Hypocrisy? Or just not really thinking things through?
As noted here before, although it might not always be very obvious, I'm conservative.
I do, however, think things through.
What about our legislators? I wonder.
The bill to extend Medicaid, which only aids the poor, to mothers past 60 days to a year passed its committee, but barely.
It was supported by Governor Gordon.
It was supported by physicians.
Deacon Mike Lehman, lobbyist for the Diocese of Wyoming, spoke in favor of it.
None of which kept some of the legislative guardians of public morals from speaking against it. Jeanette Ward of Illinois spoke against it as an "entitlement program".
Eh?
Not hardly.
Deacon Lehman noted:“that not every government program is an inevitable slide into the fiery pit of Socialism.” He further noted, according to the Cowboy State Daily: “We’re talking about a segment of the population that qualifies for Medicaid coverage while pregnant, then, when the mother and child are still extremely vulnerable, they no longer qualify.”
The physicians noted they were supporting it even though the program really doesn't pay them very well at all, just barely, in fact.
I don't know, I'd note, Ward's religious affiliation, but I’m sure she's some sort of Christian. Prior to coming to Wyoming, she was very active in Illinois politics, where she was predictably controversial. An example of that is as follows:
Do you know what your children are being taught: Muslims believe in the same God as Christians and Jews?
My 6th-grader came home with this assignment today. She was supposed to read the article and answer the questions. (She will not be completing this assignment). The full text of the article is below. Quiz questions are depicted in the pictures. This article is utterly incorrect and false on many levels. This is one of the many reasons I voted no on this curriculum resource.
Well, Christians, Muslims and Jews do in fact all worship the same God. Their understanding of God's nature if quite different from each other, but they all worship the same God.
Are we really willing to deny this small class of women and their infants medical help? Seems really mean.
It's also the sort of thing that causes some people to slam the Pro Life folks on the basis that they don't care at all once people are born. That's actually completely false, and indeed many of the more dedicated pro lifers do indeed support helping mother and infant post birth.
Indeed, while often missed, there's a strong streak of liberalism in at least the Catholic pro-life crowd, which is not only opposed to abortion, but opposed to the death penalty as well. It's not actually easy to politically pigeonhole it.
Which unfortunately doesn't appear to be the case for Ms. Ward. She's pretty predictable.
So, frankly, this doesn't surprise me very much.
Without knowing more, I sort of guess that Ms. Ward is a fundamentalist of some type. I don't want to pick on fundamentalist too much, as they are highly varied, and the term is one that is put on them, rather than one they adopt, but fundamentalist of any type, and there are Islamic Fundamentalist, Hindu fundamentalist, etc., risk reducing their religion to a set of sort of Pharisaic type rules and becoming mean thereafter. Abortion is wrong because it is, premarital sex is wrong, aborting the results of premarital sex is wrong, but after that you are your own and if you get sick and die, well that's your problem.
I'm not saying that all fundamentalist of any type hold that view, but the fundamentalist of any stripe, and I'd note that for the Apostolic religions as well, run that risk.
Note, orthodox, and fundamentalist, are not the same thing.
There's a real element of solidarity and subsidiarity missing in that thinking. Yes, just the other day I criticized free school breakfast and lunches, on the basis that it encouraged parents in irresponsibility, but here a different concern exists, which is helping the most helpless in the most efficient fashion. I.e, both solidarity and subsidiarity apply here, and they argue strongly for extending Medicaid here. To argue against it as an unwanted "entitlement" really misses the boat.
And then there's the gun them down bill on trespassing.
One of the sponsors of that bill is a devout member of my parish.
Would Jesus really suggest that you can violently toss people off of land.
And it came to pass on the second first sabbath that, as he went through the corn fields, his disciples plucked the ears and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. And some of the Pharisees said to them: Why do you that which is not lawful on the sabbath days? And Jesus answering them, said: Have you not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was hungry and they that were with him: How he went into the house of God and took and ate the bread of proposition and gave to them that were with him, which is not lawful to eat but only for the priests? And he said to them: The Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
Luke, 6.
Would the legislators have suggested that Jesus and the Apostles be roughed up for violating the law.
Probably.
No comments:
Post a Comment