Saturday, June 9, 2012
Pope Benedict in Wonderland
If you sit and watch a ceremony in the Vatican with Pope Benedict XVI sitting high on a platform surrounded by his red-robed battalions of eminent clowns, you have to consider how this group looks more and more like characters out of Alice in Wonderland. In the past month they and their American league of Red-Hat bumblers have issued one stupid proclamation after another.
Perhaps their stupidest pronouncement to date is that they have appointed an American bishop to rein-in the largest and most influential group of Catholic nuns in the United States, saying that an investigation found that the group had “serious doctrinal problems.” They said that members of the group, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, had challenged church teaching on homosexuality and the male-only priesthood, and promoted “radical feminist themes.
The verdict on the nuns’ group was issued by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is now led by an American, Cardinal William Levada, formerly the archbishop of San Francisco. He appointed Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle to lead the process of reforming the sisters’ conference, with assistance from Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki and Bishop Leonard Blair, who was in charge of the investigation of the group. They have been given up to five years to revise the group’s statutes, approve of every speaker at the group’s public programs, and replace a handbook the group used to facilitate dialogue on matters that the Vatican said should be settled doctrine.
It should be obvious that the nuns are not going to sit tight for the ministrations of the three blind mice. The Vatican is wasting its time. What is the Vatican going to do when the nuns tell the three bishops to go take a hike? Is it going to excommunicate all of the nuns? The nuns should appoint someone to reform the bishops and the Vatican. The bishops are a bunch of dunderheads. The nuns should all resign from the Church and see how it does without them.
The Vatican also recently denounced a book by a distinguished theologian, Sr. Margaret Farley of Yale Divinity School, entitled, “Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics.” Needless to say, the Vatican’s criticism has resulted in the book becoming a New York Times best seller.
The American Conference of dim-witted bishops has also criticized the Obama Administration for requiring health insurance companies to cover birth control. The bumbling bishops do this because they are brain-dead to the fact that over 90% of Catholics use birth control despite the Church’s bizarre ban on such practices.
As someone who grew-up in a devout Catholic family, it took me many years to recognize the utter absurdity if the Church’s teachings, practices, pageantry, and hypocrisy. While the Church has been anathematizing groups that show sympathy and understanding for the downtrodden, it has been protecting and defending the abominations of a disgusting group of child-molesters.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Aimee Copeland and Flesh-Eating Disease
Aimee Copeland is a beautiful college co-ed who has developed a rare condition called necrotizing fasciitis, a flesh-eating disease in which the bacteria emit toxins that destroy muscle, fat, and skin tissue. She got it as a result of falling off a zip-line into a small river in Georgia and suffering a gash in her leg. The disease has ravaged her body. She has been battling kidney failure and other organ damage. So far, the doctors have had to amputate one leg and both hands. If the disease continues to spread, she could die. She has shown great bravery while faced with this horrible affliction.
Today her father reported that Aimee is able to breathe without the aid of a ventilator. He said, “I believe God is going to take care of the future." He went on to say, "I just thank God my daughter is alive." When he went to the bank he wound-up hugging everybody at the bank. He said, "Aimee has always been a hugging person, and in a really odd way, I believe that God is sharing Aimee's spirit through me. That's one of the things that has really kept me going."
There is still the possibility the Aimee will die of this unspeakably terrible disease. I wonder whether her father will be able to maintain his optimistic attitude if she does. She is now terribly disabled, missing one leg and two hands, but things could get worse. I hope she gets better.
I suppose that it is natural to thank God for any improvements in Aimee’s condition and to pray to God for to let her live. Belief in God provides a great amount of comfort for people like Mr. Copeland facing catastrophic tragedy. Yet, to me, it is sad that someone like Mr. Copeland goes on worshipping this mythical being called God even though God has allowed this heartbreaking misfortune to destroy the body, and perhaps the life of his daughter Aimee. Does God get credit for every good thing that happens to Aimee, but no blame for the bad things?
If there was a God, an omnipotent creator of the universe, he could not be good. The God worshipped by western religions is supposed to be infinitely good and loving. But any God that would permit a young, innocent girl to suffer with the horrors of necrotizing fasciitis disease, or one of the many other horrible afflictions, would have to be a monster of infinite sadism.
God cannot have it both ways. If he created all things, and if we are to thank him for every improvement in Aimee’s condition, we must condemn him for the horror she has already undergone. If we are to thank God for saving us from fires and tornadoes, we must condemn him for allowing human lives to be destroyed in such catastrophes. If we are to thank him for our daily bread, we must condemn him for world hunger and starvation. If God gets the credit, he also deserves the blame.
What if God does not do bad things? What if they are done by the Devil? It makes no difference. If God is the creator of Heaven, Hell, and all things, he is the creator of Satan. If he is omnipotent and omniscient, but lets the Devil have free reign (See the Book of Job), he is as guilty as Satan. If God can answer Mr. Copeland’s prayer and let Aimee live, he can also prevent Aimee’s disease from happening. If there was a God, and he stood by and let this sweet innocent young woman suffer this torture, he would be unworthy of our worship. He would be a cruel monster.
God does not exist. He is a psychological crutch we use to help us in times of great sorrow. We never think rationally when we rely on God in times of trouble. If he really existed, and if he actually became involved in human life, we would never have the kind of tragedy being suffered by Aimee.
Same-Sex Marriage
Now that President Obama has followed the lead of Vice President Biden and stated that he supports the right to same-sex marriage, the subject has become a campaign issue. Since I originally published this article, several states, including New York, have legalized same-sex marriage. Others, such as North Carolina, have banned it through constitutional amendments. One can easily discern the red-state bias in such opposition to same-sex marriage. The states that have allowed same-sex marriage are the more northern, liberal, educated, sophisticated, tolerant states. The states that have banned it are the same states that oppressed African Americans for decades even after their emancipation from slavery. The Republican Party is appealing to the lowest and most ignorant types of Americans in its use of this issue.
What is at the base of the debate over same-sex marriage? In the June 19, 2005, issue of The New York Times Magazine, Russell Shorto described a period of time he spent with a group of anti-gay-marriage activists in Maryland. He came away with the conviction that the activists were motivated by their belief that homosexuality is evil rather than by any adverse effects such marriages could have upon society. The activists were convinced that homosexuality is a disease and that it is spreading.
Despite the opposition to same-sex marriage, there seems to be a growing trend around the world to recognize the right of gay people to enter into marriage. Canada now has a law allowing same-sex marriages. Such unions are also permitted in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain. Denmark Norway, Sweden, and Iceland give marital rights to gay couples under laws providing for “registered partnerships.” In the case of "Goodridge v. Department of Public Health," the Massachusetts Supreme Court declared that laws forbidding same-sex marriage were contrary to the state’s constitution. Since then, gay couples have been getting married in Massachusetts. New York and other states have moved to allow such marriages, and some states are passing laws allowing “civil unions” for same-sex couples.
Same-sex marriages do not in any way harm or affect heterosexual marriage. Many homosexuals form long-term loving unions just like married straight couples. The problem is that in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, a gay couple who have lived together for an extended period of time has acquired very few of the legal rights afforded to heterosexual married couples. Those rights include inheritance, real property, joint income tax returns, social security benefits, medical benefits, homestead protection, support, alimony, and many others. Gay partners seek not only the property benefits of marriage but also the symbolic recognition of their relationship.
Although anti-gay-marriage activists are motivated by a bigotry arising out of religious convictions, they assert that marriage is the bedrock of a sound society and claim that same-sex marriage will make heterosexual marriage collapse. In the case of "Goodridge v. Department of Public Health," the Massachusetts Supreme Court found that there was no evidence to support such an argument. Anti-gay-marriage activists point to a study done by conservative pundit Stanley Kurtz in which he claimed that the laws permitting “registered partnerships” had brought about the collapse of marriage in Scandinavia. In fact, Kurtz was mistaken. In Denmark, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century, but it turned around after the “registered partnership” law was passed in 1989. Then the marriage rate continued to climb. Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they’ve been since the early 1970s. The marriage rates for Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the “registered partnership” laws were passed.
Opponents of gay marriage claim that such marriages cause harm to children. In the case of "Baehr v. Miike," the Circuit Court of Hawaii found that there was no such harm and invalidated a law forbidding gay marriage. (The Baehr decision later became moot when the Hawaii legislature passed a constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage, but the findings of the case are worth consideration.) Curiously, the experts for both sides testified that children raised in gay homes suffered no problems different from children of heterosexual parents. Moreover, the children raised by gay couples did not become gay as a result of their parents’ sexual identity. The psychological wellbeing of the children was far more dependent on the love, stability, protection, and support of their families than on the sex of the parents. Many studies have supported the findings of the Hawaii Court.
So we come to the real argument of the anti-gay-marriage activists. They say that homosexuality is a “perversion” and that it is forbidden by the Bible. They argue that homosexuality is a “choice” and that it is sinful. They maintain that homosexuality is a disease that can be passed on to others and that it is infecting our society. They oppose gay marriage because they oppose gays. It would be insulting to gay people to get into a long discussion about the causes of sexual preference. Regardless of the causes, gays are American citizens entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. Homosexuality is not evil and is not a disease. If we were to follow Biblical injunctions, it would appear to be okay for the state to execute gays on account of their homosexuality. We live in a more civilized world than that. Homosexuality does not harm heterosexuals. Many of our leading Americans are gay. Gays do not choose their sexual preference any more than heterosexuals choose theirs. Intelligent people know, and many studies have confirmed, that sexual preference is something you are born with, not a choice.
What is at the base of the debate over same-sex marriage? In the June 19, 2005, issue of The New York Times Magazine, Russell Shorto described a period of time he spent with a group of anti-gay-marriage activists in Maryland. He came away with the conviction that the activists were motivated by their belief that homosexuality is evil rather than by any adverse effects such marriages could have upon society. The activists were convinced that homosexuality is a disease and that it is spreading.
Despite the opposition to same-sex marriage, there seems to be a growing trend around the world to recognize the right of gay people to enter into marriage. Canada now has a law allowing same-sex marriages. Such unions are also permitted in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain. Denmark Norway, Sweden, and Iceland give marital rights to gay couples under laws providing for “registered partnerships.” In the case of "Goodridge v. Department of Public Health," the Massachusetts Supreme Court declared that laws forbidding same-sex marriage were contrary to the state’s constitution. Since then, gay couples have been getting married in Massachusetts. New York and other states have moved to allow such marriages, and some states are passing laws allowing “civil unions” for same-sex couples.
Same-sex marriages do not in any way harm or affect heterosexual marriage. Many homosexuals form long-term loving unions just like married straight couples. The problem is that in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, a gay couple who have lived together for an extended period of time has acquired very few of the legal rights afforded to heterosexual married couples. Those rights include inheritance, real property, joint income tax returns, social security benefits, medical benefits, homestead protection, support, alimony, and many others. Gay partners seek not only the property benefits of marriage but also the symbolic recognition of their relationship.
Although anti-gay-marriage activists are motivated by a bigotry arising out of religious convictions, they assert that marriage is the bedrock of a sound society and claim that same-sex marriage will make heterosexual marriage collapse. In the case of "Goodridge v. Department of Public Health," the Massachusetts Supreme Court found that there was no evidence to support such an argument. Anti-gay-marriage activists point to a study done by conservative pundit Stanley Kurtz in which he claimed that the laws permitting “registered partnerships” had brought about the collapse of marriage in Scandinavia. In fact, Kurtz was mistaken. In Denmark, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century, but it turned around after the “registered partnership” law was passed in 1989. Then the marriage rate continued to climb. Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they’ve been since the early 1970s. The marriage rates for Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the “registered partnership” laws were passed.
Opponents of gay marriage claim that such marriages cause harm to children. In the case of "Baehr v. Miike," the Circuit Court of Hawaii found that there was no such harm and invalidated a law forbidding gay marriage. (The Baehr decision later became moot when the Hawaii legislature passed a constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage, but the findings of the case are worth consideration.) Curiously, the experts for both sides testified that children raised in gay homes suffered no problems different from children of heterosexual parents. Moreover, the children raised by gay couples did not become gay as a result of their parents’ sexual identity. The psychological wellbeing of the children was far more dependent on the love, stability, protection, and support of their families than on the sex of the parents. Many studies have supported the findings of the Hawaii Court.
So we come to the real argument of the anti-gay-marriage activists. They say that homosexuality is a “perversion” and that it is forbidden by the Bible. They argue that homosexuality is a “choice” and that it is sinful. They maintain that homosexuality is a disease that can be passed on to others and that it is infecting our society. They oppose gay marriage because they oppose gays. It would be insulting to gay people to get into a long discussion about the causes of sexual preference. Regardless of the causes, gays are American citizens entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. Homosexuality is not evil and is not a disease. If we were to follow Biblical injunctions, it would appear to be okay for the state to execute gays on account of their homosexuality. We live in a more civilized world than that. Homosexuality does not harm heterosexuals. Many of our leading Americans are gay. Gays do not choose their sexual preference any more than heterosexuals choose theirs. Intelligent people know, and many studies have confirmed, that sexual preference is something you are born with, not a choice.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
EASTER AND THE HOLY EUCHARIST
It is Christian doctrine that Jesus died as a sacrifice for man. The idea is that “Original Sin” was committed by Adam and Eve, and that the stain of that sin was upon every human being born thereafter. Thus, even though subsequent humans did not commit the original sin, they were guilty of it as well as other sins. Christ came to save man from original sin and all other sin, and to provide a means for man to achieve everlasting life in heaven. In order to save man, Christ had to perform a sacrifice. Jesus was God, so he performed a sacrifice to himself. The sacrifice was a human sacrifice of the most bestial and agonizing kind, a painfully slow death by suffocation on a cross.
One has to wonder why this omnipotent, all-loving, almighty God couldn’t have simply forgiven all men of sin without this orgy of torment? Why did he have to be the scapegoat for all human beings and go through this horrendous nightmare of torture in order to provide salvation? The answer is that the writers of the Bible lived in a benighted and barbaric time when this was thought to be the right way for the gods to behave.
The resurrection of Jesus from the dead has been called the basis for all Christianity. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:13-14: “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” The celebration of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is the most important date on the Catholics’ liturgical calendar. It is also the concoction of Paul and other writers who came long after Jesus died.
Scholars use various methods of textual criticism, including language and style, to determine if text is authentic or was added to the original gospel at a later time. There are many things on which they agree. Scholars agree that Jesus did not predict his own resurrection from the dead or his second coming. The quotations in the Bible in which he makes such a prediction (e.g. Mark 8:31) are considered to be later additions.
Moreover, the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are so contradictory and improbable that the whole story has to be dismissed as fiction. Matthew says that the day following Jesus crucifixion Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the tomb (Matt 28:2), but Mark says that the two Marys and Salome went (Mark 16:1). Luke writes that Mary Magdalene went with Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and other women (Luke 24:10). Matthew says that the stone was removed by an angel at the time the women arrived at Jesus’ tomb (Matt. 28:2), but Mark and Luke say it had already been removed (Mark 16:2-4, Luke 24:1-2). Matthew says that when the women arrived, the angel was outside the tomb (Matt 28:2), but Mark says the angel was inside the tomb (Mark 16:5) and Luke says there were two men inside the tomb (Luke 24:4).
In Matthew the two women rush from the tomb to tell the disciples (Matt 28:8-9), but Mark says that they said nothing to anyone (Mark 16:8). Luke says that they reported the story to the disciples (Luke 24:9-11). John tells a very different story from the others (John 20:1-18). Later post-resurrection stories are also in conflict (compare Matt 28:16-20 with Luke 24:13-53, and John 20:19).
The first Gospel written was the Gospel of Mark. Scholars can tell that the whole story of the resurrection of Jesus in Mark was added to the Gospel by somebody else long after the original version was written. Originally, the Gospel of Mark ended at Chapter 16:8. That is the part where the women find the empty tomb and are told by a “young man” that Jesus has risen. The part of the Gospel after that, in which Jesus appears to various people, was added by later writers who wanted to supply authenticity to the myth of Jesus’ resurrection. As Professor Bart D. Ehrman of the University of North Carolina says: “These verses [Mark 16:9-20] are absent from our two oldest and best manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel, along with other important witnesses; the transition between this passage and the one preceding it is hard to understand….and there are a large number of words and phrases in the passage that are not found elsewhere in Mark.”
If you consider the fact that the Gospels of Mathew and Luke were based on the gospel of Mark, then it becomes clear that the Gospels’ story of Jesus’ resurrection is pure myth that was made-up long after the Gospels were written. The earliest Christian scriptures were the Epistles of Paul, yet Paul does not give any details about Jesus’ resurrection other than referring to it (See Rom. 6:5, 1 Cor. 15:13).
The idea of resurrection by a god did not begin with Jesus. Lots of gods arose from the dead in ancient times. Among them are Mithra, Attis, Dionysus, Osiris, Tammuz, Ishtar, Adonis, Persephone, Semele, Heracles (or Herakles), and Melqart. Some claim Buddah was resurrected from the dead.
Roman Catholics around the world celebrate Easter by partaking of the Holy Eucharist. It is a wafer of unleavened bread and liturgical wine. The wafer is placed in the recipient’s hand or mouth, and the wine is usually sipped out of a common chalice ( a somewhat unsanitary practice). According to Church dogma, the bread and wine are not just symbolic commemoration of the body and blood of Jesus. They are the actual body and blood of Jesus. It is believed that by consuming the body and blood of Jesus you take into your body part of his divine grace.
It seems that for thousands of years nobody has ever stepped back and examined this holy practice. A little thinking about it should, however, make us wonder where it came from and why we do it. Why eat a human body and drink human blood. Isn’t that a little cannibalistic? How did the Catholic Church ever decide to ordain this as the most profound way of worshipping Jesus. Obviously, it is taken from an ancient time when men performed human sacrifice. It is well known that following a human sacrifice, ancient men frequently ate the body and drank the blood of the sacrificial victim. The sacrificial victim was often an enemy defeated in battle. It was believed that by doing so the eater took into himself the courage and strength of the victim. Even in more modern times headhunters would eat the bodies of their victims in the belief that the valor and fighting ability of the victim would come into the victor. Thus, as the practice of human sacrifice and cannibalism decreased, religions continued the practice by substituting bread, wine, and other food for the bodies of sacrificial victims.
The rite of the Last Supper, which the early Christian Church adopted as its Holy Eucharist, clearly was borrowed from the ritual meal practiced by more ancient religions. In The Roman Cult of Mithras, Manfred Clauss says: “The offering of bread and wine is known in virtually all ancient cultures, and the meal as a means of binding the faithful together and uniting them to the deity was a feature common to many religions. It represented one of the oldest means of manifesting unification with the spiritual, and the appropriation of spiritual qualities.” Claus describes how the worshippers of the god Mithra engaged in a ritual meal similar to the Christian Eucharist.
In the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), the Last Supper is a Passover meal. In the Gospel of John, it takes place the day before Passover. It is possible that Jesus asked his followers to eat bread and drink wine in his memory. It is highly unlikely that he horrified his disciples by recommending anything so cannibalistic as having bread and wine represent his body and blood. Such ideas were abhorrent to the Jews. Even the blood of an animal was forbidden at a Jewish meal by biblical law (Leviticus 7:26). Geza Vermes, Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies at Oxford University, in The Religion of Jesus the Jew, says, “...the imagery of eating a man’s body, and especially drinking his blood...even after allowance is made for metaphorical language, strikes a totally foreign note in a Palestinian Jewish cultural setting...With their profoundly rooted blood taboo, Jesus’ listeners would have been overcome with nausea at hearing such words.” The idea that the eating of bread and wine was a consumption of the body and blood of Jesus is a later Greek development, taken from the Mystery Religions such as the cult of Mithra. The biblical version of the Last Supper was obviously added long after the original gospels were written.
In the Mystery Religions, the cult “agapes” were “love feasts” in which the communicants achieved “mystical identification with the divinity.” The cults of Mithra and Attis had sacramental use of bread and wine as a means of communing with the gods. The early Eucharistic feasts of the Christians came to be called “agapes” by the Greeks. It was the Greeks who substituted bread and wine for the body and blood of sacrificial victims. If one goes back far enough, one can see the history of human sacrifice in Greece and how it affected the liturgy of the modern Church.
One has to wonder why this omnipotent, all-loving, almighty God couldn’t have simply forgiven all men of sin without this orgy of torment? Why did he have to be the scapegoat for all human beings and go through this horrendous nightmare of torture in order to provide salvation? The answer is that the writers of the Bible lived in a benighted and barbaric time when this was thought to be the right way for the gods to behave.
The resurrection of Jesus from the dead has been called the basis for all Christianity. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:13-14: “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” The celebration of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is the most important date on the Catholics’ liturgical calendar. It is also the concoction of Paul and other writers who came long after Jesus died.
Scholars use various methods of textual criticism, including language and style, to determine if text is authentic or was added to the original gospel at a later time. There are many things on which they agree. Scholars agree that Jesus did not predict his own resurrection from the dead or his second coming. The quotations in the Bible in which he makes such a prediction (e.g. Mark 8:31) are considered to be later additions.
Moreover, the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are so contradictory and improbable that the whole story has to be dismissed as fiction. Matthew says that the day following Jesus crucifixion Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the tomb (Matt 28:2), but Mark says that the two Marys and Salome went (Mark 16:1). Luke writes that Mary Magdalene went with Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and other women (Luke 24:10). Matthew says that the stone was removed by an angel at the time the women arrived at Jesus’ tomb (Matt. 28:2), but Mark and Luke say it had already been removed (Mark 16:2-4, Luke 24:1-2). Matthew says that when the women arrived, the angel was outside the tomb (Matt 28:2), but Mark says the angel was inside the tomb (Mark 16:5) and Luke says there were two men inside the tomb (Luke 24:4).
In Matthew the two women rush from the tomb to tell the disciples (Matt 28:8-9), but Mark says that they said nothing to anyone (Mark 16:8). Luke says that they reported the story to the disciples (Luke 24:9-11). John tells a very different story from the others (John 20:1-18). Later post-resurrection stories are also in conflict (compare Matt 28:16-20 with Luke 24:13-53, and John 20:19).
The first Gospel written was the Gospel of Mark. Scholars can tell that the whole story of the resurrection of Jesus in Mark was added to the Gospel by somebody else long after the original version was written. Originally, the Gospel of Mark ended at Chapter 16:8. That is the part where the women find the empty tomb and are told by a “young man” that Jesus has risen. The part of the Gospel after that, in which Jesus appears to various people, was added by later writers who wanted to supply authenticity to the myth of Jesus’ resurrection. As Professor Bart D. Ehrman of the University of North Carolina says: “These verses [Mark 16:9-20] are absent from our two oldest and best manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel, along with other important witnesses; the transition between this passage and the one preceding it is hard to understand….and there are a large number of words and phrases in the passage that are not found elsewhere in Mark.”
If you consider the fact that the Gospels of Mathew and Luke were based on the gospel of Mark, then it becomes clear that the Gospels’ story of Jesus’ resurrection is pure myth that was made-up long after the Gospels were written. The earliest Christian scriptures were the Epistles of Paul, yet Paul does not give any details about Jesus’ resurrection other than referring to it (See Rom. 6:5, 1 Cor. 15:13).
The idea of resurrection by a god did not begin with Jesus. Lots of gods arose from the dead in ancient times. Among them are Mithra, Attis, Dionysus, Osiris, Tammuz, Ishtar, Adonis, Persephone, Semele, Heracles (or Herakles), and Melqart. Some claim Buddah was resurrected from the dead.
Roman Catholics around the world celebrate Easter by partaking of the Holy Eucharist. It is a wafer of unleavened bread and liturgical wine. The wafer is placed in the recipient’s hand or mouth, and the wine is usually sipped out of a common chalice ( a somewhat unsanitary practice). According to Church dogma, the bread and wine are not just symbolic commemoration of the body and blood of Jesus. They are the actual body and blood of Jesus. It is believed that by consuming the body and blood of Jesus you take into your body part of his divine grace.
It seems that for thousands of years nobody has ever stepped back and examined this holy practice. A little thinking about it should, however, make us wonder where it came from and why we do it. Why eat a human body and drink human blood. Isn’t that a little cannibalistic? How did the Catholic Church ever decide to ordain this as the most profound way of worshipping Jesus. Obviously, it is taken from an ancient time when men performed human sacrifice. It is well known that following a human sacrifice, ancient men frequently ate the body and drank the blood of the sacrificial victim. The sacrificial victim was often an enemy defeated in battle. It was believed that by doing so the eater took into himself the courage and strength of the victim. Even in more modern times headhunters would eat the bodies of their victims in the belief that the valor and fighting ability of the victim would come into the victor. Thus, as the practice of human sacrifice and cannibalism decreased, religions continued the practice by substituting bread, wine, and other food for the bodies of sacrificial victims.
The rite of the Last Supper, which the early Christian Church adopted as its Holy Eucharist, clearly was borrowed from the ritual meal practiced by more ancient religions. In The Roman Cult of Mithras, Manfred Clauss says: “The offering of bread and wine is known in virtually all ancient cultures, and the meal as a means of binding the faithful together and uniting them to the deity was a feature common to many religions. It represented one of the oldest means of manifesting unification with the spiritual, and the appropriation of spiritual qualities.” Claus describes how the worshippers of the god Mithra engaged in a ritual meal similar to the Christian Eucharist.
In the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), the Last Supper is a Passover meal. In the Gospel of John, it takes place the day before Passover. It is possible that Jesus asked his followers to eat bread and drink wine in his memory. It is highly unlikely that he horrified his disciples by recommending anything so cannibalistic as having bread and wine represent his body and blood. Such ideas were abhorrent to the Jews. Even the blood of an animal was forbidden at a Jewish meal by biblical law (Leviticus 7:26). Geza Vermes, Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies at Oxford University, in The Religion of Jesus the Jew, says, “...the imagery of eating a man’s body, and especially drinking his blood...even after allowance is made for metaphorical language, strikes a totally foreign note in a Palestinian Jewish cultural setting...With their profoundly rooted blood taboo, Jesus’ listeners would have been overcome with nausea at hearing such words.” The idea that the eating of bread and wine was a consumption of the body and blood of Jesus is a later Greek development, taken from the Mystery Religions such as the cult of Mithra. The biblical version of the Last Supper was obviously added long after the original gospels were written.
In the Mystery Religions, the cult “agapes” were “love feasts” in which the communicants achieved “mystical identification with the divinity.” The cults of Mithra and Attis had sacramental use of bread and wine as a means of communing with the gods. The early Eucharistic feasts of the Christians came to be called “agapes” by the Greeks. It was the Greeks who substituted bread and wine for the body and blood of sacrificial victims. If one goes back far enough, one can see the history of human sacrifice in Greece and how it affected the liturgy of the modern Church.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Good Friday, Celebrating a Human Sacrifice
Today is Good Friday, 2012. On this day Christians around the world commemorate the "sacrifice" of a man named Jesus. It is said that the Romans tortured him with whips, made him carry a heavy cross to the hill of Golgotha, and then nailed him to the cross and let him hang there until he died.
The central belief of Christianity is that Jesus was a human sacrifice for mankind. Somehow, Christians have accepted this teaching from an ancient, barbaric time, and still believe it today. They believe that Man committed something called “Original Sin” and that the only way he could achieve salvation from original and other sins was by means of a human sacrifice. They believe that the almighty and eternal God, who is a merciful, loving, and forgiving God, could be appeased only by this hideous bloody and grisly torture and lynching of a human being. Because an ordinary human sacrifice would not be sufficient, the Son of God had to come down to Earth to be the sacrificial victim. He had to be scourged, driven to Golgatha under the weight of the cross, nailed to the cross, pierced with a spear, and slowly suffocated until he bled to death. Crucifixion was one of the most horrible forms of execution ever devised. Yet Christians believe that it must have been pleasing to God.
Human sacrifice was an integral part of much early worship of the gods. Today many religions still use an altar, but the first altars were used to sacrifice human and animal victims. References in literature to the sacrifice of human individuals harks back to the days when this was a routine and deeply reverent practice. In the story of the Trojan War, Agamemnon tells his wife to prepare his daughter for her marriage. He then takes her to the shore and sacrifices her to the gods in order to obtain favorable winds for his trip to Troy. You can be sure that the story is not pure whimsy. Human sacrifice was well known in ancient Greece, as it was in Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, Canaan, and Israel. At the time of Jesus, human sacrifice was a recent memory.
It is clear that back in the early history of the Israelites, human sacrifice was customary. Consider the stories of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22:1-19, Japhthah and his daughter in Judges 11:30-31, King Ahaz and his son in 2 Chronicles 28:3, and King Manasseh and his son in 2 Chronicles 33:6. Later in their history, the Israelites turned away from human sacrifice and declared it an abomination.
Nevertheless, the New Testament repeatedly refers to the idea that Jesus was a sacrifice for Mankind. For example, John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the World;” John 2:2, “He is propitiation for the sins of the world;” Matthew 20, “Á ransom for many;” Matthew 26:28, “This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins;” Hebrews 9:23-28,“Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many;” (See also Philippians 2:17, 4:18; Romans 12:1, 15:16; 1Peter 1:18-19, 2:5; Ephesians 1:7; and Titus 2:14).
The dogma that Jesus was crucified as a form of atonement for Man’s sins did not become established as a doctrine of the very early Church until the fourth century AD. Saint Augustine (354-430), who laid down many of the Church's doctrines, including the doctrine of atonement, said that man was doomed to Hell until Jesus redeemed him. He regarded Jesus’ sacrifice “Not as payment of a debt due to God, but as an act of justice to the Devil in discharge of his fair and lawful claims.”
Like many other aspects of Christianity, the idea of propitiating god with a human sacrifice, and even having the god himself be the sacrificial victim, was not new when the Church dreamed up this explanation of Jesus’ crucifixion. It was borrowed from old pagan myths. I have mentioned the human sacrifices carried out by early Israelites. The Canaanites sacrificed to the gods, and the prophets inveighed against the sacrificing of Canaanite children to Moloch (See Samuel 17:17; Jeremiah 7:31; Ezekiel 16:20, 20:26).
In Egypt, the priests performed human sacrifice when the Pharaoh died. The Pharaoh was believed to be a god. His family and servants were buried alive with him. Eventually the priests started substituting animals, dolls and other forms of art for living victims. In ancient Mesopotamia archeologists have found the tombs of kings with entire households that were buried alive when the king was interred.
In India, it was the custom to perform human sacrifice in order to guarantee a good harvest and appease the gods. The victim was believed to be the god sacrificing himself, in the form of a man, to himself as a god. The ancient Khonds of India believed that their sacrificial victim died for all mankind and became a god.
The ancient Greeks sacrificed a criminal at Rhodes after putting him in royal robes. They did this in memory of the sacrifice by Kronos of his “Only begotten Son.” Themistocles sacrificed Persian youths to Dionysus.
Now here we are in the 21st Century, still believing in gods and still believing that this almighty being we call God could be appeased only by this inhuman sacrifice of Jesus. We are supposed to worship this God because by this sacrifice he enabled us to be saved from the punishment we are due on account of a sin committed--not by us--but by our earliest ancestors. We are supposed to believe in this God because he performed the circus trick of rising from the dead. We are supposed to love this god because he cured a few sick people while letting the great mass of men go on suffering throughout history. We are supposed to adore this god even though he allowed the unimaginable holocaust of World War II, even though he allows millions of humans to die each year of horrible diseases, even though he allows millions of people each year to suffer and die in tornados, floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes. Well, thanks God. Thanks for nothing.
The central belief of Christianity is that Jesus was a human sacrifice for mankind. Somehow, Christians have accepted this teaching from an ancient, barbaric time, and still believe it today. They believe that Man committed something called “Original Sin” and that the only way he could achieve salvation from original and other sins was by means of a human sacrifice. They believe that the almighty and eternal God, who is a merciful, loving, and forgiving God, could be appeased only by this hideous bloody and grisly torture and lynching of a human being. Because an ordinary human sacrifice would not be sufficient, the Son of God had to come down to Earth to be the sacrificial victim. He had to be scourged, driven to Golgatha under the weight of the cross, nailed to the cross, pierced with a spear, and slowly suffocated until he bled to death. Crucifixion was one of the most horrible forms of execution ever devised. Yet Christians believe that it must have been pleasing to God.
Human sacrifice was an integral part of much early worship of the gods. Today many religions still use an altar, but the first altars were used to sacrifice human and animal victims. References in literature to the sacrifice of human individuals harks back to the days when this was a routine and deeply reverent practice. In the story of the Trojan War, Agamemnon tells his wife to prepare his daughter for her marriage. He then takes her to the shore and sacrifices her to the gods in order to obtain favorable winds for his trip to Troy. You can be sure that the story is not pure whimsy. Human sacrifice was well known in ancient Greece, as it was in Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, Canaan, and Israel. At the time of Jesus, human sacrifice was a recent memory.
It is clear that back in the early history of the Israelites, human sacrifice was customary. Consider the stories of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22:1-19, Japhthah and his daughter in Judges 11:30-31, King Ahaz and his son in 2 Chronicles 28:3, and King Manasseh and his son in 2 Chronicles 33:6. Later in their history, the Israelites turned away from human sacrifice and declared it an abomination.
Nevertheless, the New Testament repeatedly refers to the idea that Jesus was a sacrifice for Mankind. For example, John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the World;” John 2:2, “He is propitiation for the sins of the world;” Matthew 20, “Á ransom for many;” Matthew 26:28, “This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins;” Hebrews 9:23-28,“Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many;” (See also Philippians 2:17, 4:18; Romans 12:1, 15:16; 1Peter 1:18-19, 2:5; Ephesians 1:7; and Titus 2:14).
The dogma that Jesus was crucified as a form of atonement for Man’s sins did not become established as a doctrine of the very early Church until the fourth century AD. Saint Augustine (354-430), who laid down many of the Church's doctrines, including the doctrine of atonement, said that man was doomed to Hell until Jesus redeemed him. He regarded Jesus’ sacrifice “Not as payment of a debt due to God, but as an act of justice to the Devil in discharge of his fair and lawful claims.”
Like many other aspects of Christianity, the idea of propitiating god with a human sacrifice, and even having the god himself be the sacrificial victim, was not new when the Church dreamed up this explanation of Jesus’ crucifixion. It was borrowed from old pagan myths. I have mentioned the human sacrifices carried out by early Israelites. The Canaanites sacrificed to the gods, and the prophets inveighed against the sacrificing of Canaanite children to Moloch (See Samuel 17:17; Jeremiah 7:31; Ezekiel 16:20, 20:26).
In Egypt, the priests performed human sacrifice when the Pharaoh died. The Pharaoh was believed to be a god. His family and servants were buried alive with him. Eventually the priests started substituting animals, dolls and other forms of art for living victims. In ancient Mesopotamia archeologists have found the tombs of kings with entire households that were buried alive when the king was interred.
In India, it was the custom to perform human sacrifice in order to guarantee a good harvest and appease the gods. The victim was believed to be the god sacrificing himself, in the form of a man, to himself as a god. The ancient Khonds of India believed that their sacrificial victim died for all mankind and became a god.
The ancient Greeks sacrificed a criminal at Rhodes after putting him in royal robes. They did this in memory of the sacrifice by Kronos of his “Only begotten Son.” Themistocles sacrificed Persian youths to Dionysus.
Now here we are in the 21st Century, still believing in gods and still believing that this almighty being we call God could be appeased only by this inhuman sacrifice of Jesus. We are supposed to worship this God because by this sacrifice he enabled us to be saved from the punishment we are due on account of a sin committed--not by us--but by our earliest ancestors. We are supposed to believe in this God because he performed the circus trick of rising from the dead. We are supposed to love this god because he cured a few sick people while letting the great mass of men go on suffering throughout history. We are supposed to adore this god even though he allowed the unimaginable holocaust of World War II, even though he allows millions of humans to die each year of horrible diseases, even though he allows millions of people each year to suffer and die in tornados, floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes. Well, thanks God. Thanks for nothing.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Is Obamacare Constitutional?
The constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACT) (derogatorily called “Obamacare” by Republicans) is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. It is likely that the conservative justices will try to decide this case on the basis of politics rather than a strict adherence to the law. Justices like Scalia and Thomas would have the world believe that they are strict constructionists who follow only the law, but the truth is that they are highly political and they will decide this case on the basis of their political opposition to liberals and Democrats and in the hopes that their decision will hurt the chances of President Obama being reelected.
If Scalia and his political cronies were to decide this case solely on the law, they would be compelled to uphold the constitutionality of the law. In a long list of decisions, the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly upheld the broad power of the federal government to regulate commerce even if it meant regulating private activity which might have some affect on interstate commerce.
The chief question currently before the Supreme Court is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to mandate that people buy a minimum amount of health insurance under the PPACT. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution, U.S. Const. Art.1, Sec. 8, cl. 3, grants Congress power “to regulate commerce….among the several states.” In the case of Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, the Sixth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the PPACT by recognizing that Supreme Court precedents give the federal government great power to legislate individual activity under the Commerce Clause.
The Sixth Circuit started-out by saying that “The minimum coverage provision, like all congressional enactments, is entitled to a ‘presumption of constitutionality.’" The court went on to say that “the presumption that the minimum coverage provision is valid is ‘not a mere polite gesture. It is deference due to deliberate judgment by constitutional majorities of the two Houses of Congress that an act is within their delegated power.’ ”
The Appeals Court then went on to find that under the Supreme Court decisions, enactment of the minimum coverage provision was definitely within the power of Congress. The Court noted that in several cases, including Gonzales v. Reich, the Supreme Court has held that Congress may regulate economic activity, even if wholly intrastate, if it substantially affects interstate commerce. For example, in Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court upheld regulations limiting the amount of wheat a farmer could grow, even for non-commercial purposes.
The Sixth Circuit found that the minimum coverage provision is constitutional because Congress had a rational basis for believing that the provision has substantial effects on interstate commerce. The Court also found that Congress had a rational basis for believing that the provision was essential to its larger economic scheme of reforming the interstate markets of health care and health insurance.
The court recognized that 18% of the non-elderly population was uninsured and that most states required hospitals to treat people’s illness regardless of their ability to pay. Such uninsured people consume over $100 billion in health care services every year. Congress found that the cost of providing care to uninsured people was passed-on from providers to private insurers which pass it on to the families they insure. This raises the cost of health insurance and drives more people out of the private health insurance market. It becomes a vicious circle, and has a profound effect on the interstate commerce in healthcare and health insurance.
The Appeals Court held that the minimum care provision is an “essential part of a broader economic regulatory scheme.” Without the individual mandate, the PPACT would result in a terrible spiral: only relatively sick Americans would choose to get insurance, leading premium prices to rise and causing the healthier of even those sick people to drop their insurance, sending prices higher and higher.
Massachusetts, under Governor Mitt Romney, recognized that it could not successfully reform its healthcare system without enacting an individual mandate. The individual mandate has worked just fine in Massachusetts. It has actually lowered the cost of health insurance for consumers, and no court has held that it is beyond the power of the legislature.
It cannot be argued that the government cannot order people to purchase a private produce. They forget that most states require their citizens to purchase automobile insurance. It is considered an important part of the laws controlling the purchase and use of automobiles. Such legislative compulsion has never been struck-down by any court.
As one who practiced law for 37 years, and who took a special interest in Constitutional law, I can say with assurance that if there were no politics involved the upholding of the PPACT would be a slam dunk. I believe that those justices who question the constitutionality of the Act do so out of their political feelings and not out of any concern with the law. I hope that they will come to their senses and uphold this Act. But if they strike it down, I hope that the American People, in their righteous anger, will not only reelect President Obama, but also give strong control of both houses of Congress to liberal Democrats.
If Scalia and his political cronies were to decide this case solely on the law, they would be compelled to uphold the constitutionality of the law. In a long list of decisions, the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly upheld the broad power of the federal government to regulate commerce even if it meant regulating private activity which might have some affect on interstate commerce.
The chief question currently before the Supreme Court is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to mandate that people buy a minimum amount of health insurance under the PPACT. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution, U.S. Const. Art.1, Sec. 8, cl. 3, grants Congress power “to regulate commerce….among the several states.” In the case of Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, the Sixth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the PPACT by recognizing that Supreme Court precedents give the federal government great power to legislate individual activity under the Commerce Clause.
The Sixth Circuit started-out by saying that “The minimum coverage provision, like all congressional enactments, is entitled to a ‘presumption of constitutionality.’" The court went on to say that “the presumption that the minimum coverage provision is valid is ‘not a mere polite gesture. It is deference due to deliberate judgment by constitutional majorities of the two Houses of Congress that an act is within their delegated power.’ ”
The Appeals Court then went on to find that under the Supreme Court decisions, enactment of the minimum coverage provision was definitely within the power of Congress. The Court noted that in several cases, including Gonzales v. Reich, the Supreme Court has held that Congress may regulate economic activity, even if wholly intrastate, if it substantially affects interstate commerce. For example, in Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court upheld regulations limiting the amount of wheat a farmer could grow, even for non-commercial purposes.
The Sixth Circuit found that the minimum coverage provision is constitutional because Congress had a rational basis for believing that the provision has substantial effects on interstate commerce. The Court also found that Congress had a rational basis for believing that the provision was essential to its larger economic scheme of reforming the interstate markets of health care and health insurance.
The court recognized that 18% of the non-elderly population was uninsured and that most states required hospitals to treat people’s illness regardless of their ability to pay. Such uninsured people consume over $100 billion in health care services every year. Congress found that the cost of providing care to uninsured people was passed-on from providers to private insurers which pass it on to the families they insure. This raises the cost of health insurance and drives more people out of the private health insurance market. It becomes a vicious circle, and has a profound effect on the interstate commerce in healthcare and health insurance.
The Appeals Court held that the minimum care provision is an “essential part of a broader economic regulatory scheme.” Without the individual mandate, the PPACT would result in a terrible spiral: only relatively sick Americans would choose to get insurance, leading premium prices to rise and causing the healthier of even those sick people to drop their insurance, sending prices higher and higher.
Massachusetts, under Governor Mitt Romney, recognized that it could not successfully reform its healthcare system without enacting an individual mandate. The individual mandate has worked just fine in Massachusetts. It has actually lowered the cost of health insurance for consumers, and no court has held that it is beyond the power of the legislature.
It cannot be argued that the government cannot order people to purchase a private produce. They forget that most states require their citizens to purchase automobile insurance. It is considered an important part of the laws controlling the purchase and use of automobiles. Such legislative compulsion has never been struck-down by any court.
As one who practiced law for 37 years, and who took a special interest in Constitutional law, I can say with assurance that if there were no politics involved the upholding of the PPACT would be a slam dunk. I believe that those justices who question the constitutionality of the Act do so out of their political feelings and not out of any concern with the law. I hope that they will come to their senses and uphold this Act. But if they strike it down, I hope that the American People, in their righteous anger, will not only reelect President Obama, but also give strong control of both houses of Congress to liberal Democrats.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Healthcare and Seniors
I suspect that most senior citizens who call themselves Republicans are unaware of the plans that the Republican candidates for President and the Republicans in Congress have for Medicare and health care. I suggest that they find out now so that when the time comes to vote they will know who wants to abolish their right to health care in old age.
The Republicans in both houses of Congress are now on record as having voted for a budget prepared Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Chairman of the House Budget Committee, which would abolish Medicare as we know it. Ryan’s plan would save the government billions of dollars by shifting the burden of paying for medical care from the government to the senior citizens who would otherwise be covered by the current program.
The way Medicare works today, the government pays for all approved medical care of senior citizens. Let’s say that you need to have heart-bypass surgery. The surgeon will bill Medicare for the cost of the surgery, which might be in the tens of thousands. Medicare will approve a percentage of that bill and pay the surgeon. Most surgeons will accept as full payment the amount paid by Medicare, but if there is a deductable or amount in excess of the Medicare amount, most seniors are able to pay it by taking-out Medicare-Plus insurance.
Under the Republican plan put forth by Representative Ryan, the government would no longer make Medicare payments for people who are 55 years old and under at the time of the legislation. When those people become eligible for Medicare, there would be no Medicare for them. They would have to purchase private health insurance. Under the Ryan plan the government would assist people earning less than $80 thousand per year by giving them a voucher to help pay for health insurance. For people earning over $80 thousand, the voucher would be half the amount, and even less for people earning over $200 thousand per year. The voucher amount would be pegged to the cost of living.
The basic problem with the Ryan plan is that the cost of health insurance is rising at a rate far higher than the cost of living. The leading economists have asserted that in ten years, when the 55-year-old generation reaches eligibility for Medicare, the cost of health insurance will be more than double the amount provided for in the Ryan budget. That means that those seniors would have to pay an amount equal to, if not more than, the amount they would have to pay for health insurance today if there were no Medicare. Sure, this would save the government billions of dollars, but it would deprive millions of seniors of health care during that period of their lives when they are most in need.
Senior Citizens should also realize that the Republicans want to repeal the healthcare reform law, more properly known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA). The Republicans in the House of Representatives have already voted overwhelmingly to repeal PPACA (which they derisively call “Obamacare”). Fortunately, that effort could not succeed because of Democratic control of the Senate. But who knows? Perhaps at some later date Republicans will gain the strength to carry out their plan to totally repeal all of the provisions of the law. What would happen then?
Senior citizens who are beneficiaries of the Medicare Part D drug program should be aware that the PPACA provides for the eventual elimination of the “doughnut hole” and has already begun to close it. The “doughnut hole” is the period during which seniors have had to pay the full cost of their prescriptions after they amassed $2,700 in drug costs. After $2,700, Medicare did not resume paying for drug expenses until seniors reached $4,350 in out-of-pocket payments, a figure most seniors never reach in one year. The PPACA has already cut the doughnut hole by $500 and has instituted a 50 percent discount in brand-name drugs. For many seniors who simply cannot afford to buy their essential medications during the doughnut hole, that will be life saving. If the law is repealed, the doughnut hole will remain. Of course, many Republican leaders want also to repeal the whole Medicare Part D drug program and make seniors pay the full cost of all medications.
The PPACA also provides many provisions that will benefit seniors as well as everybody else. Included are provisions that forbid insurance companies from denying coverage on account of preexisting conditions, from placing lifetime or annual caps on coverage, and from rescinding coverage after a patient files a claim. The law creates a long-term-care insurance program, financed by voluntary payroll deductions, to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disable. It eliminates co-payments for preventative services and exempts preventative services from deductibles under the Medicare program. There are many other provisions, too numerous to set forth here, benefiting seniors.
Seniors should be aware of the position of the current Republican candidates on health care. All of the candidates have shown support for the Ryan budget plan that abolishes Medicare. All of the Republican candidates, including Mitt Romney, would repeal PPACA. For example, Michele Bachman, who has called for repealing PPACA, has also called for the phasing-out of Social Security and Medicare. Governor Rick Perry has plainly stated that he considers Medicare and Social Security to be unconstitutional. He calls Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.” Ron Paul has long held that Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional. Herman Cain wants to totally eliminate Medicare and Social Security. Newt Gingrich has argued that Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs are fiscally unsustainable. He would replace Medicare and Social Security with private accounts so that seniors could save their money and pay for private health insurance. For low income seniors, he would offer vouchers similar to those offered in the Ryan budget plan.
If you are a senior citizen, or somebody who is on the brink of qualifying for Medicare, you have to ask yourself: Do you want to have Medicare abolished as the Republicans have already tried to do? Do you want to go on paying the full cost of medications after reaching the doughnut hole? Do you want the Medicare Part D program abolished? Do you want to restore the practices by insurance companies of denying coverage on account of pre-existing conditions, lifetime or annual caps, and other factors?
I would think that regardless of whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, you would strongly oppose the Republican efforts to eliminate your health benefits. You should remember this when the time comes to vote for the next president and U.S. Congress.
The Republicans in both houses of Congress are now on record as having voted for a budget prepared Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Chairman of the House Budget Committee, which would abolish Medicare as we know it. Ryan’s plan would save the government billions of dollars by shifting the burden of paying for medical care from the government to the senior citizens who would otherwise be covered by the current program.
The way Medicare works today, the government pays for all approved medical care of senior citizens. Let’s say that you need to have heart-bypass surgery. The surgeon will bill Medicare for the cost of the surgery, which might be in the tens of thousands. Medicare will approve a percentage of that bill and pay the surgeon. Most surgeons will accept as full payment the amount paid by Medicare, but if there is a deductable or amount in excess of the Medicare amount, most seniors are able to pay it by taking-out Medicare-Plus insurance.
Under the Republican plan put forth by Representative Ryan, the government would no longer make Medicare payments for people who are 55 years old and under at the time of the legislation. When those people become eligible for Medicare, there would be no Medicare for them. They would have to purchase private health insurance. Under the Ryan plan the government would assist people earning less than $80 thousand per year by giving them a voucher to help pay for health insurance. For people earning over $80 thousand, the voucher would be half the amount, and even less for people earning over $200 thousand per year. The voucher amount would be pegged to the cost of living.
The basic problem with the Ryan plan is that the cost of health insurance is rising at a rate far higher than the cost of living. The leading economists have asserted that in ten years, when the 55-year-old generation reaches eligibility for Medicare, the cost of health insurance will be more than double the amount provided for in the Ryan budget. That means that those seniors would have to pay an amount equal to, if not more than, the amount they would have to pay for health insurance today if there were no Medicare. Sure, this would save the government billions of dollars, but it would deprive millions of seniors of health care during that period of their lives when they are most in need.
Senior Citizens should also realize that the Republicans want to repeal the healthcare reform law, more properly known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA). The Republicans in the House of Representatives have already voted overwhelmingly to repeal PPACA (which they derisively call “Obamacare”). Fortunately, that effort could not succeed because of Democratic control of the Senate. But who knows? Perhaps at some later date Republicans will gain the strength to carry out their plan to totally repeal all of the provisions of the law. What would happen then?
Senior citizens who are beneficiaries of the Medicare Part D drug program should be aware that the PPACA provides for the eventual elimination of the “doughnut hole” and has already begun to close it. The “doughnut hole” is the period during which seniors have had to pay the full cost of their prescriptions after they amassed $2,700 in drug costs. After $2,700, Medicare did not resume paying for drug expenses until seniors reached $4,350 in out-of-pocket payments, a figure most seniors never reach in one year. The PPACA has already cut the doughnut hole by $500 and has instituted a 50 percent discount in brand-name drugs. For many seniors who simply cannot afford to buy their essential medications during the doughnut hole, that will be life saving. If the law is repealed, the doughnut hole will remain. Of course, many Republican leaders want also to repeal the whole Medicare Part D drug program and make seniors pay the full cost of all medications.
The PPACA also provides many provisions that will benefit seniors as well as everybody else. Included are provisions that forbid insurance companies from denying coverage on account of preexisting conditions, from placing lifetime or annual caps on coverage, and from rescinding coverage after a patient files a claim. The law creates a long-term-care insurance program, financed by voluntary payroll deductions, to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disable. It eliminates co-payments for preventative services and exempts preventative services from deductibles under the Medicare program. There are many other provisions, too numerous to set forth here, benefiting seniors.
Seniors should be aware of the position of the current Republican candidates on health care. All of the candidates have shown support for the Ryan budget plan that abolishes Medicare. All of the Republican candidates, including Mitt Romney, would repeal PPACA. For example, Michele Bachman, who has called for repealing PPACA, has also called for the phasing-out of Social Security and Medicare. Governor Rick Perry has plainly stated that he considers Medicare and Social Security to be unconstitutional. He calls Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.” Ron Paul has long held that Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional. Herman Cain wants to totally eliminate Medicare and Social Security. Newt Gingrich has argued that Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs are fiscally unsustainable. He would replace Medicare and Social Security with private accounts so that seniors could save their money and pay for private health insurance. For low income seniors, he would offer vouchers similar to those offered in the Ryan budget plan.
If you are a senior citizen, or somebody who is on the brink of qualifying for Medicare, you have to ask yourself: Do you want to have Medicare abolished as the Republicans have already tried to do? Do you want to go on paying the full cost of medications after reaching the doughnut hole? Do you want the Medicare Part D program abolished? Do you want to restore the practices by insurance companies of denying coverage on account of pre-existing conditions, lifetime or annual caps, and other factors?
I would think that regardless of whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, you would strongly oppose the Republican efforts to eliminate your health benefits. You should remember this when the time comes to vote for the next president and U.S. Congress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
