Dover New Hampshire religious leaders call on Gregg to move forward with health care debate

Leading up to the vote, Gregg reportedly said Republicans will attempt to filibuster the bill if it resembles what passed the House. After the vote he criticized it for creating a “new multitrillion dollar entitlement program that massively grows the size and role of the federal government, significantly increases taxes, especially on small businesses, and cuts Medicare by over a trillion dollars.”

Nine faiths were represented by the 15 religious leaders, which included rabbis, priests and pastors, including, from Dover, Rabbi Larry Karol of Dover Temple Israel; the Rev. Susan Garrity of St. Thomas Episcopal Church; the Rev. Mark Monson Alley of St. John’s Methodist Church; Dr. Julian Olivier, chaplain at Wentworth Douglass Hospital; and the Rev. Kendra Ford of First Unitarian Universalist Society of Exeter.

“As religious leaders, we affirm that all human life is sacred. We affirm our moral obligation to provide for the basic needs of all people, including food, clothing, shelter, legal protection and medical care,” they wrote in the letter. “We affirm the equal, just and impartial treatment of all people. … As religious leaders, we recognize that we are all morally bound to work for equal access to health care.”

Read it all.

Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, --The 2009 American Health Care Reform Debate, Health & Medicine, Politics in General, Religion & Culture, Senate

2 comments on “Dover New Hampshire religious leaders call on Gregg to move forward with health care debate

  1. Brian of Maryland says:

    Morally bound to provide access … I’m sure that means they currently contribute heavily to a local medical clinic. If not, well, then we know this is really about stealing money from others to support their moral outrage.

  2. Todd Granger says:

    [blockquote]As religious leaders, we affirm that all human life is sacred.[/blockquote]

    Really? And they support a bill that mandates federal funding for abortions?

    Or is this part of their statement really just a rhetorical flourish, just so much progressive moralistic cant?