the pandas are moshing

+ Luke 10

bellatoris:

azspot:

bellatoris:

I find it interesting that the same people who argue for distinct separation of church and state are often the same ones who are raising the notion that opposition to universal health care in unbiblical. On the other hand, I would argue (as partially supported by the post below) that the responsibility for caring for the poor and needy is specifically non-governmental and rather falls in the realm of the church’s role. If there is an argument to be made here, it is that the church has failed its responsibility - not that government should take over its role, nor that seeking other answers to the question than government intervention is a biblical failure.

To be an advocate for health care for all and adhere to a belief in the separation of church and state is no way whatsoever a contradiction. It’s about alleviating injustice… and finding common ground with people of all walks of faith — liberal, conservative, progressive, independent, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or freethinker.

Moreover, the church in America has failed even to create honest disciples of Jesus way, let alone care for the poor and sick. Left to such charity, many elderly would be scrounging for tidbits and starving in the streets, like happened in the age that preceded New Deal reforms.

[…] How can we react by saying government is the answer? If the church, who is said to be doing God’s work, is failing the call, how can the government, who is not believed to be led by God, succeed?

I know there will be humanitarian arguments for secular charity.  I know there will be arguments for using government in conjunction with religion to accomplish religion’s goal.  I am merely suggesting that Jesus’ call is not to transform social classes through legislative wealth redistribution.  Jesus said that his disciples would be known by their love for one another, not by how progressive their society is.  I think liberals often fall into the trap of expressing the need for government to fill the role of the church, much in the same way that conservatives often fall into the trap of not expressing the need for personal giving.

My response:

First of all, I completely reject your argument that caring for the poor and needy is “religion’s goal” and by implication not the government’s. Why should the government NOT concern itself with the health of its citizens (which really translates to the ability of its citizens to afford and access quality healthcare)? You only have to look at an extreme case like Africa to see that epidemic, famine and malourishment, high infant mortality, short lifespan, high prevalence of treatable diseases like malaria, lack of sanitation (clean water, latrines), etc, affect things that you may agree that the government should have a role in. These are not problems in isolation. It is folly to think that these are issues that the government should not try to address, or that “the church” — whatever that is — has the capacity and resources to solve such SYSTEMIC problems. And that is assuming that the church even wants to.

Similarly, do you not think that an aging baby boomer population has an effect on the economy of the United States?  We are not talking about just “the poor and needy” here but about many middle-class people who will find that their deteriorating health will create a great financial burden — not just on themselves, but also on the next generation and the whole system, not just on Christians, but on all US citizens, including people of many different faiths.

Pointing out that some of the people who believe in separation of church also suggest that opposition to universal health care is unbiblical leads you to examine “Jesus’ call” — which frankly, is just a straw man in this debate. You premise your argument on religious interpretations when so many Americans are NOT Christian and would find your argument irrelevant. At any point, the church could refuse to treat non-believers — and if it did, that is the church’s own decision. Furthermore, the church will inevitably dispense treatment in accordance with its own ideology — and what if that ideology does not align with public health agendas, or discriminates against who will receive treatment? The Pope himself has promoted the idea that condoms are ineffective against STDs — which, again, is the Catholic Church’s own prerogative. But under Bush, PEPFAR did not fund needle exchange programs, and heavily favored abstinence programs, as a result of lobbying by religious organizations. Do you think that those decisions did not affect non-Christians?

What I think people are REALLY commenting about is the level of hypocrisy and irony we’re seeing. This is not about what is or is not Jesus’ way, but about a church that seems too busy advocating against abortion and gay marriage to dedicate itself to addressing the reality that many sick people literally cannot afford to get better. What would Jesus have felt about priests telling their flock to go to the polls to vote against gay marriage?  Maybe you should break it down for us.