I thought I would thank Shane publicly for the time he’s granted me  to post on what I consider a fairly notorious blog, but I am re-thinking the gratuity. I am grateful, that is, unless it means one of  my “friends” or “neighbors” will use it as an opportunity to  place my name on the newly-established list of those who stand against Obama and his proposals.  This blog from the White House itself, asks Americans to e-mail them with anything we find on the web that seems “fishy” about the new health-care reform. Am I to fear that, by encouraging friends to think twice about the new HC proposals, I am going to be “flagged” by the White House!? Well, flag me for this one then; a great insight of what a simple task like ordering pizza could be like if the health care proposals take effect: Ordering Pizza in 2010

Though it is disturbing to see what appears to be the foundation of our great nation crumbling before us, I also find it somewhat exciting for a few reasons.

  1. We have never had so many great opportunities to stand up for  truth. This is a very important aspect of the Christian walk. In II Corinthians 6:17, God commands us to, “Come out from among them, and be (ye) separate…” (KJV). Earlier in the same chapter, He speaks to us about being “unequally yoked” with the unbeliever. Though we often use that term when referencing marriage, it is applicable to many of our relationships. Our relationship, for example, with our government and our laws. True, we are to obey the law of the land, but our first responsibility is to obey God and His laws. If the two conflict, we are to follow God and stand for His truth.  By doing this, not only will we be setting a great example for our children to follow, but we can find a maturity in Christ we have never had before. The strength of God lies in His truth, His Word, and if we live by it, we will forever have His power in us. This power is the power that saves man, that changes the hearts of the kings, and endures through all.
  2. I also know the events we see happening around us can only mean we are closer, as Believers, to the return of our Savior, Jesus Christ. I am not naive enough to think Christ will return simply because Christian-America meets destruction. Many a nation has fallen and felt as though it meant Christ’s return was on the mend. Unfortunately, I believe we will see a lot more injustice towards us for our faith before His return. I believe American Christians will face certain persecution before the Lord comes. And even though I believe these things, I cannot fully comprehend what that will mean for me, my lifestyle, and my children. I only hold fast to the promises that God will not give me more than I can face, and that He will, indeed, return for His followers.
  3. And finally, because we can see this coming persecution and the death of freedom of religion, I believe this time in our history is one of the best times to reach others with the Gospel. If we knew that tomorrow it would be illegal to go door-knocking, pass out tracts, or pray in public, would we do as much of those as we could today? A challenge I present is this: Live the Word of God openly today, preach to the unbelievers the truth of Jesus’ redeeming blood, pray without ceasing, and lastly, in everything, give thanks.


Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
  1. “Am I to fear that, by encouraging friends to think twice about the new HC proposals, I am going to be “flagged” by the White House!?”

    Honestly, I wouldn’t worry about that.

    However, I am glad to see others recognizing the work the ACLU does to stand up against invasion of privacy. From the source Melody provided ( “The government and corporations are aggressively collecting information about your personal life and your habits. They want to track your purchases, your medical records, and even your relationships. The Bush Administration’s policies, coupled with invasive new technologies, could eliminate your right to privacy completely. Please help us protect our privacy rights and prevent the Total Surveillance Society.”

    Of course, right now, health insurance corporations collect a great deal of our personal information. Some of the information they collect can be used to deny patient claims or ramp up the cost of a person’s insurance to un-affordable levels. One goal of the current health plan is to prevent such ejection of patients from plans and to eliminate pre-existing condition clauses. Privacy advocates, including the ACLU and some in Congress are working to tighten and create better laws for how personal information (particularly medical and financial) can be collected and used. In this respect, many European nations are significantly ahead of the US.

    1. @Argon,
      It’s interesting that you mention this. When my son was born two months prematurely, doctors prescribed him a very expensive “vaccine” to protect him against RSV. My insurance covered the first bill without hesitation. The second course, however, was initially denied. When doctors plead my son’s case to the insurance, I received a phone call from their processing department. They asked intrusive questions ranging from the ages of my other children, if, when, and where my children attended day-care or church, to if I or my husband were smokers. While I understood these questions were aimed at finding a risk-factor for my infant, I also found it quite unnerving to unveil my the personal details of my childrens’ lives.

      1. Yes, there can be a fine balance.

        It’s that sort of stuff that sometimes makes people hesitate before taking a medical test. For example, if someone knows that they may be changing insurance companies, perhaps because of a possible layoff or if they’re planning to change jobs, they may put off getting essential diagnostic test for fear of not being able to get affordable insurance. That’s a horrible situation to be in. Still, I can’t exactly blame the insurance companies: They’re obligated to optimize profits within existing laws (including the ones they lobbied for, but that’s another issue). If one company was ‘easier’ about allowing procedures, or about loading up with less than healthy patients, they’d get clobbered on the stock market because of poorer performance. But creating separate pools based on health status creates groups of people who can’t afford insurance (which is pretty much the opposite of what one expects from insurance).

        A relatively recent medical privacy/pre-existing condition issue that took a long time to resolve was genetic testing. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act finally passed in 2008, years after it was called for by privacy and patient groups. More work still needs to be done (

      2. @Melody, I’m having trouble connecting the religious points you make to your opposition of universal healthcare. So I have a few questions.

        Where exactly is the persecution of religion going on right now? What does healthcare have to do with banning “tracts and door knocking,” something that would be a clear violation of the first amendment and nothing to do with healthcare?

        In what way are private insurance companies less invasive that government? Is the government somehow less likely to wish to profit from your personal information than a mercenary private insurance company? And even in a world where the government has all that sort of info on each citizen (which I believe is highly unlikely to happen), what makes anybody think a pizza joint is going to have access to it?

        Am I missing this argument in this post or is it entirely non sequitur?

        @Argon, good point about the insurance companies, you can’t really blame them for following the laws (as your say, apart from lobbying, since they are following the laws *they wrote*), any more than you can blame a hungry dog for eating a piece of raw meat. You can only blame the owner for not keeping the dog on a leash.
        .-= Strabo´s last blog ..The Myrmillo =-.

      3. @Strabo,
        The first paragraph really was a sidenote, thanking Shane for his allowing me to guest-post, and nothing, really to do with the rest of the text. As of yet, the healthcare plans aren’t outright suggesting anything biased against relgious views. However, it could be argued that the healthcare proposals are anti-Christian in that they clearly stand to provide abortions and in some cases could be construed to force abortions. They could also make it easy to deny coverage to the very elderly, and basically anyone who government does not feel has a quality life to live still. (mentally ill included) Remember the case of the Florida lady whose estranged husband was allowed to kill her by taking her off life-support even though she could blink, cry, smile, etc.? I do think we will see more of that, should Obama’s healthcare plans take affect.

        To answer your question about private companies: I’m not sure they ARE less evasive. BUT, being private, they are limitted to the control they can have and the information they are allowed to obtain. Government rarely limits itself. Should the healthcare go to socialized medicine, it will be a gateway for the them to seriously infringe on our rights, and our personal beliefs.

        Also, I did not say we were being persecuted for religion YET. Soon, I believe, yes. Pastors are already being told not to preach against sodomy, or they can be considered accomplices in hate crimes against homosexuals. Elementary school children are not allowed to talk to each other about religion during school hours. So, is it far off to believe the day is coming when we will not be allowed to go “door knocking?” I don’t think it is.

      4. @Melody, I don’t think that healthcare and health insurance reform is the slippery slope that you imagine. You say that government rarely limits itself, but private companies do not limit themselves at all, and you would be shocked at what personal information about you is already being bought and sold by companies like Google.

        As for the denial of healthcare to the elderly, “basically anyone who government does not feel has a quality life to live still,” the burden of proof is on you to show evidence for such an absurd claim. The elderly already benefit from what you call “socialized medicine” in the form of medicare, and you’d be hard pressed to see a politician on either side of the aisle who would even think about trying to take that away.

        The Schiavo case was a government intrusion on private family matters, it isn’t an issue of healthcare reform. Whether moral or immoral, the decision was one that the husband was legally entitled to make, and healthcare reform will not change that. Same goes for abortions. If healthcare reform causes an increase in these things it is because people who need them will be able to afford them, people who do not want them will not be forced or coerced into anything.

        If you are worried about a gateway to a serious infringement of rights, then you ought to be worried about things like talking about religion in public schools. The separation of church and state is just as important for religion as it is for government. Although I seriously doubt that there is a ban on students talking about religion at school, it is important to maintain first amendment protection against government establishment of religion. Schools cannot show show favoritism to religion, and religions must be separated from public schools, period.

        And so what if there a law against “door knocking” gets passed. I can see the rationale here, to prevent nuisance. It couldn’t be against religious proselytizing generally, that would be unconstitutional, rather any such law would have to be against door-to-door soliciting in general. Jesus admonished us to follow the law, and render unto Caesar what is Caesars.
        .-= Strabo´s last blog ..The Myrmillo =-.

      5. @Strabo,
        If we were having coffee, I’d love to continue this debate. On-line, however, I feel the argument is dtarting down some rabbit trails.
        The basic point was/is that America is changing-as promised. I do not believe these are good changes. (including the current healthcare proposals)
        I believe the more government has control over our personal matters, the more it can and will infringe upon our rights, including religious rights. I do believe American Christians will soon face religious persecution, and while we “render unto Caesar…,” we must always followGod FIRST, and never compromise His commandments for the law of the man. It would be a direct violation to the Great Commission if pulic proselytizing was banned!

  2. They could also make it easy to deny coverage to the very elderly, and basically anyone who government does not feel has a quality life to live still. (mentally ill included)

    Private insurance has already accomplished that for the old. Try to get private medical insurance for an elderly parent — There’s no way most ordinary people can afford it. That’s why there is Medicare.

    As for the mentally ill or incompetent, it’s important to note that conditions like Down’s Syndrome are considered a pre-existing conditions for which insurance companies can deny coverage. Many families get support through Medicaid and programs provided by their states.

    1. @Argon, point(s) taken. But, as (former) Governor Paling said, the Obama healthcare proposals are “evil.” YES, she did! (that’s our girl!!) I think his plans are to lesson the sanctity of life in general. “…conditions like Down’s Syndrome are considered pre-existing conditions for which insurance companies can deny coverage…” I believe one of the goals of the current government is to eventually force abortions upon down syndrome (and similar handicapped) pregnancies, and that the current healthcare proposals are laying stepping stones for doing so.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Grassley Rips DHS Nominee Maorkas, E-5 Visa Program

( Washington, DC – As Democrats in the filibuster-free U.S. Senate fill…

Rod Blum Votes for Late-Term Abortion Ban

Congressman Rod Blum (R-Iowa) joined a bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives to pass H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

The Iowa Voter Irrelevancy Act (3rd Update – Culver Opposed)

Scroll Down for Updates Well the Iowa Senate Study Bill 1128 was…

Oral Arguments Heard in Vital Religious Liberty Case Before Supreme Court

Money quote from Justice Anthony Kennedy: “…the state in its position here has neither been tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips religious beliefs.”