the wealthiest nation on earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call."
Are you kidding me? Seriously...Mr. Obama seems to be really confused about the role of government and the extent of individual liberty. It's long been established in America that your rights end where mine begin, but apparently, Mr. Obama believes the rights of government supersede, and may be ever increased, over that of the individual. He is correct in saying humans have the moral obligation, but not in the application by or oversight of the government! We have accountability to our Creator for our action or inaction to "the least of these". Our participation and support of local churches is God's plan, as laid out numerous times in the New Testament. Think of it this way, if both plans could hypothetically become flawlessly successful, which one would promote the Kingdom of Heaven? Which one would have people praising God for submission to His will and the humility and love shown to strangers?
It's ironic to me that the speech mentioned above, made to a multidenominational coalition of religious leaders, was was made by the same man who chose to not select a house of worship for his family. It was reported that the White House had selected the chaplain-led service at Camp David for their family church, but the Huffington Post claims (so it must be true) on June 29, 2009, that the White House even denies that report. So, what we have is the leader of the free world afraid to be seen as a practicing Christian, other than to say he is one, telling religious leaders that he "is his brother's (and sister's) keeper." I'm not sure if I'm more saddened by Cain's denial of responsibility or afraid of Obama's clamoring for it.
posted by Steelerfan06 | 12:24 PM
3 Comments:
I feel ya'...mostly. I don't mind giving to Caesar what is Caesar's--and I certainly don't mind giving a little more to our particular Caesar, this experiment in democracy called "America." It's so, so worth it.
Yes, sometimes I get a little frustrated with what they DO with my tax dollars, like writing checks to *specific* artists I don't like as they support The Arts, or subsidizing & promoting King Corn (and therefore ethanol and high-fructose corn syrup) instead of encouraging agricultural innovation and organic diversity.
However, something must be done about health care...and I don't care who does it. I don't care if it's this President or our next (President Huckabee), but something has to be done. If, God forbid, your friend's infant is diagnosed with a terrible disease like cystic fibrosis...your friend can never switch jobs because of this SCAM of "pre-existing condition."
There are families who have had to sell their houses and everything that they had to finance the health care of one child with leukemia. Families who do without or go bankrupt because the father gets Parkinson's.
So, yeah...I think I'm leaning toward a moral obligation, but not because Mr. Harvard Pants says so, but because Jesus, my dad, and Mike Huckabee all say so.
P.S. From p. 175 of Huckabee's _Do the Right Thing_ (which y'all got AUTOGRAPHED for me!!!): "A health care system based on treating disease after it's out of control--that is, our current system--is actually a disease care system."
From p. 176: "At [a debate] during the summer of 2007, I said we'd have solutions for this problem in thirty days if Congress had to either give the American people the insurance they had or accept for themselves they type of health insurance that many Americans had."
When Huckabee's daughter's medical bills equaled $12,000, one-third of her salary as a campaign supporter, he saw clearly what those of us in the real world deal with all the time. (But instead of just "feeling our pain," or ignoring it because doctors and insurance companies have powerful lobbies, he has some cool and innovative ideas..."killing snakes" instead of "treating snakebites," as he puts it.)
P.P.S. Is 2009 too early for an "ELECT HUCKABEE" yard sign? Too early? Yeah, I thought so. Dang.
I like mad4books' comments...very well thought out, and reasonably stated. I had not realized Gov. Huckabee had said those things, but I believe, as a Christian man, they are fitting.
A thought about 'rights', which played a big part in the essay on the blog...we all fear that our 'rights' might be taken away. All of us. However, the special interest groups can turn that fear against our own best interests--and, it is their "right", to try to and do that. But, look at the battle to get a Patient's Bill of Rights through congress. [I wrote A Child's Bill of Rights for Hughes Home for Children, that my boss complimented--we all need to consider one another's rights]
Our beloved America can write up a bill, craft a structure, that will catch the children that are not being caught...and prevent crippling and strokes and diabetes that needn't be suffered, by prevention. We can do it, and give all Americans a right to bang up good healthcare, and the doctors will still be wealthy, and the pharmeceuticals will still be affluent and doing research. We can respect all the rights of our nation about free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right [still debated] to necessary privacy..without having jackbooted thugs from some agency breaking down our doors. We can do that, because we have the kind of government that is responsive to its voters. Mostly. However, there is a flaw that keeps creeping in...the 'right' of the wealthy to do what they pretty well want to do.
When the constitution was debated, one of the questions was about the right of slaves...the wealthy said no. What about what the Baptists were saying about one man, one vote? No...we will still filter that out, and we will also use the electoral college, if the people elect a moron we don't think is good for the country. What about taxes? Leona Helmsley let it slip---"Only the little people pay taxes." What about healthcare for Congressmen, vs. the people of the United States? Charlie Gibson asked Barack about that, and it must have been a truly uncomfortable moment for the President...but this will not go away. Elected officials are of the people, and are no better than the people who elected them....so, sooner or later, this will have to change. I understand that there has already been an amendment exempted Congressmen from having to be subjected to the current bill, as it is being crafted....?
I have a right to be unafraid, but it was not given to me by mankind. The Boss gave it to me, and it is inalenable, as TJ said. Why should I be afraid...? One of my ancestors was Bridges Freeman, whose son served at Valley Forge, where there were no healthcare providers, and not much in the way of rights. Great grandfather had his rights taken away, by virtue of losing the war to the federal government...he went on to a better life, anyway. We will survive the Congress, and the wealthy, and the dilemmas of the poor, but not by the grace of government....but of God.
Jesus kept telling people...Be not afraid. I think that is still good advice.
Huckabee fan
stay tuned for rebuttal...
Post a Comment
<< Home