TBD on Ning
No room in health reform for Mary? Chuck Norris thinks Obamacare could morph into first-century "Herodcare."
No room in health reform for Mary?
JUST LAW AND RELIGION
By Michael Kessler - Washington Post
Chuck Norris thinks Obamacare could morph into first-century "Herodcare." Norris thinks a democratic Congress seems hell-bent on slipping in funding to kill all the unborn to save money for health reform. He asks of Jesus' mother Mary: "what if that young, poor and uninsured teenage woman had been provided the federal funds (via Obamacare) and facilities (via Planned Parenthood, etc.) to avoid the ridicule, ostracizing, persecution and possible stoning because of her out-of-wedlock pregnancy?" What if, indeed?
Well, I think there's an easy answer to dilemma Norris poses. My guess is the angel of the Lord would have been capable of strategically planning how to get around the lure of a government program that supposedly paid for abortion on demand. Jesus' kingdom was not of this world, after all, and God--trying to bring about the salvation of the world through this child--might have been able to incline Mary's heart to choose to let Jesus be born, as the gospel tells us she did. Herod, or Obama, powerful as they are in earthly government, presumably wouldn't be any match for Yahweh's intervention in shaping the choice of this young woman.
What's more interesting about the Mary and Joseph story, though, is the light it sheds on the conscience-based exemptions some propose as a way forward in the debates over abortion and same-sex marriage.
Conscience clauses in same-sex marriage are intended to allow clergy and religious groups the opportunity to avoid participation in same-sex marriages without running afoul of anti-discrimination laws. Some proposals include extending the exemption to individuals, even those who are serving in public office, or offering a business service. In the abortion realm, they allow caregivers to not participate in or provide procedures they object to, without running afoul of other applicable laws.
I have often thought that religious exemptions are probably a good compromise position for the inevitable conflict between the basic moral goods of free exercise of religion and equal protection/access of the law. If you don't want to participate in some ritual or act that you disagree with--particularly on the basis of your conscience--you shouldn't have to. Legally, I think these exemptions are a wise way to balance competing interests.
As I see it, there is at least one moral problem, though: Overconfidence in one's own moral views might make one miss the subtle movement of God through surprising means.
Recall the story of the birth of Jesus in the gospel of Luke:
In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirin'i-us was governor of Syria. And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. (Luke 2: 1-7, RSV)
Imagine, for a moment, that Joseph and Mary were denied a room at the inn, not because it was overcrowded, but because the innkeepers were conscientious about their own consciences telling them that a pregnant, unwed mother traveling with the presumptive father had no business sleeping in their respectable establishment. A conscience clause and religiously-based exemption would give them that right. In fact, they refused them entry even to the manger. Harlots get out!
These well-meaning innkeepers, intending to remain pure, would have denied what Christians know to be God's love bestowed upon the world because the vessel of this grace didn't fit within their conception legitimate and natural love.
Mary, Joseph, and the babe who opens the way to salvation would have frozen out on the plain.
Again, I'm not making a claim about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of abortion, or same-sex marriage. Those debates are for another time.
Rather, I'm urging us all in this holiday (and for me, this Christmas) season to dwell on that trite phrase that Norman Vincent Peale popularized: "God works in mysterious ways."
The Christian story of Christmas unfolds the world-historical path to redemption through a babe laying in a manger. We should be careful before we presume to so rigidly exclude certain people and relationships from the many, mysterious ways that God's love moves in, upon, and through each of us.
Here's Chuck's article: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34841
JUST LAW AND RELIGION
By Michael Kessler - Washington Post
Chuck Norris thinks Obamacare could morph into first-century "Herodcare." Norris thinks a democratic Congress seems hell-bent on slipping in funding to kill all the unborn to save money for health reform. He asks of Jesus' mother Mary: "what if that young, poor and uninsured teenage woman had been provided the federal funds (via Obamacare) and facilities (via Planned Parenthood, etc.) to avoid the ridicule, ostracizing, persecution and possible stoning because of her out-of-wedlock pregnancy?" What if, indeed?
Well, I think there's an easy answer to dilemma Norris poses. My guess is the angel of the Lord would have been capable of strategically planning how to get around the lure of a government program that supposedly paid for abortion on demand. Jesus' kingdom was not of this world, after all, and God--trying to bring about the salvation of the world through this child--might have been able to incline Mary's heart to choose to let Jesus be born, as the gospel tells us she did. Herod, or Obama, powerful as they are in earthly government, presumably wouldn't be any match for Yahweh's intervention in shaping the choice of this young woman.
What's more interesting about the Mary and Joseph story, though, is the light it sheds on the conscience-based exemptions some propose as a way forward in the debates over abortion and same-sex marriage.
Conscience clauses in same-sex marriage are intended to allow clergy and religious groups the opportunity to avoid participation in same-sex marriages without running afoul of anti-discrimination laws. Some proposals include extending the exemption to individuals, even those who are serving in public office, or offering a business service. In the abortion realm, they allow caregivers to not participate in or provide procedures they object to, without running afoul of other applicable laws.
I have often thought that religious exemptions are probably a good compromise position for the inevitable conflict between the basic moral goods of free exercise of religion and equal protection/access of the law. If you don't want to participate in some ritual or act that you disagree with--particularly on the basis of your conscience--you shouldn't have to. Legally, I think these exemptions are a wise way to balance competing interests.
As I see it, there is at least one moral problem, though: Overconfidence in one's own moral views might make one miss the subtle movement of God through surprising means.
Recall the story of the birth of Jesus in the gospel of Luke:
In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirin'i-us was governor of Syria. And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. (Luke 2: 1-7, RSV)
Imagine, for a moment, that Joseph and Mary were denied a room at the inn, not because it was overcrowded, but because the innkeepers were conscientious about their own consciences telling them that a pregnant, unwed mother traveling with the presumptive father had no business sleeping in their respectable establishment. A conscience clause and religiously-based exemption would give them that right. In fact, they refused them entry even to the manger. Harlots get out!
These well-meaning innkeepers, intending to remain pure, would have denied what Christians know to be God's love bestowed upon the world because the vessel of this grace didn't fit within their conception legitimate and natural love.
Mary, Joseph, and the babe who opens the way to salvation would have frozen out on the plain.
Again, I'm not making a claim about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of abortion, or same-sex marriage. Those debates are for another time.
Rather, I'm urging us all in this holiday (and for me, this Christmas) season to dwell on that trite phrase that Norman Vincent Peale popularized: "God works in mysterious ways."
The Christian story of Christmas unfolds the world-historical path to redemption through a babe laying in a manger. We should be careful before we presume to so rigidly exclude certain people and relationships from the many, mysterious ways that God's love moves in, upon, and through each of us.
Here's Chuck's article: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34841
Tags: Chuck Norris, Lunacy
Views: 9
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by James Worede on
-
He is entitled to his opinion, but he is an actor. My actors say so many nonsense things, when they don't have a director or when there are edits for there flaps. The bad thing would, if his ego gets into him and decides to run for the office, then we have problems in our hands. We have seen it in the 80s, it wasn't a pleasant one.-supply side economics anyone, waiting for to trickle down ( that fancy words for leftover from the riches). The wealth does not 'trickle down' as we were told it would. Instead, we have started breaking records of deficits. they got higher, higher and higher ever since til the mid to late 90s.
So as many individuals, Norris can opine, but that doesn't make it right. -
-
Permalink Reply by John Turberville on
-
"for some reason I never really took the dude too seriously and for a politician to have Chuck standing behind points to sort of desperation to me but that is just my perspective"
Chuck says : "If I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you."
:-) -
-
-
"Now, while I think he's cartoonish at best, there are many who actually listen to this man and take his word as "inspired." Scary, huh?"
I listen to his training tips on martial arts. :-() -
-
Permalink Reply by Whiny Old Bastard on
-
"Never seen a TV program or movie where Jesus, Mary or Joseph went "Chuck Norris" on someone, eh?"
WTF does That mean? -
-
Permalink Reply by Madhatterat60 on
-
Funny, I was just thinking that Chuckles could do Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum without having to worry about all the time necessary to model.
-
-
-
"So,Chucky, shutup and go away."
Not Checky's reply to Jacquin. :-) -
-
-
"You do know that having a baby is equal to major surgery?"
Oh bullshit. -
-
Permalink Reply by Getagroove on
-
Have you noticed Chuck never talks about acting? That's because he sucks.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Westerly_2 on
-
Have you noticed Chuck never talks about acting? That's because he sucks. (Getagroove)
The wax face houses the wooden brain. Chucky's got no ideas worth advancing, and he could never deliver them credibly if he had. -
-
-
I've witnessed women squirt out my spawn, and be up making me a samitch within hours.
With major surgery it takes a little longer. -
© 2025 Created by Aggie.
Powered by
