Who is the White Evangelicals’ “Christ”?


Despite holding the presidency and having majorities in congress and the senate, the republicans (the white evangelicals’ party of choice) seem to have no ability to deliver anything workable on healthcare. Their only agreement seems to be on their desire to remove “Obamacare”.

During the Obama presidency, while far too many professing Christians were lapping up (and sharing) anti-Obama rhetoric no matter what its source and veracity; one of the complaints that I couldn’t understand was the passionate “Christian” hostility to the idea of affordable health care for all US citizens. Whether or not the so-called “Obamacare” could deliver that wasn’t even the issue. A lot of “Christian” opposition I saw was against the whole idea of making healthcare accessible to those unable to pay for it.

This morning I came across the following, making some interesting observations and claims:

…until recently, most [US] politicians [were] insisting that US healthcare was the best in the world. In reality, the World Health Organisation ranks it 38th, behind Colombia (22nd) and Saudi Arabia (26th) and just above Cuba. The No 1 cause of bankruptcy in the US? Medical debt. And with more than 250,000 deaths a year, medical errors are the third leading cause of death, behind heart disease and cancer. Obamacare has made things somewhat better, but there are still 27 million people without health insurance because they can’t afford it, and millions more who can’t afford the co-payment on prescriptions.

 

Rightwing Christian fundamentalism has had a devastating effect on women’s health. There’s little care for poor women or children once they’ve been born ; according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 25 other industrialised nations are better than the US at keeping babies alive. Americans who say they are pro-life merely mean they are pro-birth. Republicans want to slash Medicaid – government help for those who cannot afford to pay – which pays for nearly half the births in the US.

 

full article here:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jul/14/attack-healthcare-policy-with-comedy-jonathan-lynn-yes-minister 

 

Considering the attitudes I’ve seen expressed by many professing Christians over many years, I have to wonder what kind of “Christ” do they think they are following?

Their “Christ” seems to be very different to the person I read about in scripture; their “Christ” seems more associated with partisan politics and political slogans and labels than in reaching out to the most needy people within society.

2 thoughts on “Who is the White Evangelicals’ “Christ”?

  1. Given that they want to revoke Medicaid* (which, as noted, covers almost half of births, which is an amazing statistic), I think it’s generous to say they are pro-birth as a whole (while some of them surely are). Even if that should be chastising enough (that pro-life in a more substantial sense is a misnomer), the technicalities of the matter show that they, rather even than being pro-birth, are pro dealing with being pregnant for as long as that lasts or doesn’t last and whatever the outcome to mother or child (despite availability of healthgiving and lifesaving measures, yeah, yet in spite). And consider that Paul Ryan+ says this (this drawing back) is what he and his friends dreamed of over keggers in college. So he and his friends want to implement their sophomoric ideology.

    I’m sure there were plenty of people back then who already knew the real outlook, already saw and bought into the attitude. But back then there were also people who thought the reasoning was that government-run healthcare would deprive people of proper care. Once it is seen that the goal or at least the fact of keeping government out of anything to do with healthcare is more likely to be the very thing that was held up as undesirable, that more people are deprived of care, it’s time to change — that is, unless one’s soul was never quickened or had already been corrupted beyond return. And then there’s the fact that “Obamacare” isn’t government-run care. The general idea came from conservative think tanks (especially the Heritage Foundation). Obama liked it?

    * And they want to take considerations of possible pregnancies (that is, unless planned, out of all coverage that is paid for in the regular market.

    + He’s made a statement, years ago, that it dawned on him — at least for a fleeting moment — that it’s wrong to say people are unworthy.

    [The above only scratches the surface of the silly viewpoints involved in the animosity.]

Comments are closed.