Analysis of communication

I miss the days when disagreement was not treated as evil. Many in Twitter and on the left attribute the worst motives to those who disagree with them on complex issues.

The Trump administration rolls back Obama era transgender health care protections. Section 1557 of the ACA “prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability in certain health programs and activities.” A rule enacted in 2016 interpreted the ban on sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity, building on similar interpretations in other federal civil rights laws and court rulings, and termination of pregnancy.

But the US Department of HHS said in a statement Friday that it was eliminating “certain provisions of the 2016 Rule that exceeded the scope of the authority delegated by Congress in Section 1557. HHS will enforce Section 1557 by returning to the government’s interpretation of sex discrimination according to the plain meaning of the word ‘sex’ as male or female and as determined by biology.”

Jesus says, “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak” (Mt. 12:36)

There is definitely a place for reining in bad interpretative principles. There is a right and wrong way for providing health care protections for our neighbors. Stretching or redefining the meaning of a word from its authors’ original intent would be wrong. This method is part of what exceeding the scope of authority delegated by Congress in Section 1557 looks like.

If we want to provide healthcare protections for our neighbors, we have to do it the right way: draft a bill with the explicit words involved, pass it through both parts of Congress and have the president sign it.

As for the Juneteenth controversy, senior Trump campaign adviser Katrina Pierson said in a statement Thursday, “as the party of Lincoln, Republicans are proud of the history of Juneteenth.” I wish people would assume innocence until proven guilty, and not be so quick to assume malice in the intentions of our political leaders.

We should hold everyone accountable for their words. If I see contrary opinions on the same subject with respect to intentions, the burden of proof is generally on the people assuming malice. Sure political leaders can feign innocence in their words, intentions, and actions, but critics can also be guilty of assuming the guilt of someone with poor, little to no evidence available.

Yet in our right desire for justice, we should also recognize our need for grace, forgiveness, and repentance.

If God lived by “eye for an eye,” He could have ended the story of humanity with our original parents after they committed divine treason against Him.
Instead, He has been restraining His righteous anger against us out of great love for us.

For He so loved a world that hated and rejected Him that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s