Jim Wallis v. Religious Right, cont.

I've been asked 3 questions:
Q1. "In what manner were these people [Calif. fertility clinic, whose persecution only Pastor Jeff seems willing to defend]
following the direct commands/example of Christ" (Pastor Jeff asked this one 3 times):
A1.When Jesus was asked "What must I do to inherit eternal life" the first part of his answer was the straightforward part that many of the posters here seem to be ignoring:
JESUS TOLD THE MAN TO OBEY THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.
That is so basic that it's embarrassing to have to repeat it here. Then, in the more memorable part of the answer, Jesus cut to the heart of the matter: the man's possessions were standing between him and Jesus. (A common problem for Americans of any political stripe.)
"Go, sell your possessions” was NOT a command to supererogation, or a statement that helping the poor, or forcing others to do so via taxation, releases you from the basic obligations of the Ten Commandments.
Q2. “What party believes in forcing people to do things against their consciences?”
A2. The party that supports suing Christians who won't fertilize a gay couple. There are many perfectly good citizens who identify as GLBTG. But I say the clinic made the right call in not fertilizing a couple so filled with hate that they took the clinic to court for following Jesus. (Note that the Republicans, most of whom support Obama's war in Afghanistan, still allow for conscientious objection to military service.)
Q3., this one from BlueDeacon “What difference will just one more voice make?”
A3., Again, Jim should be that “just one more voice” speaking out clearly against abortion—not to make a difference, but because it's the right thing to do. He does seem rather too concerned about his public image; I'm afraid I can't help with that. But supporting the Stupak Amendment was his big chance to stand against the tide of partisan divisiveness. Last March he left Stupak hanging, and joined with Nancy Pelosi, who might not even know who Jim Wallis is.

From a thread about nationalization of health care

http://blog.sojo.net/2009/09/10/obamas-health-care-speech-hope-over-fear/#comment-16559995


http://www.jeffjacoby.com/6202/what-right-to-health-care
Check out this column from the Boston Globe about what a “right” is, and isn't. The Bill of Rights is about freedom; liberal elitists and their fellow travelers like Jim Wallis have turned it into an entitlement, an obligation that impinges on the freedoms of others. Instead of deeds of mercy, which the Bible commands in no uncertain terms, Rev. Jim is substituting the secular notion of entitlement: something someone else is forced to do for me, for free, regardless of my behavior. There's a world of difference.

True, the Canadian system is technically independent of the US but their people, as patients, aren't. That should be obvious [from their travel to the US for urgent treatment, and their use of our medical schools and privately manufactured medical products]. I know little about European systems; there may be something or a lot to learn from them. But not if we don't get the fundamentals of what is a right and what is personal responsibility straight from the beginning. And not if we don't tell the truth: that Obama and Jim are steering us in the disastrous direction of nationalization regardless of the satisfaction of the majority with many essential aspects of the current private system.
There also was an earlier ref on this site to this column:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/
It's well known (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090913/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_primary_care;_ylt=Akup8mKE8f.5OwsjV4kAZCT34494;_ylu=X3oDMTJ1aWU0OWJvBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwOTEzL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX3ByaW1hcnlfY2FyZQRjcG9zAzUEcG9zAzUEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawM1MG1pbGxpb25uZXc-), that there aren't enough primary care physicians to handle a sudden influx of people with free or subsidized government insurance. True, primary care CAN save costs later on, but will all these new patients pay any better attention than you and I? Ten or 20 million more people being told to quit smoking, lose weight, and exercise? The emergency is not about health care delivery or insurance, but public health—people are failing to take elementary steps to better health. It appears that Obama has no plan to deal with this other than to insist that his plan will solve everything. Yeah, right. That is so wildly optimistic as to border on outright falsehood.
While I am indeed impressed with our new Surgeon General's dedication to the health of the poor, I still feel her weight sends the wrong message: look how far I got by ignoring medical advice. So she is a good, very good, person, but a rotten example of the preventive care that is our only hope for real savings in a plan that refuses to limit malpractice abuse. Please don't dismiss this as criticizing someone with a problem I don't have--in fact, bad food is too readily available and inexpensive to the poor in America. If this is addressed, as a priority far higher than the socialization of medicine, Obama will have done some good.

Jim Wallis circa 1980 where have you gone?

I just read Rev. Wallis again,
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/08/20/the-moral-core-of-the-health-care-debate/?dsq=15318107#
and found no hint that he is open to anything but THIS plan, RIGHT NOW. He provides no religious or theological justification for the government doing this, aside from anecdotes that the faith community, as he defines it, is attending lots of meetings and "doing things"--except I heard nothing about prayer meetings, fasting and praying, confession for our personal part in this, just damning of unnamed, sinister special interests. But how is "reform" supporter Planned Parenthood not a special interest? For that matter, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party might just be a special interest:
one that is deeply distrustful of people of faith like Joe Lieberman, and one that is in deep denial about the meaning of the shift in power of 2006-when LIBERAL Republicans lost election after election to CONSERVATIVE Democrats. For all the hope people, including myself, used to place in him as a "third way" it must be blisteringly obvious by now that Jim has moved to uncritical support of liberal Democrats. Why is the “government option” more important than Darfur?
I believe Jim and many of his supporters are pacifists--why are they quietly allowing the President to greatly expand a war in Afghanistan? Afghanistan?? The country that hasn't been conquered by an outside power since Genghis Khan in 1219??? Jim is falling in step with the President's priorities on these things, and it's a sad spectacle.