Can one of the Christian senators reliably opposed to universal health care, the minimum wage, and Clinton-era tax rates help me understand this passage that I heard watching Saturday’s funeral? It’s really opaque. I just don’t get it:

From the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 25
32-33. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
34-36. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’
37. Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
38. And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
39. And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’
40. And the King will answer them,Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’
41. Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
42. for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43. I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’
44. Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’
45. Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’
46. And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

☞ Huh?


Chris Edmunds: “Regarding Bill Moyers’ interview, I have seen it twice now and find it very illuminating. But Mel’s comment [that it could change the dialog] is wishful thinking. The ‘informed citizens’ who feel it necessary to bring their contrived anger, shouting and disruption to town hall meetings have no interest in watching Bill Moyers or listening to any factual discussions about the issues. They are there for only one reason (whether they know it or not): to advance the minority right-wing agenda to defeat health care reform and Obama along with it. . . . My real concern is that increasing concessions by the Democrats will lead to a watered down bill that will eventually be expensive and ineffective. It is obvious to me that the Republicans have no interest in bipartisan health care reform legislation so I just wish the Democrats would grow a pair, show some leadership and do what is right for this country.”

☞ It does sometimes seem as though the Republican Party is mainly interested in using the health care debate to win points rather than solve the problem. To wit:


Our friends at the Republican National Committee sent out a fundraising “poll” that included this question: “It has been suggested that the government could use voter registration to determine a person’s political affiliation, prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system. Does this possibility concern you? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Undecided.”

The “suggestion” presumably came from one of the guys writing the fundraising appeal. And the fourth and hoped-for option, unstated, presumably was . . . [ ] Well, it does now!

How has the party of Goldwater, Eisenhower, Rockefeller, Teddy Roosevelt – even Reagan – turned into this?


Comments are closed.