Baal worshipers pray to convert Joe Lieberman

Or at least their views are remarkably similar to Baal worshipers.  They are actually a group of Jews, Muslims and (alleged) Christians

The letter, signed by 70 members of the clergy, posed this argument: “Whether from the words of Torah or the Gospels of Jesus, whether from the Talmud or the Koran — our traditions all are explicit and clear on one thing: We are commanded to seek the welfare and healing of all those in our midst, especially the weak, especially the vulnerable.”

I’ve read all of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible many times and can’t recall a single passage commanding us to lobby Caesar to take from neighbor A by threat of force to give to neighbor B. 

Yep, nothing like a bunch of pro-abortion clergy lecturing you about helping the “weak” and “especially the vulnerable.”  I’m getting all choked up here.

There was one true point:

I wouldn’t say that the Torah commands a public option per se, but I think our faith does require we have a debate about the best ways to improve health care for the underprivileged.

I don’t know if faith requires it or not, but of course we should have a debate.  The problem is that there are many great ideas being ignored (tort reform, more competition, tax benefits to employees so they can take coverage when they leave, etc.) because the Liberals don’t want to entertain those.  These religious folks set up the typical false dichotomy: Give all the control to Caesar or you are a greedy bastard who hates the poor.

No Christian should have been involved in such an enterprise.  It clearly breaks God’s command not to be unequally yoked on spiritual matters.  Then again, what do theological Liberals care about God’s commands? 

I don’t think Lieberman has much to worry about.  If he changes his mind it won’t be because these folks prayed, because Baal isn’t real.

0 thoughts on “Baal worshipers pray to convert Joe Lieberman”

  1. Hey Neil:

    Caesar always takes for all neighbors and divides what he takes as our elected officials deem fit (under our suggestion of course). This is not a question of taxes, it is a question of priorities. While I do acknowledge the inconsistency of those who support a woman’s right to choose to a degree far beyond birth control and morning after pills in regard to caring for widows and orphans, I would posit that helping the widow, the orphan, the oppressed IS a tenet of the Christian faith.

    Health care is something people cannot live without, regardless of diet and exercise, disease and injury happen, and affordability for treatment of such things is a problem for even the middle class.

    Again, something needs to be done, if not Obama’s way, then the RIGHT needs to propose a reasonable alternative, the status quo is unacceptable and unattenable.


  2. But as Neil has pointed out, DJ, the right HAS suggested alternatives, and those in control aren’t listening. They’re looking for control and the ability to say they’ve done something. They’ll worry about the negative consequences later. But that which is truly beneficial to the system and thus, the people, are ignored. It’ll mean that they’ll have to step aside and let the market work the way it’s supposed to and there’ll be no credit coming their way when things improve.


  3. Hey Marshall:

    The Right ignored this problem from Gingrich to Bush II, and it got worse exponentially, so their credibility and motivation at the least is questionable. The real solution to this does not lay in the extremes of the left or the right, the right has just been yelling socialism from the isles and not addressing the problem.

    The market can’t fix this problem, the market created this problem. Some things just can’t be left to profit margins and quarterly bonuses, all I’m saying…


    1. DJ

      What you are positing is taking from neighbor A by threat of force to give to neighbor B. This is an imposition of morality on neighbor A (the only thing that I can think of that is immoral to the left which qualifies them as hypocrites) while assuming that neighbor B is as pure as the wind driven snow. It does not even consider Caesar’s morality, unless ethics is reduced to Caesar A (Republicans) screwed it up so Caesar B (Democrats) are as pure as the wind driven snow and can be trusted.

      There is much much more at stake here than health care; like a massive Stalinesque power grab. Governments feed on power so don’t be fooled. No government should be given this much reign, right or left, Republican or Democrat.


  4. In this comment I am not discussing politics at all. This is about what the bible says, nothing more.

    But if this is a discussion about whether Jesus Christ commanded us to love one another, then yes He did.

    If this is a discussion about whether in the OT God commanded us to love our neighbour and to protect the helpless and the poor and the weak and to visit those in jails… yes He did!

    If this is a discussion about Paul saying not to walk past a beggar and helpless person and say “be filled with the Lord” and then walk on… no he didn’t, Paul made it abundantly clear that we are to intervene and help!

    We Christians are to make a difference in this world. That is the fact of the matter. It is abhorrent to hear Christians who say we are to avoid helping those who do not have healthcare… if we do not help then who will?

    It is disgrace to think that Christians refuse to help the underpriviledged, refuse to help those trapped in poverty.

    Please note that this is a not a political message, it is strictly a statement about the expectations that God has shown clearly in the OT, in Jesus’ command and in the NT.


    1. Hi Mark,

      No one is disputing the Christian idea to help others. What amazes me is that you think that his power grab and taking other people’s money counts as satisfying your moral obligations.


  5. Firstly, the government has a job to do, which is to care for it’s citizens. Let it do it’s job.

    Secondly, yes I am very concerned about the power that governments have acquired and are gradually acquiring. However, we need to keep perspective… nothing really compares with the power that Bush illegally acquired and used in disastrous ways on a global scale.

    And lastly, I think that if something is taken away from the mega rich and given to the poor, then I’m pretty much ok with that. After all, the bible says if we have two shirts, to give one to the poor. So it’s no biggie to me.



    1. Even if you were right about Bush your logic doesn’t follow. If a power abuse was bad for him why does that make it good for Obama?

      Re. The 2 shirts: Please tell me you were kidding. Jesus taught to give your shirts, not to take shirts from believers or non-believers to give away as “charity” on your part. The Liberal method you propose is really a two step process: steal then give. Which is really just stealing.

      We have a name for the behavior you are exhibiting: Coveting.


      1. God also judges as a nation, not only as individuals. Take a look at scripture…

        Ezek. 16:49ff. “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.”

        Is. 10:1-3. “Woe to those who enact evil statutes, and to those who continually record unjust decisions, so as to deprive the needy of justice, and rob the poor of My people of their rights… Now what will you do in the day of punishment, and in the devastation which will come from afar?”

        I’m sorry but we as Christians simply cannot stand back and demand no one touches our wealth. We are expected to share. America has got to take action to restore itself to a position of blessing, after many decades of filth and greed.


      2. Mark, you are confusing Israel with the U.S. and other people’s money with your money.

        You also perpetuate the false dichotomy that we either pass this health care bill or do nothing.


    2. “Firstly, the government has a job to do, which is to care for it’s citizens.”

      This is a “fact” pulled from thin air. Sounds Utopian and all but it ignores many many realities. But if it were true, it indicts this administration, the Democrat party, and America for turning its back on the most innocent and helpless of American Citizens, the 40 plus million people slaughtered in the womb. No wonder we need some opiate for our conscience by giving our neighbor’s money to the poor.


  6. “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”


  7. I know this is a stupid question, but I have to ask, how does tort reform lower cost for consumers? I know it may lower cost for doctors in malpractice insurance, and may lower payouts from pharmaceutical companies, but do we know this will translate to savings for the average Joe and Jill?


    1. Doctors pay obscene amounts for insurance just to cover them against patients who will sue them for anything and everything possible. This raises the cost of doing business for all doctors and clinics. It also has the effect of doctors being far too careful, and ordering tests that are completely unnecessary just to cover their butts. This raises the costs further for each patient.

      Tort reform is very necessary. There needs to be limits on what people can sue doctors for, and penalties for people who file frivolous lawsuits. People suing a doctor should need to prove malpractice to get a settlement.

      Unfortunately this is only a small part of the problem.


      1. Tort is not just a problem in medicine. Several aircraft manufacturers actually shut down parts of their operation because of unsustainable litigation cost. This lead to the passage of the 1994 “GENERAL AVIATION REVITILIZATION ACT” removing liabilities from aviation manufacturing companies for aircraft and components over 18 years old. This came at a cost of jobs and tax revenues to many levels of government.…-a017290095

        In fact every business is now bogged down by merely attempting to conduct business in a litigiously hostile environment created by the seldom mentioned special interest groups of trial lawyers; seldom mentioned because they are huge donors to the Democrat party. This bogging down comes at an expense of incomes for working people and tax revenues. It’s drain on an economy or a field of business such as medicine would be almost impossible to quantify because of the inability to determine the cost of decisions made that, although resulting from the fear of litigation, are far removed from the final product.

        We now seem to be at the point where a trip to the hospital is analogous to a trip to the Casino with everyone from the land owner where the accident occurred, to the manufacturer of the contraption being used, to the medical professionals providing care, bracing for some jackpot lawyer to pull the handle in hopes of winning millions.


  8. Tort reform = costs out of the system. That has got to be a good thing. In business when we take costs out it makes us more competitive to be able to take price reductions and increase our volume.


  9. Since it was suggested in more than one place, I want to address the concept of the free market as the cause of the high costs. I think this is more assumption. The insurance industry has been overregulated or at least pressured into doing business in a manner not originally intended. Insurance is supposed to be protection against catastrophic issues, yet it has come to be for every little thing. Can anyone dare suggest that such would not impact the cost of premiums?

    At the basic level, insurance companies make money by offering for a price coverage of costs incurred by catastrophic illnesses or injuries. It is a two way gamble. On our side, we purchase coverage for which we pay regular premiums in order to protect against having to have millions (potentially) in reserve in case we suffer a severe injury or illness. Should that happen, we don’t have to deplete our savings because we’ve been paying those premiums.

    On the insurance side, the hope is that no claims are ever submitted. Even if they are, profits are made by virtue of the hope that more people who DON’T suffer from catastrophic events exist than those who do.

    Now add to this coverage for less than catastrophic events and what results is more claims submitted. This dips into the profit margin. When people go to the doctor for minor ailments or injuries and submit claims for doing so, even less profit is made, To counter this trend, the cost of premiums goes up. This is true of every business and is what every individual would do if they could; insist on a raise when the cost of living goes up.

    Now add all the other crap, like the extra testing to protect a doctor’s butt from litigation should a patient take a turn for the worse, as if a doctor is required to be perfect or you can sue him, and costs go up further. This is not free market greed here, but protection against greed of the patient, who thinks that any time life dishes out some bad luck they are entitled to compensation.

    I could go on with how insurance companies are unfairly blamed, but I don’t want to be seen as totally in love with insurance companies. I’m not. In fact, I think the concept of insurance has the current situation as a logical conclusion. It has fed the sense of entitlement, the sense that we are not responsible for our own lives.

    But I also want to talk about previous administrations. Universal health care has been spoken of since the Truman admin, if not sooner. It has never been a good idea in my mind. But what Bush may or may not have done in this arena could be overshadowed by other events, I would think. Yeah, maybe it should have been a higher priority. Maybe each of us should take better care of ourselves and save for the possibility that we might need money for medical bills. We are NOT entitled to insurance of any kind. We ARE supposed to be responsible and live our lives in a way the puts such things in proper priority so that we aren’t left in the lurch. Hold off on that bass boat or hi-def flat screen until you’re sure you’ve got that dough to pay for insurance. Take care of yourself and live responsibly. My point is that the blame for the situation rests one each of us. The real question is how to resolve it. The current suggestions have been crap and will hurt our economy without question. Call your senators and reps and scream at them to bail on this bill and any like it and attack the real issues that have lead to these high costs.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s