A Progressive Theo-Political Blog Bringing You The Best and Worst of Baptist Life.

Monday, October 15, 2007

These Are Children For Crying Out Loud!

Rev. Joel Hunter, a former United Methodist pastor who earlier this year resigned from his pending presidency of the Christian Coalition of America has weighed in on the fight in Congress to override Bush's SCHIP veto.

In a recent sermon, the Orlando-based megachurch pastor makes an emotional plea on behalf of God's children. Listen to Rev. Hunter here. Below is an excerpt:
"There are people in this country - Children - and I hear these arguments all the time about these dirty filthy immigrants, these illegal immigrants who come into this country. And they are getting all these benefits because their kids get sick enough to get into an emergency and go to an emergency room.

And somehow those children don't deserve care because they come from another country and they are not like us and maybe they don't believe what we do and maybe they don't speak the same language we do. And we want to deny those children healthcare? God would say "what are you doing?"

I don't believe health care is a right. But I believe healthcare is the test of our character as a nation. And I believe that any nation that does not take care of the children among us is not much of a nation, is not much of a people, is certainly not much of a Christian......

And I gotta tell ya, what are we doing?!? These are children for crying out loud! God would say - there are 100,000 in the city who don't know their right hand from their left, and you would ignore them and not give them what they need because they don't happen to have what you have. If you're a nation that don't take care of your own children, you're not much of a nation, as a matter of a fact you're not much of a people, let alone much of a Christian. These are Children!

Here's what we have to understand. We gotta know that God cares for the vulnerable. This is a message to us all. We are to love the ones that we might not love naturally but God does. We are to love according to his standards not according to ours. And I know I may have just made some of you really mad. But I don't care. It's what the word of God says and I will always tell you what the word of God says. Pray with me."
Rev. Joel Hunter is one conservative evangelical that has my respect.

Unfortunately, many of his fellow pro-life conservative evangelical friends are united against SCHIP. The Baptist ethics agency that made war and torture cool again has also come out in support of Bush's veto. Surprise Surprise! I guess pouring hundreds of billions into Iraq is more POSH than providing millions of children with freakin health care!

And that my friends is the definition of Christian social concern. And unfortunately from a group that bears the name Baptist.

So while I'm embarrassed by Baptists like Richard Land and Barrett Duke, I thank God for Methodists like Joel Hunter.....

Labels: , ,

13 Comments:

Blogger texasinafrica said...

I guess it all depends on your definition of "the least of these," huh?

3:11 PM

 
Anonymous Greg Tomlin said...

Wait a minute, BDW. You just violated the number one rule of politics. You didn't look at why the bill was vetoed ... you just bought the liberal party line that couches vetoes like this in moral terms when it really doesn't have any moral impetus to it.

It was vetoed because it allowed family's who make $80K a year to participate and "children" up to 25 years old. That's why it was vetoed, not because Bush doesn't care about children. That's just not right. It seems to me, as well, that he pledged another $4 billion "for the children" if the Congress would just resubmit the appropriation without trying to give people who can afford health care free health care.

This proposed expansion is ultimately about stealing your liberty -- an incremental step toward national health care. I don't know about you, but I'm not all that excited about pulling my own teeth because I can't find a dentist (reference conditions in Britain).

Now having said that, I think the group that should be caring for the children ISN'T doing it -- the church. The children aren't the government's responsibility. They are ours.

Caring for children ... yes. The government doing it ... no. Do you really trust the government to successfully administer such a program when they've (Dem and Rep alike) squandered every cent they've ever bled from the people.

The Constitution gives the government about 10 powers -- maybe not that many. If you think the government should be doing this, then at least consider that state government should handle it.

GT

8:18 PM

 
Anonymous Michael Westmoreland-White said...

Actually, both those objections--the $80K and the 25 year age--were taken out of the compromise bill that Bush vetoed, Greg. They were in the House version, not the Senate bill or the compromise that was sent to Bush.
And the numbers Bush wants as a "compromise" would, thanks to inflation, cut over 5 million kids currently enrolled. Get your facts straight and quit buying the conservative line.

11:17 PM

 
Anonymous Michael Westmoreland-White said...

And Greg, if your objection to S-CHIP is a strict-constructionist claim that government has no power to enact this (something that could be contested, but I'll leave that to real poli-sci types like BDW and Texas in Africa), then you are doubtless FURIOUS at the shredding of the Constitution that has been done on a daily basis by the Bush admin--often with the cooperation of the Congress--gleeful cooperation by the GOP and spineless subservicence by the Dems. This despite the clear fact that the Framers intended Congress to be far more powerful than the Pres.

We are now heading toward an elected monarchy with Congress transformed into a privy council and the courts into a rubber stamp of executive power. I didn't learn it that way in civics class, did you?

7:22 AM

 
Blogger Jim Paslay said...

Please help me out here! Is the party of the leaders in Congress that passed the bill for children's healthcare the same party that doesn't recognize the life of an unborn child?

I believe the biblical word for this is HYPOCRITE! It sickens me that the party that pushes this big government healthcare bill uses abortion as a litmus test for Presidential candidates. How about the health of unborn children? You ought to be embarrassed by the party you belong to! I will use your title to express my view, "these are children for crying out loud."

3:17 PM

 
Blogger Big Daddy Weave said...

Jim,

While this post isn't about abortion, I will briefly respond.

This term Democrats have successfully pushed through Congress pieces of legislation aimed at reducing the number of abortions. I've written several times about this legislation. What exactly has the Republican Party done lately in this regard? It's odd that when I write about abortion - you have no comment. But when I write about health care - you want to talk about abortion?

Being pro-choice does not mean that one is pro-abortion, Jim. Perhaps your mind is too small to grasp such a simple concept? Who knows? What's interesting, Jim, is that you seem to believe that being pro-life ends after conception?

6:03 PM

 
Blogger Jim Paslay said...

Big Daddy,

Name one piece of legislation that democrats have passed that have reduced abortions in America. Just one will do!

Also, I am for helping poor children, but I believe we should first recognize them as children in their mother's womb, and not a choice as you see them.

Your post points to the hypocrisy of the democratic party. Democrats say "we want healthcare for all children." But only those who are chosen by their mothers to live. Right?

You ask what have republicans done lately? What about partial-birth abortion ban that many democrats opposed. It has reduced the number of abortions in America, especially the late term ones.

You can hide behind the word "choice" all you want to, but the fact of the matter is you are for abortion if a woman chooses one.

7:01 PM

 
Blogger Michael Westmoreland-White said...

Medicaid is for poor children. S-CHIP was always designed for working families who made above the poverty line but not enough for insurance--or who were denied by "preexisting conditions."

BTW, Bush claims that he wants to renew S-CHIP, just not at the level that this bi-partisan bill proposes. The truth is that Governor George W. Bush of Texas vetoed S-CHIP in his state. The Texas legislature had to override that veto in order to help kids--even though, at that time, Texas had the highest rate of uninsured children in the nation.

Compassionate conservatism? Billions for war, but not for children's health?

And, although this post is not about abortion, why did the "pro-life" conservatives start saying that couples who have sick children and need S-CHIP "should never have conceived them?" Wow.

Also, the pro-life GOP keeps cutting out programs that make it easier for poor folk to get birth control. Who is pro-life?

8:27 PM

 
Blogger Big Daddy Weave said...

RIght here Jim:

http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2007/07/democrats-pass-bill-to-reduce-abortion.html

So you suggest that we should stop all efforts to help children UNTIL Roe v. Wade is overturned? Does that make absolutely any sense?

How many fetuses have been saved under the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act? The answer is - not many. The Act banned a rare procedure. More Democrats would have supported the Act if the language of the bill actually protected the mother from serious threats to her health.

Jim, if you want to smoke a pack of cigs or drunk a handle of Jim Beam each and every day - I ain't gonna stop you. Your life, your choice. By allowing you that choice does not mean that I am pro lung cancer or pro liver disease. I'm not responsible for your choices. I'm only responsible for my choices. Ultimately, whether a woman carries her baby to full term is her decision - a rather personal and private decision. I do believe the best strategy to reducing the number of abortions is through pieces of legislation like what the Democrats passed above. Twiddlin your thumbs and waiting for a Supreme Court to overturn a 34-year old landmark case doesn't seem like a bright decision. It may never happen. And if it does - abortion will remain legal in most states. So what exactly have you accomplished?

11:20 AM

 
Blogger Big Daddy Weave said...

Click Here For Dem Abortion Legislation

11:21 AM

 
Blogger foxofbama said...

BDiddy:
Please keep coming back to Killian's blog as we have a teachable moment in Alabama. It is almost guaranteed the state Baptist offices in Bama are reading every comment.
Some of your folks here may want to read the transcript Weds at Wash Post of the Frontline Documentary about Cheney's Law.
As for the SChip. I'm on your side, but Bush May, I repeat may have a point about the 80,000 dollar cut off

1:25 PM

 
Anonymous Greg Tomlin said...

Sorry to be so long to comment ...

Wrong. The bill still included provisions giving both New York and New Jersey exceptions with the right to raise the SCHIP levels in their states to 400 percent and 350 percent of the national poverty level ($20,500 or so for a family of four). That is why it was vetoed, in addition to contradicting already established medicaid policy for the states.

Is Bush the best president we've ever had? No. Have he and Cheney increased executive power? Yes. Is it because they thought previous Democratic Congresses gutted the presidency? Yes.

Will your champion Hillary give up some of that executive power if elected? Not likely. Get ready for a new breed of Marxism, boys.

10:15 AM

 
Anonymous Chuck said...

Big Daddy,

By your pro-choice stance, you affirm a human being's choice to snuff out an innocent life. I and those opposed to your position believe that snuffing out an innocent life is not only immoral but also illegal in this country, and it is--in every instance except when the victim is an unborn, yet knit-together-in-the-womb, created-and-known-by-God, child.

Your drinking and smoking illustration sounds righteous, but breaks down immediately when you stop to think that drinking and smoking are legal, though foolish choices for adults. Snuffing out an innocent human being is not a choice granted legally--unless the person is unborn.

How fortunate you and I are that we were conceived in mothers who had no legal choice, or who chose not to snuff out our innocent lives. If anyone wants to talk about the unfortunate, talk about those who were conceived in mothers who were granted the legal choice and chose to snuff out the unfortunates' innocent lives.

Unless you really believe snuffing out any innocent life is a matter of personal, legal choice, you're pro-choice position is illogical as well as immoral.

3:43 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 
eXTReMe Tracker