Maybe you've heard this one recently. I have, and from several sources. "If you call yourself a Christian, you should be in favor of the President's health care reform!" The idea is that, in some sense, the President's approach to the question is much more "Christian" than the current approach.
This idea is baffling to me. Apparently, it is "Christian" for a government to tax its constituents -- especially, it seems, its wealthier constituents -- to pay for the health care of other constituents. It is a "Christian value" that governments are required (although at no time ever in the history of Earth or Christianity has it ever been the case) to provide health care for people. Despite the total absence in Scripture of anything that would suggest that the government needs to do this, it is "Christian" to support universal health care and "un-Christian" to support any other option. I don't get it.
Most baffling to me is that we ought to provide an answer in this case that we are forbidden to provide in any other ... a religious one. We are castigated for saying, "The Bible regards homosexual behavior as sin", but we ought (as in "morally obligated") to say, "The Bible requires that we should have the government provide health care." (Feel free to substitute "my religion" for "the Bible" in the phrases above.) So it's a kind of "The Christian ethic is allowed to play a part in the public debate when it favors our view, but not when it doesn't."
Yeah ... I don't get that at all.
14 comments:
The notion that Christians should support the plan is bizarre to me. It breaks multiple commandments (taking from others, killing (abortion), coveting).
The people who say such things miss out on the most basic thinking: Jesus told us to give our money, not someone else's.
I had fun pointing out that and other things to a false teacher here who insists that Jesus would be all over Obama's plan -- http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/08/health_care_and_the_christian.html .
Hmmm...being a Christian means forcing people (at gunpoint - that is what taxation boils down to ) to take care of others.
Doesn't sound Christian to me. How about they pony up the monet themselves and give it to the needy?
That would be more in line with what Christ would ask us to do.
Don't have time to compose a response, but the notion that taxation is "forcing people at gunpoint" is an absurd one, seeped in ignorance, and hypocrisy that such who write it, writhe oblivious the the laurels of civilization, that their lives are provided from…
Taxes are part of the social contract that is "we the people"… …it's part of living in a civil society. We stand on the shoulders of giants, we all benefit from those before us, even the least of us… And as culture and society become more interdependent and interconnected, it's not just an investment in our own to reap profit, it's, again, part of "life, liberty, and happiness"…
I got mine, let them eat cake!
I could understand those who reject Christ not caring for their brothers and sisters and embracing a creed of wanton selfishness, but fellow Christians? It's astounding to me…
I'm not exactly pleased with the tone, Naum. It isn't friendly to call fellow commenters on my blog absurd, ignorant, or hypocritical. The blind accusation of "wanton selfishness" has no merit. This is a warning.
As to the content, you said, "the notion that taxation is 'forcing people at gunpoint' is an absurd one." Tell that to the people who have failed/refused to pay taxes.
People object to having the government assume the health care burden for a variety of reasons. You think that the only reason is selfishness. You are keen to complain that people misrepresent the claims of health care reform. May I suggest that yours is a sad, 1-dimensional misrepresentation of the view of many who hold that a government-run health care system would be bad for the people. Disagree? You may. But you are guilty of what you complain about those who are skeptical of the Obama plan.
The political tactics such as this supposed conference with religious leaders is so typical of certain factions in government vying for more power over our lives. The truth is, many "Christians" have already given themselves over to their god the government, and they don’t need any more convincing to buy whatever it is they’re selling, just so long as someone else is footing the bill. Ultimately however, I think that such tactics say more about what the hosts of this conference think about religion than it does about their concern for what religion’s god, gods, goddess, goddesses, or whatever thinks about the government take over of healthcare; and it ain’t pretty!
Great post as usual by the way.
OK, help me understand here…
Health care is already a shared social responsibility…
* …medical research, education, disease prevention, treatment of military & military veterans for starters…
* …government already pays for 1/2 of health care delivered
* …without government support, existing health care system disintegrates…
* …without billions of taxpayer dollars, food would be prohibitively expensive (i.e., massive subsidies of dairy, feed grains, wheat, rice, peanuts, sugar, etc.…)
* …nor would food and goods be delivered without that massively government supported transportation infrastructure…
So you want to draw a line that says I'm OK, let them (which could be you if you and/or family member encounter a costly health condition that allows an insurance "death panel" clerk to "pull the plug" on you, even though you've faithfully always paid your premiums) eat cake…
Sorry, that's not the deed of a Christian…
You may take issue with the proposals and legislation — that it won't be effective in achieving its stated goals, or that the unintended consequences will heavily outweigh any benefits. That's discussion that should and must occur! However, that's not what I hear in dissenting…
As you know, in the UK we have had universal healthcare since WWII - something which Christians were deeply involved in designing and delivering.
The reason Christians here supported its introduction were severalfold. Firstly the OT law, included a political system in which the practical needs of the poor, oppressed and the alien were specifically guarded. They didn't have hospitals to fund - but they were (for example) required to leave gleanings for the vulnerable (many more examples could follow). Secondly, the churches who were the main providers of social care in Victorian Britain were unable to cope with the demand, and campaigned on a whole range of social care issues. Thirdly, the 'do as you would be done by' commandment was seen by richer Christians as implying that they would want healthcare if they were destitute. Fourthly it was recognized that while many poor people were indigent, more were poor through no fault of their own, but many were widows, orphans etc. Of course the Nazi bombing of the British cities in the blitz had a huge social-psychological effect in that the government had to back up the spontaneous co-operation of the masses with organised provision.
The tragedy that a good system like our NHS is abused and used for abortion is wicked. That a system can mis-used does not mean that it should not be USED.
Our family pays a lot of taxes to provide all manner of healthcare for people poorer than ourselves. Yes - it is an essential part of the 'social contract' as noted by others. More than that however, a truly Christian answer to the old question, "Am I my brothers keeper" is frankly yes.
It seems to me that the most fervent opposition to socialised medicine in the USA comes from reading the Bible through the lense of *radical* individualism which is quite alien to the scriptures.
While some people think that scripture is only law when it suits our opinions, there is more to it than that. Conservatives tend to want to enforce biblical norms on personal morality (sexuality, abortion, divorce etc), while others want to enforce biblical social norms (poverty, fair trade, healthcare). A fully "Christian" response will want to declare that Christ is Lord of ALL, and that scripture should shape what we desire for our society both corporately and individually.
Finally please note that despite the NHS, "the poor are always with us", in the world, in the streets and the need for voluntary giving both in the UK and around the world is undiminshed.
cheers
G.
Naum: "So you want to draw a line that says I'm OK, let them (which could be you if you and/or family member encounter a costly health condition that allows an insurance "death panel" clerk to "pull the plug" on you, even though you've faithfully always paid your premiums) eat cake"
You have taken issue with folks who you deemed guilty of "ignorant yelling based on ridiculous assertions". You (like all of us) desperately dislike it when your ideas are misrepresented or twisted. May I suggest that, at least in the cases of all those who I know who have concerns about the current direction of health care reform, you are guilty of these very things. You paint with a broad brush where it isn't warranted and misrepresent my concerns.
Let me address your question with a question. Is it remotely possible that a genuine, caring, concerned, thinking Christian could possibly see problems with current direction of health care reform without being a self-centered, self-serving, self-absorbed idiot? You see, the people that I know who are thinking about this stuff are not concerned about personal losses. They believe that the suggestions on the table will make things worse for everyone. That is, they are genuinely concerned for the well-being of their friends, neighbors, fellow citizens, and their country. You would do well to tone down the rhetoric, since you currently stand guilty of the very error that you deem unacceptable from the "right wing".
Naum: "However, that's not what I hear in dissenting"
It seems to be a given in our interactions that you don't hear what I'm saying. Nothing in the post to which you are commenting said, "We should not have health care reform." It's not there. Nothing I wrote said, "Christians should oppose reform." I didn't oppose health care reform or even question it in this post. What I wrote about was not reform, but asked, "In what way is it a Christian issue?" I wondered two basic questions. What does "Christian" have to do with "directing the government"? And why is it good and right now to raise the issue as a religious one when it is wrong to do so on essentially every other matter (such as "gay marriage", etc.)? You will not find anything in those two questions that says "NO" to health care reform.
Naum
Did you read the post? Stan's point was:
"The idea is that, in some sense, the President's approach to the question is much more "Christian" than the current approach."
Your comment looks like a tirade in responce to what Rush Limbaugh-a far cry from Stan-might be saying about health care reform, while ignoring what Stan actually said.
That Hideous Man,
Thank you for the well-constructed and friendly input. It is something to consider. There are a couple of points, though.
"It seems to me that the most fervent opposition to socialised medicine in the USA comes from reading the Bible through the lense of *radical* individualism which is quite alien to the scriptures."
What I read when I read my Bible is God commanding people. He holds people responsible for their choices. I don't see Him commanding governments. You mention the OT political system. That would be the only time in human history when a genuine theocracy existed, and that political system is not the same as any other political system before or since.
In the NT, we see all sorts of problems with the various political systems. Still, nothing in the New Testament ever seems to tell any Christian, "Do something about it." Nothing suggests that it was the duty of all Christians to change their political system.
I do believe that Christians are commanded to tend to the needs of the poor and oppressed. I do believe that the Church ought to be playing a role in it. You said, "the churches who were the main providers of social care in Victorian Britain were unable to cope with the demand", and that points, in my mind, to a genuine problem that we share in America -- the failure of Christians to be and do what they ought. In fact, it is my opinion that the vast majority of our health care problems here are the product of people failure, not governmental failure. To me, the solutions to the health care problem are the same types of solutions to the problem of moral failure. They are not better laws and political systems. The solutions are changed lives. So I question both the current right and responsibility of the Church to dictate to the political system what they ought to do.
I'll go a step further. An individual Christian who says, "I have a conviction that I need to take action to change something in our political system" is perfectly fine with me. I think it is good and necessary. I just have trouble with a generalized "all Christians are morally obligated to ..." when it comes to our actions in the political arena. I don't find it in the Bible, so I have trouble with it in practice.
It baffles me that you think Jesus would disapprove of taxing wealthy constituents to help people less well off. I think you're getting too caught up in politics and letting it poison your true religious values.
Aside from your christian views in public, in private, as you also don't approve of homosexuality, wouldn't you approve of government healthcare. Don't you provide an answer in the case of homosexuality?
Steve: "I think you're getting too caught up in politics and letting it poison your true religious values."
If you would, please show me the passage (any passage) where Jesus suggested what a government should do, especially in the area of taxing the rich.
I'm a little baffled by the rest of the comment. I'm not sure about the homosexual and government health care question, so I'm afraid I won't be able to answer. Sorry.
But I think I do need to post further about government and health care (etc.). So look for something in the near future.
If there's a passage specifically clearing this up I don't know of it. I meant that I didn't think Jesus would disapprove. I think Jesus saw government as something seperate and didn't try and dictate things, but as a christian wouldn't you hope that the government give money from the rich (like us) to those in need? Just like you'd hope for other things, even if laws based on religion aren't really right. I hope I'm making sense.
I'm genuinely interested in how you see this.
Steve: "I think Jesus saw government as something separate and didn't try and dictate things ..."
This has been my point all along. Government is not proscribed in the Bible. We don't see anything suggesting "A democracy is the best form of government" or anything like it. Nor is an economic system laid out. You won't find capitalism hailed in the Bible. So arguing about what kind of government we should have or what kind of economic system we should use would fall outside matters considered "Christian".
Jesus believed in morality. The suggestion that "the government give money from the rich (like us) to those in need" isn't supported in Scripture. It is supported, I suppose, in Robin Hood lore. It is supported in the feelings of many, especially the economically disadvantaged. But the idea that a society is best served by having the government forceably take money from those who have it to give to those who don't is not a Christian ("Christ-like") virtue. The virtue is found when people who have something to offer voluntarily give to those who have need. Do you see the difference?
Post a Comment