Health Care Moral Imperative?


National Review's July cover: Dependence Day

Many of you have now heard President Obama selling the Health Care legislation on moral grounds, referring to the biblical question “Am I my brother’s keeper?” as the guiding rule that warrants quick action on this legislation. What you may not be aware of is that our own Chet Edwards is considered the Conscience of the House in regards to matters concerning separation of church and state.

In all communist nations the people are taught atheism. But man is innately a spiritual being, and so this void is filled through dialectics – such as Chairman Mao’s Red Book – which instructs citizens to apply their spiritual yearnings for the good of the State.

This is a serious problem here in the United States as more and more people are viewing tax money collected as some sort of national collection plate from which come all national charitable programs:  welfare, SCHIP, Medicaid, school lunches…all these programs are “sold” to us as our duty and responsibility to others. Of course, being a secular organization, the government is not able to make decisions as the early Christian church made, such as “If you don’t work, you don’t eat” and that the needs of individuals should first be supplied by the family of the individual in need. These are merely two of the basic tenets set forth by the early Christian church.

It is easy to see how the government sells the idea of compassion through religious requirements while demanding there be no religious requirements placed upon the recipients of our tax money. This is the very reason we need separation of church and state today.

In regards to the announcement of three Town Hall meetings, we should begin to question Chet Edwards’ commitment to the lofty platform of separation of church and state in regards to President Obama’s statements concerning Health Care. Is Health Care Reform our moral imperative? And if so, does Mr. Edwards agree with the State assuming the role of God as to which citizens have lives worthy of State investment and which do not?

Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals teaches: make your enemies live up to their own good principles. Time to turn that rule around on Mr. Edwards.

Thanks for being out there!


  1. Josh Wilkinson says:

    You confuse morality with religion. The two can be, and often are, mutually exclusive.

  2. Religion is the teacher of morality not the government. The government is law.

  3. Josh Wilkinson says:

    The government is we the people, a reflection of us. And it is a representative democracy. So I welcome you to participate, but strongly believe that a majority of Americans are uneasy about leaving the welfare of less fortunate Americans to private charity and the free market, as your post would suggest.

  4. So, you don’t mind having a government church? Why do we think the Left “moral” because they take money from the one that earned it and gave it to another who did not earn it. Their tax returns don’t indicate that degree of charity with their own money. The truth is that the Left are merely using the poor to make themselves appear holy.

    My spirituality finds that disgusting behavior. My God ridicules such men and describes their activity as evil.

    The Bible says that I am to be held accountable for my deeds and the results of my deeds. Private charities and the free market are capable of caring for our less fortunate far better than the government which measures out the value of a man’s soul according to budgetary means.

    Better the private charity that encourages a man to be all that God has created him to be than a government bureaucracy that views a man’s suffering as job security.

    Separation of church and state would set the poor and less fortunate free in their soul, which is the core understanding of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Only an individual can possess compassion. A government bureaucracy is an impersonal emptiness.

  5. Josh Wilkinson says:

    I’m under no illusion that the left want to be holy. Perhaps it just that we want the less fortunate get help without having to be proselytized to.

    Again, you fail to be able to recognize that we are the government. (Well, I take that back. Since Reagan, the government has become increasingly more responsive to corporations and lobbyists.) Perhaps if you would join me in calling for the separation of corporations and state, then the government would become more beholden to we the people, rather than them, the big businesses.

    (And why doesn’t private charity help with that poor lady who was at Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn’s Town Hall meeting?)

    Mathew 25:40

Speak Your Mind


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.