Time for a Truth Bomb for Pelosi

This is inconvenient, for a lady who claims to be a stalwart Catholic, familiar with Catholic doctrine, who also often finds herself out of step with traditional teachings on life or other cultural issues.

But in this episode, in San Fran Nan’s zeal to attack the Republicans’ alternative plan to Obamacare that passed the house, and her rush to defend Obamacare — Affordable Healthcare Act — she really muddies the water on religion and politics.

Pelosi made her remarks at her press conference shortly after the passing of the latest Obamacare alternative in the House. But it was a repeated lie she had already used against the former Republican bill, which was pulled and did not get passed.

She rattles off a list of organizations opposed to the Republican plan (many of which originally supported Obamacare) She then lists churches or faith-based institutions along with the United Methodist Church.

First let’s start with the previous bill, on 3/09/17, at her press conference, Pelosi said:

So again, on three fronts, of course, the Affordable Care Act and all that it means to families is very important. The United Methodist Church, in their statement, said people will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care. AARP, the American Medical Association, the hospital association, nurses and physicians, patients, insurers, and consumer groups all oppose the GOP bill.

Again, last week on 5/4/17 Pelosi says: (at an open press conference)

“Sister Simone Campbell said, ‘this is not the faithful way forward and must be rejected.’ The Catholic Health Association wrote, ‘we strongly encourage the full house to reject this replacement bill.’ And the United Methodist Church said, ‘opposing Trumpcare, this is what they said, people will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care.

Lutheran services of America said, ‘Trumpcare will jeopardize the health care and long-term service and support of millions of Americans.’ The Episcopal Church said, ‘Trumpcare falls woefully short of our spiritual calling to care for the least of these, as well as the noble values upon which our great nation was founded.’ End of quote. And all that was said before the Republicans decided to destroy the protections of Americans with pre-existing conditions. — [Pelosi- press conference on 5/4/17]

Below is apparently the UMC statement from the article Pelosi was referring to:
Note the author says she is the General Secretary [excerpt]

Health Care is a Basic Human Right

The General Secretary’s statement on Congressional Efforts to rollback health care

by Rev. Dr. Susan Henry-Crowe on March 07, 2017

“We must not allow our leaders to take away affordable and accessible health care from the communities who need it to live and live abundantly.

This bill has been promoted as a “fix” to the health care system in the United States but will do nothing to improve access and affordability. Instead, it will harm many in the congregations and communities in which we live and serve. People will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care.”

That is basically marked as the General Secretary’s personal statement. How could it be conferred as the statement from the national conference board of the UMC? It s one member’s personal position, though it is posted on the GBCS.org website.

It was one member of the UMC church, as influential as she may be. It does not speak for the entire church itself, as Pelosi suggested. No, she insisted on two separate occasions that it was a statement on behalf of the United Methodist Church.

Dr. Henry-Crowe stated in conclusion: (note the pronoun I)

“I will be calling my members of Congress to urge them to vote no on the bill, and I encourage United Methodists in the United States to join me in advocating for a health care system that leaves no person behind.”

She encourages other members to take that action……on behalf of herself, as the Secretary. But she does not speak for the entire church. Again, she has it posted on the GBCS website. Henry-Crowe, not a medical doctor, also offers no proof for the claim that “people will die”.

Another UM news outlet disected Pelosi’s dilemma: [excerpt]
Good News – Walter Fenton- [*GBCS is General Board & Church Society]

“We were confident no such [“people wiill die”] statement existed. The UM Church, thankfully, does not make a habit of pontificating on every bill that comes before Congress. Only the General Conference, which meets every four years, can pronounce authoritatively for the UM Church. What we suspected was that Rep. Pelosi had read something a UM bishop or the General Secretary of GBCS had said about the bill. And sure enough, Henry-Crowe had recently opined, “People will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care.” Pelosi gladly took Henry-Crowe’s personal prognostication that “people will die,” as the UM Church’s official word on the bill. It is not.

Henry-Crowe, who holds two degrees in theological studies, and for 22 years served as the dean of the chapel and religious life at Emory University before her role at GBCS, offered no evidence to support her hyperbolic claim. Her remark is particularly interesting in light of a recent column by New York Times columnist Ross Douthat. To be sure, like Henry-Crowe, Douthat is not a health care expert. But unlike her, he actually references reputable studies that find claims about how many lives this or that insurance plan will save to be overblown. As Douthat notes, since the expansion of Medicaid under the ACA, Americans have not become healthier or experienced lower mortality rates (they’re actually higher in some of the states and counties where Medicaid was expanded).

It is hard to understand why, in a church with rank-and-file members from across the political spectrum, GBCS has felt compelled to march almost uniformly to the left on most issues. And it often seems incapable of even acknowledging people of good faith and good will might find alternative prescriptions to be reasonable, responsible, and compassionate. GBCS has a propensity to close off options and stifle conversation before it gets started. So if you don’t stand with Henry-Crowe and GBCS on the recent bill before Congress, you’re evidently comfortable with a plan that will allow “people [to] die. (read full article here) ”

Listen to two more excerpts in the same article which make the point:

“GBCS [General Board] seems to have no dialogue partners in a church that desperately needs them.”

“This is odd and even unhelpful coming from an organization appointed to serve and represent the whole church, not just its left wing.”

“Progressives often style themselves as community organizers for social justice, but you seldom get the impression that GBCS folks are actually out organizing among the grassroots. Instead, they are more often found provoking laity and pastors with progressive pronouncements issued from their Capitol Hill offices in Washington D.C.”

“In the future, we hope Henry-Crowe can find the good in other proposals and refrain from conversation stoppers like, “people will die.”

So, in the end, Pelosi was duped or lied. Though she should have at least looked at the statement — it is not a UMC dicta. Maybe other Methodists were even hoodwinked by Pelosi’s careless public assertion about a specious commentary, coming from one member who happens to be a Secretary.

Though if Pelosi is going to go out and make a proclamation representing an entire organization, or church, she should have confirmed it first.

It’s also interesting in light of President Trump’s executive order over the Johnson Amendment. For years, there have been threats to churches about taking part in politics, yet, as the author above states, some members freely associate the church with left-wing politics on current issues. That political activism is celebrated, just as this was by Pelosi, as a formal church position on progressive, liberal political issues. That is no problem at all.

Funny how whenever it is abortion or other cultural, traditional issues then people claim it is over the line, off bounds for the church. There are plenty of examples.

When churches or clergy sign a petition to Congress to investigate aid to Israel, no problem with that lobbying. But there is never any dialogue, criticism of left wing positions the UMC adopts…. even taking advocacy positions on sanctuary cities or sanctuary status for UM churches — I’ll call them Sanctuary Sanctuaries. No harm or foul in that.

Ref: http://goodnewsmag.org/2017/04/people-will-die-2/
http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/3917/
http://umc-gbcs.org/faith-in-action/health-care-is-a-basic-human-right
http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/5417-6/
Advertisements

Churches take their protest message to DC

Church members and clergy made good on their pledge this week by holding civil disobedience protests in DC and at the WH. At least a hundred pro-illegal protestors were arrested on Thursday and Friday.

Over 100 Faith Leaders, Immigrant Activists Arrested At White House For Protesting Deportations

The Huffington Post | By Antonia Blumberg

More than 100 faith leaders and immigration activists participated in a demonstration and were arrested at the White House on Thursday to protest the daily deportations of undocumented immigrations.

The demonstration opened with a prayer service and press conference at 12pm in Lafayette Park followed by a protest along the White House fence to call attention to what a Church World Service (CWS) statement referred to as President Obama’s “inhumane immigration enforcement policies.” After refusing to leave White House sidewalk, the activists were arrested and charged with blocking passage, according to CWS’s statement.

Citing frequently referenced estimates, CWS’s statement said that the U.S. deports 1,100 undocumented immigrants every day when the government should focus on expanding resources for immigrant families — and especially for the tens of thousands of unaccompanied children apprehended at the border every year.

Rabbi Kimelman-Block, who was arrested for civil disobedience at an October rally for immigration reform, led the prayer and invoked the Jewish community’s immigrant past to enforce his message:

We were once demonized. We were called “undesirable.” Laws were passed to keep us and people like us out. Immigration is a fight that our ancestors fought. It is a fight our grandparents and our parents fought. And it is our fight today.

Prominent faith leaders Bishop Minerva Carcaño of the United Methodist Church, Rev. John L. McCullough, CEO and President of Church World Service, Sister Eileen Campbell, Vice President of Sisters of Mercy, Rev. Linda Jaramillo of the United Church of Christ and Rev. Kathleen McTigue, Director of the Unitarian Universalist College of Social Justice, led the action and risked arrest for their civil disobedience.

“We have come to Washington, DC to tell to President Obama and Congress that kicking out suffering immigrant families and unaccompanied children is not the answer. Immediately stopping the deportations and extending due process to children escaping the violence of drug cartels, gangs and poverty is the just way to respond,” Bishop Carcaño said.

More HuffPo

So churches head to Washington to protest the deportation of illegals.

Unclear though is their purpose. Normally a protest is against what is being done. In this case what Obama is doing, has done, or about to do caused this massive inflow of illegals. And his executive order on Dream was key in instigating the crisis.

Now they protest in favor of halting deportations, which Obama is de facto doing. So what are they asking? Simply for Obama to do more executive action, and respond to his self-made crisis by doing even more.

RightRing | Bullright

Marriage…or whatever

The problem is very simple. I know, most people here know this but I’ll say it anyway. The word that is all the rage and the crux of Leftists’ argument is “marriage equality” But is that true?

That is a subjective term.(for their purposes) It means whatever the user wants it to mean. Marriage equality is defined by the user. Marriage equality for the bigamist is marrying a harem. Marriage for someone else is something else. Do I see them define what “marriage equality” means? Of course not, it is as intentionally vague as most language the left uses.

So it will be up to the person to claim what “marriage” or “marriage equality” is to them. A person wants marriage equality, which to him/her means marrying whatever they want or choose to. Then to deny them that is to deny them equality. But the minute anyone draws a line that it (equality) applies to gays but not others, then they will no longer be standing for “equality” will they? They will be denying someone else their right to “equality”. Get it? When society tries to say it can not apply here or there, then bye-bye equality.

The people who adopted that term as their political lingo will have to apply it to wherever someone demands their “marriage equality” — whatever that means to them. Therefore, there cannot be any laws against the outliers, because that would not be equality and be denying someone equality. So there cannot ever be equality until everyone gets what he/she/it demands. (which by my calculation is the second Tuesday of never) — unless you think it is possible to grant every possibility.

Noun

1.The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2.A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (

The fourteenth amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws. I couldn’t marry another man. My wife couldn’t marry another woman. Nor could I marry a cow either. See that is the thing, we are under the same rules.

On the other hand, what they want is to expand the definition of marriage. And yes, it does affect us all, since we are all afforded equal protection of the law. So in effect, they are changing the definition for everyone. It shall mean whatever you want it to mean.

However, no one was denying them the right(s) of marriage, same as the rest of us have. We have that equality now. They are about changing the definition not about “equality”.

But under their newfound definition of equality, no one could be denied the institution of marriage — however one wants to apply it or interpret it. That is what they are asking. It is not about “equality”, it is about ever-expanding definitions of what marriage IS. Remember Bill Clinton: “it depends what the definition of “is” is“. That’s what they are saying.

So all the talk about equality is just that, talk. But no one bugs them about the specious arguments, though they will attack Christians for making a case for the conventional marriage definition. Doing that is supposedly taboo.

Under their ever-expansive definition(s), there are no parameters. It shall mean whatever a particular person wants it to mean. We don’t offer that option in other places either. Remember, they say it is only about equality.

Digging deeper

Now people can say why does this matter because “it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”, as Jefferson said? It could be more relevant now than you thought.

This week the NYT took it on itself again to be the teller of all things and frame the political debate. But they framed it using the Methodist Church in their cross hairs. Why this is a central issue at all is because of a prominent retired Methodist pastor who performed a same-sex wedding for his son in NY, back in October 2012. Now the Times zeros in on him.

He happens to be the former Dean of Yale and Drew Universities, and presently professor emeritus of theological ethics at Yale. So they found a pastor with plenty of credentials and bona-fides to press the issue of same-sex marriage. That is what this is about, not just allowing same-sex marriage but having it approved by clergy and institutions of the church.

For long the general conference of the Methodist Church did not permit pastors to perform such weddings. They still don’t. But that did not stop this activist, academic, pastor from acting on his own. It gets worse though, because of his explanations. He said he wanted to perform the wedding because it is his son, and he said he had no intention of acting in civil disobedience by doing it. And he said that when there is a rule that is not right, and you cannot change it, then you break it. All this rationale flowed from him as his reasoning for doing it. Then there was the quiet reprimand he received which asked him to apologize and promise not to perform them again. He rebuffed that offer. Now he is in clear defiance.

The problem is that all those reasons don’t jive. He was not doing it for civil disobedience, then pretty much admits he was. As well as saying if you don’t like the rule then you break it.(is that what we are taught) I can’t imagine this flying in either Yale or Drew for professors underneath him. Does he tell them to ignore what rules they don’t like? No, of course not. But for him this is his reasoning. Defy the authority of the church which ordains him as a minister.

As bad as that is, I can’t say that the UM Church position and reaction was much better. Though they gave him the opportunity to say he would not do it again and he wouldn’t. But he is not doing it for civil disobedience? Oh really! That means he is not in compliance with that rule and who knows what other rules he cares to take issue with? Must be this is what theological ethics teaches?

So anyone can see this is not just about gay-marriage etc. It is about a whole lot more.
referrence article:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/nyregion/caught-in-methodisms-split-over-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

 

These are pertinent excerpts from the piece.
Sometimes, when what is officially the law is wrong, you try to get the law changed,” Dr. Ogletree, a native of Birmingham, Ala., said in a courtly Southern drawl over a recent lunch at Yale, where he remains an emeritus professor of theological ethics. “But if you can’t, you break it.
“I was inspired,” Dr. Ogletree said. “I actually wasn’t thinking of this as an act of civil disobedience or church disobedience. I was thinking of it as a response to my son.”
In late January, Mr. Paige and Dr. Ogletree, accuser and accused, met face-to-face in an effort to resolve the dispute without a church trial. Mr. Paige, who declined to be interviewed for this article, citing the confidentiality of the proceedings, asked that Dr. Ogletree apologize and promise never to perform such a ceremony again. He refused.
“I said, this is an unjust law,” he recalled telling Mr. Paige.

He siad he did it in response to his son, but refusses to say he would not do it again? And he claimed he wasn’t thinking of civil disobedience when doing it, but that is exactly how he rationalizes it.  Are all those reasons hard to accept?

“Dearly beloveds, we are gathered here together to join the church to same-sex marriage. Any objections, speak now or forever hold your peace.”