Russell and Duenes

Why this? Why now?

with 6 comments

Douglas Wilson has an excellent piece over at Blog and Mablog on how political action relates to worship by God’s people, and specifically, why Christians should oppose the recently-passed health care bill rather than just “keeping our heads down” and simply “building up the church.” He concludes,

The last question is this: why is this health care bill so important? “Yeah, it’s bad, but shouldn’t we just keep our heads down, and continue to labor on building up the church?” Two points — a church crammed full of people who think this kind of thing is acceptable is not a built up church, but rather a compromised one. And second, the reason for politically-engaged Christians to take action here is this. When Reagan sent the troops into Grenada, it was an insignificant move militarily, but it had a monumental impact. Up to that point, the communists had the “irresistible force of history” argument on their side, and a reversal (however tiny) was enough to puncture that illusion. When the balloon is big, the pin doesn’t have to be. Statism seeks to operate using the same illusion. There is a real chance that this health care mess will be first defunded in 2010 and repealed in 2012. If it is, a major illusion (the inevitibility of statist progression) will be undone. And if that happens, the new opportunities for the church will be enormous.

-D

Advertisements

Written by Michael Duenes

April 2, 2010 at 12:05 am

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Great points! Love the new look for the site.

    Russ

    April 2, 2010 at 7:31 pm

  2. I read his original 10 points against the bill. Tyranny? If he is talking about abortion here, he really needs to show in the plan where abortion is going to be Federally funded any more than it already is. When I read over the section of the bill regarding abortion it says the opposite of Wilson. He should have to use proof in his suppositions. He seems to be playing politics like everyone else. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62N61Y20100324
    -R

    russellandduenes

    April 3, 2010 at 3:50 am

    • What section of the bill would that be? Can you post here the relevant text that you read over? If you’re going to refute him, I’d like to see your evidence. The Reuters article only points to something that is meaningless. Obama’s executive order has no real power and does not have the force of law. Any judge could easily overturn it once the order is challenged, which you can bet it will be. A much better analysis is provided here: http://nrlc.org/AHC/Release032110.html

      Perhaps the most salient point in your comment regards abortion not being funded “any more than it already is.” I think you and I would agree that this is the problem, and that private insurance companies, including Kaiser, already fund it. How to address this issue, I don’t know.

      -D

      russellandduenes

      April 5, 2010 at 6:37 am

  3. I provided relevant information- you just don’t like what it says. Both you and Wilson have railed against this plan (and your President) without giving any specific evidence about abortion funding except for what you imagine might happen someday. What DID happen is an Executive Order that disallows abortion funding. And yes, this is a much broader and more reliable step than your Kaiser plan, which you get to enjoy for relatively little money- and of course a plan you pay for willingly.
    -R

    russellandduenes

    April 6, 2010 at 3:27 pm

  4. All I wanted to see is “the section of the bill regarding abortion” that you said you read over and which you said contradicted me and Wilson. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just asking to see that section of the bill, seeing as you read it. May I see it? Both liberal and conservative commentators say that the president’s order does not disallow abortion funding, as you assert, so it’s not like I’m arguing out in left field here. I think there are some more relevant specifics here: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/03/23/a-final-faq-on-healthcare-and-abortion/

    I also think Ross Douthat of the NY Times has a sensible point on the big picture: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/sympathy-for-bart-stupak/

    I think having the president’s order is better than not having it; I simply don’t have the faith in it that you seem to have. I agree with Douthat that Stupak’s battle allowed for more restrictions on abortion funding than would have been in the law without his stand. My principle objections to this law have never been the abortion issue, though I believe federal funding for abortion is an issue.

    As to my enjoyment of Kaiser and their funding of abortion, you are quite right. I have never taken the position that everything will be just fine if we keep abortion funding out of a federal health care law. I don’t like to see abortions happening in any sector, and I will fight against the spread of abortion in any way I can. But I don’t think the issue is made better if we have a government health plan that covers abortion rather than private plans that do. I think it would be better if we had the option of having an insurance plan that did not cover abortions at all, though we’d still have to go to hospitals that cover them, etc. As I said in another post, neither you nor I can live in our society while avoiding doing business with and having our money go to things with which we disagree. I pay my taxes, and I know they go to immoral things. So do you.

    -D

    russellandduenes

    April 9, 2010 at 8:49 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: