Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Tax and health care roundup
Next Post: $10 billion for schools
Posted in:
The governor brought up “God’s will” the other day in reference to his health care plan.
“If you can have health care but your neighbor can’t that isn’t how God intended it to be.â€
I’ll stipulate right up front that I think the governor is dead serious about passing his massive health insurance proposal. He lives and breathes this issue.
Conservative Republicans inject God into public debates on numerous issues, from stem cells to abortion to gay rights, etc. We don’t often see this coming from a Democrat (I think there’s a specific reason for this, but I’ll save it for tomorrow’s Capitol Fax).
Rev. Jennifer Kottler, of Protestants for the Common Good, sent me this e-mail when I asked her about injecting God into the health insurance debate. She began by saying that she considered the question “a fair one.”
Far be it from me, or anyone else for that matter, to claim to know the will of God. However, through our religious teachings and traditions, our faiths attempt to understand the heart of God — and the heart of God is clearly revealed through God’s love for all whom God has created and compassion for all who are in need and in pain.
There may be a number of ways to address the need to provide access to healthcare for all who need it and the Governor’s plan is one way to do that. There should never be one “Christian” or “religious” viewpoint claiming to speak for God in order to justify a particular piece of legislation (although religious groups are certainly within their right to advocate for particular policies or legislative priorities).
But clearly, the religious teachings from many faiths on justice, mercy and love that come out of our religious traditions require that this issue be addressed and we applaud the Governor’s effort to do just that.
Question: Is turnabout fair play? If it’s OK for legislators to vote against gay rights bills because their church rails against the legislation, should it be allowed, even encouraged, in other debates?
Let’s try to stick to the topic. I saw one commenter yesterday questioning the governor’s religious beliefs. Stuff like that is just unacceptable.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 9:55 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Tax and health care roundup
Next Post: $10 billion for schools
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Is it fair? Absolutely. Go right ahead.
But if liberals continue to criticize Republicans for doing it while saying nothing about Democrats who do, then they are being hypocrites.
Comment by grand old partisan Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 10:23 am
My God will bat up your god.
It is fair, but don’t complain when the right does does it. I have a question of those who vote based on how their church tells them to vote. If that is what they beleive, fine. They need to vote on what is right and how their constituents want them to vote.
If your views on abortion are based on religious beliefs, fine, but don’t vote based on what Rev’run however tells you to vote.
Comment by Wumpus Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 10:26 am
Where does the Lord stand on the excessive use of haircare products?
I would assume the Lord and the Governor,not necessarily in that order, have had that conversation.
Comment by irishpirate Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 10:34 am
Fair? Yes. Logical? Yes.
Why someone votes really does not matter. The significance is in the vote. Ultimately we are concerned about actions, not thoughts.
Thus, it is perfectly acceptable to invoke your religion while talking; just not while voting.
(Just like you can be as racist as you want in your head, just don’t act on it.)
Comment by RBD Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 10:38 am
The sad reality is that politicians will often use religion to justify their policies, whether it is warranted or not.
I suppose it’s OK to inject God and religion into the political debate, it’s just not a wise thing to do. Once you’ve injected God into what is essentially a secular and political question, you have then subjected your religious beliefs to criticism in the “market of ideas.” And that market can become awfully rough.
In other words, if your only justification for a particular policy is your religious belief, prepare to have your religion attacked because it is now fair game.
Personally, I wouldn’t want to subject my religion to the savagery of eight-second sound bites and out-of-context negative attacks that seem to dominate politics today.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 10:38 am
“you can be as racist as you want in your head, just don’t act on it”
I don’t even know what to say…
Comment by the wonderboy Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 10:53 am
Religion will always be part of politics. I don’t see how any politician can leave their value system outside of the political realm.
The difficulty is balancing these values with the fact that the US is a secular diverse society not a theocracy. While religion can motivate our actions, we cannot force our beliefs, without other reasons, on others.
One of the most difficult issues is some religions have an attitude that their way is the chosen way that everyone must follow.
Bottomline is I think it is good for the left to bring up religion as long as they keep it in check.
Comment by Objective Dem Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 11:07 am
Wonder if Rod will invoke “God” when Fiztgerald comes calling?
Or he could invoke “Flip Wilson” with the “devil made him do it”.
Comment by Gimme A Break Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 11:32 am
Does this governor do anything that doesn’t advance or promote his agenda in any way?
Call me cynical, but I think it is all a ploy to place opponents of this idea on the side of the godless, morally corupt heathens.
Believe in god? Then you will believe in my health care plan!
Comment by Anon from BB Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 11:33 am
Absolutely, if the right can do it I don’t see why the left can’t do it too. Mind you, I think a better argument can be made for health care reform from a secular perspective, but I’m tired of the right’s God being used to justify stuff I don’t like so I do want some turnabout.
Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 11:35 am
Again, people, this is not necessarily about Rod Blagojevich. Please, stick to the question. Last warning.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 11:40 am
“If you can have health care but your neighbor can’t that isn’t how God intended it to be.â€
This statement is sad in so many ways. Instead of justifying his proposals or answering questions that will arise on this important issue, he gives us a statement that displays the reasoning of a first grader in Sunday school.
This isn’t a question about injecting God into public debate, it is a question about a governor unable to discuss the most important proposal of his career. Blagojevich wants us to swallow whole-hog a budget busting failure that has ruined better state and country economies than ours and hide behind God-talk doing it.
Forest Gump wasn’t even that stupid.
Either Rod Blagojevich doesn’t fully understand what he is proposing, or believes we are so stupid and gullible we will merely follow him off this cliff, so he doesn’t have to explain.
We have seen arrogant politicans often, but can you recall one so arrogant as this? If it wasn’t for his hair, he’d be wearing a crown, wouldn’t he?
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 11:53 am
politics and religion are definitely intertwined, including when one’s religion informs practioners to shy away from politics. we have a right to know why our politicians do what they do (or want to do) and if one of their reasons is religious, that should be transparent. we should not feel that religious justifications are lesser or greater than other reasons or purposes, and i would expect any politician who wants to be taken seriously to have more than a religious justification for their proposals. after all, we do not all share the same religion…
Comment by bored now Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 11:54 am
I’ll summarize:
When a politician claims God is on their side, they haven’t the slightest clue what they are doing.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 11:56 am
Each side uses the teachings of Jesus to their advantage(s). Liberals assert that Jesus was a liberal, and conservatives claim the vice versa. Unfortunately, he was in the middle. Jesus was a moderate. So there!
Too many politicians use religion to boost themselves. Seriously, do these politicians use the same religious reasoning when making decisions in their own lives? That is something that can be a valid question. Look at Tom DeLay; for all of his religious “convictions”, he was as crooked as a sidewinder on meth. Yet the religious right stood up for him and ding-a-lings like Ralph Reed, Rush Limbaugh and Bob Ney.
And what is Hillary doing while speaking like a southern black man in Kentucky? Or Barack dodging abortion and moral issues while he tours the South? Both sides are equally bad.
Comment by Team Sleep Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 12:11 pm
He’s not the first to invoke selective morality into an issue. Did he get God’s view on the abortion debate?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 12:20 pm
Question: Is turnabout fair play? If it’s OK for legislators to vote against gay rights bills because their church rails against the legislation, should it be allowed, even encouraged, in other debates?
No and no. God is a right-wing republican who only cares about abortion and gay-marriage. He doesn’t care about the poor or the ill. And anyone who doubts God’s priorities just needs to take a look in the Bible.
– SCAM
Comment by So-Called "Austin Mayor" Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 12:34 pm
Let’s assume for debate purposes for just a moment that it is indeed God’s will that all Illinoisans have access to healthcare. That does not necessarily mean that the Governor’s plan or anyone else’s has to be ordained THE will of God. There is, after all, more than one way to skin a cat., and not all plans are made equal.
Comment by anon Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 12:37 pm
The Bible (New Testament and Old) provide support for a variety of positions that don’t map neatly onto those of either political party, either nationally or in Illinois. I personally don’t like my politics too mixed up with my religion, but if a politician wants to invoke a higher authority, that doesn’t bother me. Fortunately my Creator endowed me with independent judgment, so while I may be wrong, I’ll evaluate the arguments pro and con and make up my own mind.
Now, if the Lord Almighty actually files a slip in committee and testifies in favor of the Governor’s bill, then I’ll be impressed. But this week I suspect he won’t be able to review the merits of the Governor’s plan, given the many demands for his assistance from basketball players facing elimination in their conference tournaments.
Comment by Gus Frerotte's Clipboard Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 12:47 pm
Someone has the right to state their political values in terms of their religious values all they want. But, they can’t expect people who aren’t of the same faith to accept that argument. A public official has to be ready to speak to people of all faiths, not just their own.
I think Rod is making a solid argument, at least among Christians. There’s no record of Jesus saying anything about abortion or gay marriage. He said a great deal about helping those in need. I would love to see more liberals point out how out of step the modern conservative agenda is with the teachings of Jesus.
Comment by Will Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 1:15 pm
Of course turnabout is fair play. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
That being said, both sides invoke the Almighty for their own political purposes, more often inconsistently.
Personally, I have no problem with a politician invoking the name of God to implore private behavior and morality. It is altogether another matter to invoke God as a reason for government action, which of necessity requires coerced funds forcibly extracted from taxpayers.
Christianity encourags voluntary action and frowns on forced worship or coerced acts of charity. Politicians who think populations can be forced to please the Almighty must not have paid attention in Sunday School.
A wise evangelical preacher once said, “Kingdom builders are bloody killers.” Beware the politician, R or D, who wants to use the force of government to bring about any version of a religiously approved society, particularly their own.
I’m afraid our dear leader has fallen for this. His view of God’s will apparently requires that I be separated from sums of money that I thought was a blessing from the Almighty himself.
Comment by Alex Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 1:33 pm
Yes, turnaround is fair play, however, I usually turn a deaf ear when politicians bring religion into the conversation. I personally find it insulting to invoke God, Jesus, Allah, Muhammed, Budda, etc. to make your case. If your ideas do not have merit on their own, aligning them with religion is only a ploy to get the backing of the faithful.
Comment by Shallow Pharnyx Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 1:43 pm
If a politician is expressing that there’s a moral value inherent in a political decision, that’s fine. And I am not adverse to someone mentioning the basis for the moral reasoning.
However, bringing one’s god into it is not likely to win extra points with me. The atheists of my acquaintance are some of the most morally consistent people I know. Morality in practice is the thing; the source matters not.
Comment by yinn Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 1:57 pm
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
“You shall not steal”
Hmmm, coveting your neighbors healthcare insurance and stealing to pass it around works, I guess.
Comment by Jeff Trigg Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 2:03 pm
I’m not big on the use of religion in politics. I can admire & respect a person for having core values based on his/her religion. Other than that thought religion can’t be used to justify every political position or policy initiative. I’d say unless you’re a guest preacher offering a sermon leave that religious stuff alone.
Comment by Levois Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 2:28 pm
Going back to the original question: Why is it surprising when a legislator’s vote matches the views of his church, especially on social issues?
It’s not a matter of whether is it is OK; it’s a logical consequences of birds-of-a-feather flocking together.
(Wonderboy: I assume you’ve never taken affirmative action training. We, as a society, do not try to change your thoughts; we only care about your actions. The good news is that a forced change in behavior tends to change beliefs too.)
Comment by RBD Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 3:03 pm
I agree with Objective Dem. Its fair to question the use of God in an argument, and its appropriate when kept in check and when consistently applied. Unfortunately, Republicans have for some time acted as if one’s God given rights begin at conception and end at birth. I find it hard for anybody to argue that a loving God would not be in favor of everybody having health care coverage. Loving God vs. deceitful God — I better dust off Descartes’ Meditations. Getting pretty serious here.
Comment by Springfellow Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 3:12 pm
If you really want to see God at work in legisltion, go see “Amazing Grace.”
Although so inspired to lead the fight against slavery in the British Empire, I don’t remember liberal William Wilberforce’s invoking the Lord in his debates.
His arguments made were about the inhumanenss of the institution, constituent opposition, lots of the same approaches as are used today.
The movie is more a political one than a religious one, however.
Comment by cal Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 3:21 pm
If in fact there is a “God” then he should have struck down Blago for using his name in idiocy.
Regarding this response,
“Rev. Jennifer Kottler, of Protestants for the Common Good, sent me this e-mail when I asked her about injecting God into the health insurance debate. She began by saying that she considered the question “a fair one.â€
Why is it a fair question? If God is all knowing, etc. then why does this higher power allow amoral persons run our country?
Rev. Jennifer Kottler is speaking only for her God. People of different faiths worship different Gods. How can she speak for anybody but herself and the Protestants for the Common God?
This is a big can of worms that doesn’t need to be used as a fear tactic by politicians. I believe that the current crop of NeoCon fear mongers in washington have gotten plenty of mileage from this tactic.
Leave politics and religion where the belong - in separate arena’s.
Sort of like how it is interpreted here;
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…
From the Bill of Rights.
Comment by Papa Legba Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 3:22 pm
A tip to VanillaMan,
I’ll summarize. What Blago said was just another form of his “pandering”. As well as possibly the most stupid thing he has ever said.
The comment should have been ignored and chalked up to Blago’s mouth and brain not having a formed working connection.
Comment by Papa Legba Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 3:31 pm
ANY politician, INCLUDING Blago, who plays the “religion” card for any proposal which will further their own career insults every single solitary citizen. That includes Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddist, Hindu, aetheist, agnostic, etc. Politicans cannot have it both ways. They cannot profess to keep church and state separate when they want and then throw in God here and there when it appears they need Him as a last desperate move to get their legislation passed. I am especially insulted when a proposal such as this comes from one who thus far has shown no signs of any heartfelt religious affiliation except for the convenient baptism of one’s children for the sake of a press release.
Comment by Little Egypt Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 4:15 pm
Little e,
Its the Rod and God campaign!
Comment by Bill Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 4:52 pm
Bill, you are SO correct.
Comment by Little Egypt Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 4:55 pm
The Gov. makes a lot of promises with big price tags, delivers very little and hires a lot of friends. He needs to clean up the fraud and corruption in the system and start at the top by firing administrators who violate law as follows. Then we’ll have an efficient and effective government with an appropriate health care system.
The following is the tip of the iceberg of corruption in the Illinois Medicaid system.
MENTAL HEALTH CARE DENIED TO NEEDY IN ILLINOIS
The State of Illinois denies mental health care to the neediest of its citizens in an illegal scheme to save the budget and claim officials are tough on fraud. Mental health care is very expensive because psychotherapy is time consuming. Weekly sessions for months to years with or without medications are required to treat major mental health disorders such as drug and alcohol addiction, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, depression and mania. This is costly. However, the State is penny wise and pound foolish. The cost is clearly much more expensive to incarcerate the mentally ill, in court costs for increased crime, for welfare for destroyed and dysfunctional families and for medical care when the mentally ill neglect themselves and their families.
The Attorney General (AG) Lisa Madigan claims it is a class 1 felony criminal fraud for physicians to bill Medicaid for psychiatric services done by employees of a physician. She claims that only community mental health centers can bill for psychiatric services provided by non-physicians. This is fraud upon the court. AG Lisa Madigan is using these fraud prosecutions to claim she is “tough on fraud.” She is mistaken to the point of corruption.
Any courts that continue with such fraudulent prosecutions based on fraudulent charges are aiding and abetting this impeachable conduct of the Illinois AG. One person, Dr. Maisha Hamilton (Hamilton Wholistic Healthcare) has already been fraudulently convicted on this fraudulent charge and numerous others are in the middle of defending themselves against these corrupt and ignorant actions of AG Lisa Madigan, including Dr. Linda Shelton and Vernon Glass (Right Frame of Mind & Associates and then Right Frame of Mind, P.C) and Naomi Jennings (Youth Empire Services). Cook County Circuit Court judges such as Kathleen Pantle and Lon Schultz have ruled that “federal law does not apply,” or other nonsense, violating their oaths of office, denying due process and committing impeachable acts. I’m sure it is news to the public that Cook County does not have to follow federal law.
The end result is that legitimate providers of mental health services to the poor and primarily minority populations have been placed under siege, their businesses forced into closure for bankruptcy and some of the most outstanding and dedicated providers of mental health services to poor and minority populations have lost their ability to practice and provide services while they defend their licenses and their freedom from this felony conspiracy to violate their civil rights under color of law and the felony conspiracy by AG Lisa Madigan, her staff, and others at Illinois Medicaid to violate the rights of Medicaid mental health patients under color of law. They are doing this to fraudulently claim they are fighting fraud and saving tax dollars. They are actually doing the opposite - destroying families, increasing crime, increasing suicide and pulling the wool over the eyes of the citizens of Illinois.
All of these defendants allege that AG Madigan and others involved in this horrendous scheme should be impeached or fired. We all call upon the United States Attorney and investigative reporters to expose this scheme and prosecute those corrupt officials who are behind it. This is AG Madigan’s and Gov. Blagojevic’s “watergate.” They must be stopped.
The scheme is hidden, complicated and clever. The State has three sets of law including.
1) The Illinois Medicaid Act which permits physician providers to bill Medicaid fee-for-service for medical and mental health services provided by the physician and his employees. This may include drug and alcohol addiction counseling, psychological testing to aid in diagnosis, parenting classes and drug treatment with anti-depression and anti-psychotic or other drugs with monthly follow up by a physician.
2) The Illinois Community Services Act and Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Administrative Act permits community health centers to be certified by the State and contract with Illinois agencies like the Department of Corrections, the Department of Child and Family Services or the Illinois Department of Human Services to provide mental health services. The contracts give extra payment for training of staff and missed appointments. The bills are sent to Medicaid under the name of the Health Center and not the physician, such as Hamilton Wholistic Healthcare, Right Frame of Mind, P.C or Youth Empire Services. Statutorily qualified and licensed therapists and counselors like psychologists, drug-addiction counselors and psychiatric social workers can participate in providing care. Trainees under supervision can also provide care. A physician is required as a medical director to help set policy, supervise and train employees.
3) The Illinois Alcoholism and Other Drug Abuse Dependency Act sets up centers for alcohol and drug abuse treatment much like the community mental health centers.
The Federal Medicaid Code contained in the Social Security Code specifically authorizes physicians to bill Medicaid for services of their employees “as if the services were performed by the physician.” Federal Code requires state Medicaid programs to comply with the Federal Medicaid Code. There is no code or statute or rule that REQUIRES physicians to provide mental health services only at a community mental health center and NOT fee-for-service.
In silence and secrecy Illinois Medicaid wrote a Physician Handbook that purportedly gives physicians guidelines as to how to comply with the Illinois Medicaid Act and its accompanying Administrative Code. However in 1998 Illinois Medicaid wrote in its handbook a policy - A210.4 which states as follows: “Psychiatric therapies must be provided by the physician who submits charges. Services provided by a psychologist, social worker, etc., are not reimbursable.” This is in DIRECT violation of the Federal Medicaid Code and its accompanying Code of Federal Regulations, as well as the Illinois Medicaid Act and its accompanying Administrative Code, which state:
1) 42 U.S.C. 1396(a)30(A) “A State plan for medical assistance must - Provide such methods and procedures…and the payment for, care and services….at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population in the geographic area.” Blue/Cross Blue/Shield and other private insurers pay non-physicians such as psychologists and drug-addiction counselors as well as physicians for the services of such employees.
2) 42 CFR 414.34 “Payment for services and supplies incident to a physician’s service…Services of non physicians that are incident to a physician’s service….are paid as if the physician had personally furnished the service.” Therefore, when a physician’s employee provides a psychiatric service the physician may send a bill to Medicaid under the physician’s name and Medicaid provider number and leave off his employee’s name.
3) 89 IAC 140.400 “A practitioner may bill only for services he or she personally provides or which are provided under his or her direct supervision in his or her office by his or her staff”
There are numerous other sections of these codes, statutes, and regulations which clearly permit a physician to bill for services of his or her employees.
Illinois Medicaid refers any provider who Bills for psychiatric therapies under a physician’s name when the therapies are performed by non-physician employees to the Attorney General for prosecution under the Medicaid Fraud section of the Illinois Medicaid Act. They however, state that billing for non-psychiatric therapies performed by non-physician employees of physicians is OK.
The Illinois Medicaid Inspector General claims that A210.4 authorizes this allegation. However, A210.4 IS NOT LAW. It was NEVER approved by Congress or the Illinois Legislature and was NEVER approved as an Illinois Administrative Code by the Illinois Legislative Joint Committee on Administrative Rules known as JCAR. JCAR is the legislative body consisting of a committee of Senators and Representatives that reviews and approves executive branch administrative rules. When approved they have the power of law. JCAR is supposed to make sure they comply with statutes. The Illinois Medicaid Physician Handbook policy A210.4 has NEVER been submitted to JCAR or approved by JCAR.
Congress and the Illinois legislature as well as the public should examine this issue closely and confront it. Civil rights activists should consider that civil rights concerning health care and mental health care is presently discriminatory and rife with political corruption. This is the new battleground for civil rights in this new century.
Comment by Dr. Shelton Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 5:08 pm
“Thou shalt not take The Lord’s Name in vain”
Comment by If It Walks Like a Duck... Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 5:27 pm
On the topic…I am skeptical of anyone who uses religion in politics. Character is far more important than religious affiliation…and I personally believe that God can use whomever he wants in whatever office they hold (i.e. the Pharoah in Egypt…). I would prefer if politicians lived their lives in such a way that I could see their faith, grace, compassion and character–I don’t need to hear the empty rhetoric.
RBD- I served 5 years in the military…so I have seen plenty of affirmative action training. I disagree that it is okay to have the feelings of hate and supremacy. I also disagree that we should be satisfied with simply containing action. No amount of containing the action that such beliefs lead to wil solve the problems which arise out of racism, elitism, etc. The thought process and beliefs must be changed…old ways must be unlearned rather than contained to thought only. Thought leads to action–and hate leads to hateful action. It has nothing to do with what training you assume I haven’t had. It has everything to do with my refusal to accept hate.
Comment by the wonderboy Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 5:30 pm
I think it would be good to remember the “Separation of Church and State”. Not just for the Gov, but for anyone in the legislature. Members will vote however they feel or are guided to vote. When one is peaking in public, it’d be best to leave the Lord’s name out of it. Don’t mix church/religion and politics.
Comment by Tessa Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 6:00 pm
I have it on good authority that God has moved to Missouri. But he plans on visiting Indiana, Wisconsin etc. He has given up on Illinois for a few years. ### help us!
Comment by A Citizen Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 6:12 pm
It is perfectly acceptable for the Governor to invoke the almighty in this debate. Most religions, especially the Catholic church, teach that health care is not a luxury but a right of all mankind.
Your setup to the question was excellent, Rich. Republicans have been using God in political debates for at least the past 25 years. usually they cloak themselves in Godlike morality while they voted to go to war, deny basic human rights to immigrants, vote against minimum wage which allows wagearners to have the dignity the bible always talks about, etc. etc. etc.
The Democratic position is more in line with bible teaching. While I usually disagree with the Governor and can’t stand his antics, he is right on the money on this one. Its about time Democrats started to show how their stands square with traditional religious teaching.
Comment by MPPA grad student Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 6:21 pm
Folks, please leave me OUT of this.
And don’t stand too close to the guy with the pomped-up hair, lessn’ you have rubber-soled shoes on.
Comment by God Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 7:36 pm
Turnabout is certainly fair play.
More importantly, however, I believe that anyone (Republicans, Democrats, right wing, left wing, etc.) who uses the name of God to further their own personal agenda will find out shortly after their final breath if it was a good idea or not.
Comment by Jaded Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 7:40 pm
People in the faith community are extremely gullible when it comes to politicians pandering to them; they keep getting used like this over and over and never seem to see it…
Rod’s god quote was given in the context that he was trying to get church congregations, (and let’s be up-front about this, specifically Reverend Senator Meeks’ African-American congregation and others like it) on the record as supporting him and demanding this new program. Congregations make a handy target for mobilizing votes, and don’t think for a second they are anything but a convenient tool for Rod to use in moving his agenda, just like pandering to Hispanic labor union members, seniors, or anywhere a monolithic group can be concentrated and told what they want to hear.
But pandering to the crowd is easy for politicians. What takes guts is to advocate for the small constituencies, to pursue fairness over popularity. Like some guy did two thousand or so years ago.
Comment by Give Us Barabbas! Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 7:53 pm
Everytime someone calls out the God/race/sex/whatever card, take a huge step back. Generally means they are desperate or have no other arguement and have to use the big emotional angle. Now if Rod does a Jimmy Swaggert crying act to show his sincerity, people will know he really means it this time.
Comment by zatoichi Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 8:01 pm
It is so good to know that when God makes a mistake that Rod is available to correct it. Rod bless us everyone!
Comment by A Citizen Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 10:05 pm
If a politician invokes his beliefs, he would be more believable if he first acted on those beliefs and tithed, rather than donating 1% of his income. That is embarassing - saying let’s be charitable, but you donate your money and I’ll spend it for the charitable things I think God would want me to do.
Comment by n the Sticks Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 10:22 pm
MPPA grad student-
I tend to agree with the general Dem. position in regards to serious need for healthcare reform, but I also take issue with your value judgement. To say that the Dems. and Blago are more in line with Bible teaching is to place your interpretation of scripture above others. While you may very well be correct, you are simply repeating the actions of the Reps that you challenged just one paragraph earlier. Such value judgements are precisely why religion has no place in politics…whose God is bigger? Whose understanding of scripture is better?
It’s fine to have that sort of position regarding the Bible, but we all need to be careful in claiming the high ground based upon interpretation of what is Christian or biblical. It tends to make us all into hypocrites.
Comment by the wonderboy Tuesday, Mar 6, 07 @ 11:07 pm
St Paul, The Koran, Hebrew scriptures all write about sex. They’re pretty much silent on health insurance.
Not that some one can’t find good quotes, it’s just if you’re inclined to wrap yourself in an authority, it’s an easier go of it with sexual ethics.
All Pols better off not invoking God much and when they do, in the most generic and American-Civil Religion sort of way…. JFK was the last Dem who could do it,
With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.
The Gov has JFK’s hairstyle but that’s about it.
Comment by Bill Baar Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 6:23 am
“Sir my concern is not whether God is on our side. My great concern is to be on God’s side.”
Abraham Lincoln
Comment by Old Shepherd Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 10:07 am
render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, render unto God the things that are Gods. Begging the question where does Caesar stop and God begin. Our founding fathers Christian men gave us the solution. Keep church and state seperate
Comment by oldie opah Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 10:33 am