Category:

The United Methodist Church Wants an Obamacare "Fix" for Themselves

9/28/2013

As a member of a United Methodist congregation, I take a special interest in what the elites of the church are up to. In the past, I have been really critical of their policies and beliefs. So once again, I am must call out more nonsense coming from the UMC.

Refresher: Remember when Nancy Pelosi said this?

Apparently, the United Methodist Church was a part of the whole "let's pass Obamacare and figure it all out later" crowd. Unfortunately for them, it might wind up costing them....

When Obamacare became law, the church elites were joyous. The president of the of the Council of Bishops, Gregory Palmer "rejoiced" when Obamacare passed. Jim Winkler, the radical left-wing chief executive of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, had this to say:

"For decades, the General Board of Church and Society has worked alongside thousands of United Methodists to achieve health care for all in the U.S.,"........."This vote brings us closer to that reality."

Heck even Nancy Pelosi had the entire UMC Board of Church and Society listed on her website as a group supporting the healthcare overhaul.Well, that was then. This is now. In an article posted on the UMC's website on September 24th, the UMC now wants an Obamacare "fix" for them:

The United Methodist health benefits agency wants Congress to pass a fix to the U.S. health care legislation commonly called Obamacare.

Without that, leaders of the United Methodist Board of Pension and Health Benefits warn, the future of church-sponsored health insurance could be in jeopardy.
.............
That means — if the bill becomes law [The Church Health Plan Act, Senate Bill 1164] — clergy and lay church employees could qualify for the same federal financial help available in the marketplaces while remaining on their church plans.

Secondly, the bill would let local churches that contribute to their conference’s health plan keep getting the small-business health care tax credit.

Under the current Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, churches no longer can claim those credits, starting in 2014, because such credits only are available to employers who purchase “qualified health plans.”

Church health plans, even if they meet all the law’s other requirements, currently are not deemed “qualified” because they are not open to the general public.

I'll be honest. It is really, really, hard for me to feel sorry for these people. The UMC made its bed. Let it lay in it.

It was so important to pass Obamacare. It just had to be done and it had to be done fast. No one knew what was in it. No one knew what all implications there would be. Not a single person knew. Not Obama, not Harry Reid, not Nancy Pelosi, not any of the idiots who voted for it, not Jim Winkler and not Gregory Palmer.

Yet, they were so happy! And now look at what is happening. The very law that they "rejoiced" when passed is getting ready to screw them. So what do they do? Yell and scream and demand that it be "fixed" for them. What about the rest of us? What about all the people that will lose their insurance? What about all the people who is having their hours cut? Is the UMC standing up for these people? No, no and no.

2 Comments

The United Methodist Church and 9/11

9/2/2011

0 Comments

I'll be brief. It's a long weekend and I am ready for some vacation time but I really think this needs to be known.

I wrote a post highlighting the left-wing philosophy of the United Methodist Church here. Here is another example of such thinking.

Today, the UMC posted a blog on its website describing how United Methodists should (or shouldn't) remember 9/11. I have to say, they really outdid themselves.

Here is the main question they seek to answer: "Where is the line between appropriate remembrance in the context of worship of our Triune God and inappropriate focus on mere patriotism?" You can see where they are going with this....

"We should not design worship on this Sunday primarily in praise of America or its "ideals." That turns into idolatry of the nation. We should not take this as an opportunity to support fears about or raise new fears of Muslim people in our midst, as the recent terrorist attacker in Norway has sought to do. This diverts worship that should glorify the God of all creation into a kind of "my people only" solidarity rally."

How does praising America and talking about her ideals turn into idolatry? I see nothing wrong with this. How is this different than me saying that a UMC pastor should never design a worship service around praising the ideals of John Wesley because this might lead to idolizing John Wesley?

Secondly, I am so glad the UMC tells me I shouldn't fear "Muslims." I feel so much better now. How can they say this on the 10 year anniversary of a day when 3,000 Americans were killed at the hands of Islamic extremists? Ah, I guess answered my own question. They don't consider the extremists "Muslim."

"We probably should not show footage of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers or the Pentagon, or even the wreckage in the field near Shanksville, PA. We've all seen those images hundreds if not thousands of times. No doubt the media will be replaying them frequently in the lead-up to this day. Such images now probably do more to harm than to heal, if they ever did much to heal in the first place."

I could not disagree more. We need to be reminded that there are demented barbarians out there that seek to do us harm. Nothing will make this more evident than actually seeing the images from that fateful day.

One more point. This one just happens to be my favorite. Here is the last suggestion from the UMC:

"Finally, something you may rarely hear me suggesting: If you follow the Revised Common Lectionary, as the vast majority of our congregations in the United States do, either heavily edit the selection for the Old Testament reading (the crossing of the Red Sea) or do not read it at all. Why? A good number of the verses included in this reading extol the deaths of the Egyptian soldiers, mired in the mud and then drowned in the Red Sea. Egypt today is a primarily Muslim nation. Rejoicing in the deaths of ancient Egyptians on this day is a bit too close to wishing harm or worse to our Muslim neighbors and Muslims around the world, and would easily be read and understood that way by many Muslims, even if that may not in any way be the intent (conscious or otherwise) of Christian congregations. If your congregation has been focusing on the Exodus narrative prior to this day, and so there is a reason to continue doing so, strongly consider reading and preaching from only these verses: Exodus 14:19-22, 27a, and 29-30a."

This is just so idiotic. I can't believe I even am reading this. The author is saying to not read parts of the Bible because it might be misunderstood by Muslims! Unreal!

"Oh, I'm sorry Lord, I'm not going to read from your Book because it might offend someone." This is downright shameful. Editing the Word so as to not offend anyone. What is wrong with these people?

0 Comments

The United Methodist Church: Preaching (Left-Wing Propaganda) to the Choir

8/26/2011

0 Comments

Before I begin, I would like to make one thing clear. My criticism of the UMC is leveled directly at the elites in the UMC and not at local pastors, congregation members, etc. I fully understand that United Methodists can have differing opinions on issues. This isn't really the purpose of this post.

I have three points: One being that the ideology espoused by the UMC is left-wing, two, they promote left-wing causes and three, they don't practice what they preach (haha).

Ideology
The "Social Principles" of the United Methodist Church can be found in the UMC Book of Discipline. These principles "serve as a guide to official church action and our individual witness." I would like to highlight a few of these principles.

From the heading of Economic Community, we find the following:
"Therefore, we recognize the responsibility of governments to develop and implement sound fiscal and monetary policies that provide for the economic life of individuals and corporate entities and that ensure full employment and adequate incomes with a minimum of inflation."

Right off the bat the UMC claims that the government should be responsible for ensuring "adequate incomes." How exactly can the government do this? Wealth redistribution. Taking the property that one earns and giving it to another.

"We support measures that would reduce the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.."
This sounds like something straight out of Marx, and I'm not talking about Groucho. I guess the UMC doesn't realize that the top 1% of income earners pay 40% of the income tax but only earn 20% of the adjusted gross income. Remember this Social Principle. It will come in handy later.

Now, I believe that the protection of private property rights is one of the most important things a government should do. There can be no liberty in a society that does not value private property rights. Unsurprisingly, the UMC sees it differently:

"We believe private ownership of property is a trusteeship under God, both in those societies where it is encouraged and where it is discouraged, but is limited by the overriding needs of society."
And who exactly determines what the needs of society are? Politicians? Church leaders? Me? You? Should the government enforce this?

"We support the right of all public and private employees and employers to organize for collective bargaining into unions and other groups of their own choosing."
Two things to notice about this statement. First, there is no "right" to collectively bargain, especially in the public sector. Second, they mention nothing about the "right" not to be in a union. Right to Work laws anyone?

"Every person has the right to a job at a living wage. Where the private sector cannot or does not provide jobs for all who seek and need them, it is the responsibility of government to provide for the creation of such jobs."
This is such nonsense. Have any of these people ever had an economics lesson? So many things wrong here. First, the "living wage" aka the minimum wage is such a destructive economic policy (which of course means it is favored by liberals.) The minimum wage ensures that people whose skills do not justify being paid whatever the government says they must be remain unemployed. In fact, "Each 10% increase in the minimum wage [since 2007] was accompanied by a decrease in employment of 1.2% for Hispanic males, 2.5% for white males and 6.5% for black males." This policy leads exactly to the next statement about the private sector not being able to provide jobs. The living wage they want causes the problem that they condemn. I wonder if they realize how incoherent this is.

Second, notice how they phrase part of the second sentence: "where the private sector cannot or does not provide jobs.." Is it really the position of the UMC that business owners actually need to hire people but they do not simply as a means to screw people over? These people have no clue how/why jobs are created. I know this might come as a shock to the UMC elites, but here it goes: Businesses have no obligation to hire anyone. Period. Businesses hire people because they need them. Not because some elite do-gooder thinks they should.

Lastly, exactly where is the government going to get the money to pay for all of these jobs that the government "creates?" The only three places where they can get the money: tax, borrow, or print. All three have negative economic outcomes. Haven't we had enough "government created jobs" to know that it never works?

"We call upon governments and all employers to ensure for foreign workers the same economic, educational, and social benefits enjoyed by other citizens."
And of course by "foreign workers" they mean illegal aliens. More on this later.

Promote left-wing causes
After just a quick visit to the UMC homepage, it is obvious that they promote left-wing viewpoints. Consider the following headlines:

Church leaders defend collective bargaining
Clergy fear Alabama [immigration] law imperils ministry
Deportations leave teen alone
Religious tolerance urged in 9/11 discourse
Faithful urged to contact Congress about debt
Here is a quote from Jim Winkler, top executive of the United Methodist Church’s social action agency. "Some people were saying everything needs to be on the table. We said ‘No, that is not the case at all.’ Tax cuts for the wealthy need to be on the table, reduction in bloated military apparatus needs to be on the table, but we don’t need to put programs that assist those in need on the table.”

Why can't the UMC and other churches join together and take care of these people? Why must the government do it?
By the way, Mr. Winkler was arrested for "demonstrating within a U.S. Capitol building."

Left-wing causes aren't the only thing that the UMC actively promotes but also left-wing bloggers. The UMC has a link to a Huffington Post (of all places) piece by self-described "progressive Christian" Bruce Reyes-Chow. (You can find the link under blogs and commentaries on the homepage.)

On the homepage, the title of the piece looks like it is "Faith vs Action." However, if you read it on the Huffington Post, it is entitled, "Jesus Christ, Michelle Bachmann and Other Lunatics." Chow says that "Far too often in day-to-day and political conversations, well-meaning people dismiss the arguments of the other by calling their belief system, whatever that may be, radical, fringe or extreme...... When we do this and/or allow it to happen, not only do we fail to see the complexities of the larger Body of Christ, but we advocate a litmus testing of what it means to be a "real" Christian, a tact used often by those with whom I would love to label as "right-wing zealots."

He accuses the "right-wing zealots" of using this tactic when in fact the right suffers from this tactic all the time. Has he never listened to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden or any of the blowhards on BSNBC? Just add racist and terrorist in there and you have all the adjectives the left uses to describe the Tea Party day in and day out. Yet, Chow just calls out the "ring-wing zealots."

Chow goes on, adding, "Locking people into one-dimensional caricatures, liberal or conservative, or vilifying people who hold different beliefs is no more Christlike or faithful if it comes from a friend with whom I find great ideological affinity or from someone that I would rather eat glass than share a meal with." This comes right after he admits that it would "feel really good" to call people he disagrees with "right-wing zealots."

To cap it all off, he closes his piece by vilifying people he disagrees with by saying, "So, if my treatment of and response to Bachman [sic], Perry and all the other fundamentalist, fringe, nut-job, radical politicians out there causes the same words to be spoken my way, I will not feel vindicated or persecuted, but I will know that I have been faithful and I have genuinely tried to see and treat my bother or sister with dignity and care."

Let's not forget that this blog post was linked to from the UMC homepage. Unbelievable.

(On a side note, I noticed that there are several pictures on the UMC website that has been used with permission from Common Cause. Common Cause is a left-wing advocacy group that is funded partly by none other than George Soros. I'm not exactly sure what the connection is between the UMC and Common Cause except that the president of Common Cause, Rev. Bob Edgar, is ...get ready for this...a UMC elder.)

Anyway, back to the subject. The UMC is also very involved with getting youth on board with their leftist dogma. The International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, & Universities and the National Association of Schools, Colleges, and Universities of The United Methodist Church, held a conference in Washington, D.C., for international students and faculty from 25 different Methodist schools. And what was discussed at this conference you ask? Well, the attendees had the opportunity to attend a program on "social justice." This is, of course, a liberal code word for wealth redistribution. Who would have guessed....

This conference also featured a 1960's Freedom Rider and John Seigenthaler, special assistant to the Kennedy administration, to discuss the civil right's movement. Here is the angle that the UMC took on this: For several Latino students, these presentations hit close to home. Here we go....

"There are a lot of similarities to our struggle as Latinos in the United States talking about discrimination when it comes to immigration issues and race issues in general,” said Jorge Granados, a 24-year-old student at Texas Wesleyan University in Fort Worth."

Are you kidding me? Black Americans were attacked with hoses and dogs. They were abused by their governments. The "Latinos," aka illegal aliens, come here illegally, are given in-state tuition, protected by sanctuary cities, attend school and use every other government service. If these people are so concerned about "immigration issues," why don't they criticize Mexico's immigration policies which are stricter than ours? Or better yet, if they are so oppressed, why not just go back to their home country where they can be free from all of the xenophobes?

As an added bonus, "Seigenthaler compared the 1960s civil rights movement to modern-day struggles like gay rights and Muslim relations. "

Don't practice what they preach
After reading all of the class warfare rhetoric in the Book of Discipline, you would think that the UMC would have the most equitable payment system on earth for pastors, bishops, etc. No one would make more than anyone else. Men and women, whites and minorities would all earn the same salary. You would think that they would be a role model for the type of governmental system they so steadfastly support....

In a report called "Salaries for United Methodist Clergy in the US Context," the UMC's General Board of Higher Education and Ministry studied the salaries of UM clergy from 1997-2008. What did they find? Perfect equality I bet. I mean, they even said in the second sentence of the publication that "they strive to create a culture of equity for all." So how'd they do?

In 2008, the average salary for a full-time pastor not living in a parsonage was $55,000.

"Without taking other factors into account, there are substantial differences between male
and female pastors (13%), and white and non-white pastors (9–15%)."

And what are these "other factors?"
"The gender gap is due largely to differences in seniority between male and female pastors, and can be expected to decrease over time as female pastors gain seniority.
The race gap results from the assignment of non-white pastors to congregations that pay lower salaries."

If we are striving for a culture of equity, why should someone's salary be tied to how long someone has been a pastor? What difference does that make? Why should someone who has been a pastor for 20 years receive more money than a person who has been a pastor for 2 years? This isn't very equitable.

The second factor is a jaw dropper. It appears that the UMC sends non-white pastors to congregations that pay lower salaries. This doesn't seem very equitable either. Minorities should have the same access to high paying congregations as whites. How could the UMC let such an injustice happen?

Imagine if a company did this. Let's suppose that it was leaked to the public that a McDonald's chose a non-white person to manage a store because that store didn't make that much money so the new manager would be paid less. (This is of course assuming that the manager's salary is tied to the dollar amount that the store brings in but you get the point.) How would people react to this? How would the UMC react to this?

Honestly, why would they even have to strive for equity? Just figure out what the total dollar amount that will be paid for salaries, divide by the number of pastors, and bingo! Instant equality!

The fun doesn't end here. Now, let's look at the 50 bishops of the UMC. A bishop is one of the highest positions in the church and is a "general superintendent of the church for a geographical area."

Is their average salary the same as the average salary for pastors? Hardly. The salary for a bishop in 2008 was $120,942. They are also provided with an "episcopal residence." This means that in 2008, 50 people were paid $6,047,100 by the UMC. Hmmm. I seem to recall something about wealth being concentrated in the hands of a few or something like that.

Just think of how many more jobs could be created in the church if the bishops made the same as the average full-time pastor. If my calculations are correct, if bishops made $55,000 a year, the church could pay 60 more people $55,000 a year! Wow! Talk about a job creating machine...

Or if they didn't want to do this, the bishops could give a large majority of their salary to female and minority pastors who do not make as much as their white male counterparts. This would go a long way in creating a culture of equity.

The motto of the United Methodist Church is "Open Hearts. Open Minds. Open Doors." They should change it to "Open Hearts. Open Minds. Open Doors. Open hands of government to take and redistribute other people's wealth to reduce income inequality while we promote income inequality."

0 Comments

The United Methodist Church Wants an Obamacare "Fix" for Themselves

The United Methodist Church and 9/11

The United Methodist Church: Preaching (Left-Wing Propaganda) to the Choir

Author

Blogroll
White House Dossier

Archives

Categories

The United Methodist Church Wants an Obamacare "Fix" for Themselves

The United Methodist Church and 9/11

The United Methodist Church: Preaching (Left-Wing Propaganda) to the Choir

Author

BlogrollWhite House Dossier

Archives

Categories

Blogroll
White House Dossier