Christian principles in election 2008
The National Council of Churches offers a list of principles to direct Christians in assessing candidates. This is a list that some would simply call, “interesting.” Among them are the following:
1. War is contrary to the will of God. While the use of violent force may, at times, be a necessity of last resort, Christ pronounces his blessing on the peacemakers.
2. God calls us to live in communities shaped by peace and cooperation. We reject policies that abandon large segments of our inner city and rural populations to hopelessness.
3. God created us for each other, and thus our security depends on the well-being of our global neighbors. We look for political leaders for whom a foreign policy based on cooperation and global justice is an urgent concern.
4. God calls us to be advocates for those who are most vulnerable in our society. We look for political leaders who yearn for economic justice and who will seek to reduce the growing disparity between rich and poor.
5. Each human being is created in the image of God and is of infinite worth. We look for political leaders who actively promote racial justice and equal opportunity for everyone.
6. The earth belongs to God and is intrinsically good. We look for political leaders who recognize the earth’s goodness, champion environmental justice, and uphold our responsibility to be stewards of God’s creation.
7. Christians have a biblical mandate to welcome strangers. We look for political leaders who will pursue fair immigration policies and speak out against xenophobia.
8. Those who follow Christ are called to heal the sick. We look for political leaders who will support adequate, affordable and accessible health care for all.
9. Because of the transforming power of God’s grace, all humans are called to be in right relationship with each other. We look for political leaders who seek a restorative, not retributive, approach to the criminal justice system and the individuals within it.
10. Providing enriched learning environments for all of God’s children is a moral imperative. We look for political leaders who will advocate for equal educational opportunity and abundant funding for children’s services.
Here’s the translation of these “Christian” principles: (1) Supporting the “War on Terror” in the Middle East is against Jesus’ teachings. (2) Class warfare is the best way to help the truly disadvantaged. (3) Cower to will of smaller, less complex nations. (4) Wealth is sinful and should be obliterated and redistributed by the coercive use of government regulatory force. (5) Seek equality at all costs even if it creates more injustice and inequality in the long-run. (6) Environmental justice? Does this mean put the needs of frogs over humans? Clams and kids have the same ontological value. (7) Open the borders to immigrants without any regard to the need for law and encourage enjoying the benefit of social services without any obligation to contribute to the pot. (8) Universal health care is the only “Christian” view of health care. (9) Do not keep people in jail for committing crimes. It’s not their fault. (10) Expand funding for America’s failed public education system because throwing cash on a fire will put it out.
If you could develop a list of Christian principles in an election year for Christians, what type of principles should be on the list and why?
















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top88 Comments to “Christian principles in election 2008”
Item 4 will definitely alienate those committed to unlimited abortion at any time for any reason. Abortion truly impoverishes our most vulnerable by robbing them of their one and only possession: their lives!
Report comment to moderator
Item 5: racial justice means exactly what??? Quotas, set-asides? Did we finally ditch Dr King’s goal of a colorblind society??
Report comment to moderator
The list could have been shortened to one item. IOW, vote Democrat.
Report comment to moderator
These sound like basic Democrat talking points. I wonder if Barak Obama had such notions in mind when he said last October addressing an evangelical congregation in South Carolina:
“I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God . . . We’re going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.” (Senator Barak Obama, October 7, 2007, in South Carolina).
Questions:
Did Sen. Obama ever get grilled much for conveying his theocratic sense of mission to be “an instrument of God?”
Was this Democrat candidate ever called a threat to the U.S. Constitution?
Has anyone accused him of being more of a theocrat than a Democrat?
It seemed to me that he pretty much got a free ride—a ride that a Republican would have paid dearly for, without end.
Report comment to moderator
Ah the Socialist, I mean Social, Gospel Manifesto.
I’d be happy with just one:
1. God calls on His people to be honest. We look for political leaders that say what they mean, mean what they say, walk the talk, and talk the walk.
Report comment to moderator
These are all so broad one can hardly argue, but the devil is in the details as they say.
Yes, I’m for “economic justice,” I’m just not real big on welfare or unions.
Report comment to moderator
Always beware of “principles” that no one can disagree with, but are so vague as to mean nothing, and allow everything.
Report comment to moderator
The NCC is not a Christian organization anymore.
It appears to be an arm of the DNC (and have lawyers working hard to twist Christian doctirnes with just enough falsehood tossed in to make it look like staight ticket D voting is mandated).
Report comment to moderator
Post 2
No sawgunner — it’s the simple things. Did you know that for treatment the pain related to kidney stones more than seventy percent of white patients received narcotics while 56 percent of their follow citizens who happen to be black did not? The simple things.
Report comment to moderator
So many prime targets in this post, but the one that strikes me the greatest is that Anthony has absolutely no clue what environmental justice is. Despite being a term of art with an understood meaning established by decades of political activists, Anthony would rather make an non sequitur crack about frogs than google it!
Tip: go to google and enter– define:”environmental justice”
You’ll get 10 legitimate definitions that will help you interpret number 6.
It might seem like I’m jumping on you Anthony, but really I think your lack of effort to understand the terminology of conscious people underscores the invalidity of your interpretation of the NCOC’s recommendations.
Report comment to moderator
Can Antony Bradley or anyone else try to use biblical arguments to counter any of these points. If not maybe you need a change of heart in the way you regard democrats.
Report comment to moderator
There’s definitely a problem with #6. The earth is not “intrinsically good”. It was CREATED a perfect world, but when humans sinned they threw that out the window (Romans 8:19-25). Now everything, including humans, is born sinful.
2,4, and especially 8 have “Hillary” written all over them.
Report comment to moderator
“(4) Wealth is sinful and should be obliterated and redistributed by the coercive use of government regulatory force.”
Jesus asked to sell all your possesions pick up your cross and follow him.
Everything mention up there is in sound Biblical doctrine, so christians take a good look at Jesus and realize that republican doesn’t equal christian
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, don’t get it. The Christian principles sound pretty good, but the “translation” is “satire”?
Example: #9: We look for political leaders who seek a restorative, not retributive, approach to the criminal justice system and the individuals within it.
and from that you get???? Do not keep people in jail for committing crimes. It’s not their fault.
Jail is there to punish, but also to rehabilitate. Many times the person committing the crime is “damaged”. Why not train a criminal to become a plumber or machinist. Teaching them a trade, in the long run, is more helpful and probably cheaper than just putting them in a cage for a certain amount of time and then letting them out to do more damage. At least with a trade they have an opportunity. It might be the first one in their entire life.
ALSO: Supporting the “War on Terror” in the Middle East is against Jesus’ teachings.
Yes and no. If we had gotten Bin Laden and destroyed the Taliban, then it would have been an eye for an eye. Letting Bin Laden go and invading another another country? How did that help anything? All we did was become a recruiting tool for Al Queda.
The other translations make just as much sense. However, the principles are sound.
Report comment to moderator
As Adios said in #6, most of these I can agree with in principle, but suspect I would disagree on as to the practical application of the word “justice.”
As to each point:
#1 Yes, Christ blesses the peacemakers. But there is a long history of the concept of “just war” that can be part of making peace in a just way. I don’t know whether we’ll ever know the truth about who knew what when in regards to justifying the invasion of Iraq, but in principle I do not see an inherent conflict between making peace and fighting a war.
#2 Nothing in the statement to disagree with on the face of it. But details of the “policies” referred to would open lots of discussion.
#3 Same as above. What is “global justice”?
#4 Yes to the first sentence. But what constitutes “economic justice” and why is the disparity between rich and poor necessarily evil? Would you rather I have $100 and you have $50, or I have $5000 and you have $1000?
#5 I’m not sure a finite being can have infinite worth, but if it means the worth can’t be measured in monetary terms I agree. Of course the disagreement will come up as to what policies are appropriate to promote racial justice and equal opportunity.
#6 What is “environment justice”? Other than that, I agree, but expect disagreements on specific measures to take to bring it about.
#7 Agree in principle, might disagree as to what would be fair policies. On the whole I support making immigration easier.
#8 No objection to the principle as stated. I wish I knew a good practical way to put it into practice.
#9 I agree. I think Chuck Colson has written some good things on this subject.
#10 Similar to #8. Education has the added complications of balancing the responsibility of parents and of the larger society, as well as [balancing] the importance of learning practical skills and also passing on to the next generation what is best of the ideas of the past.
Report comment to moderator
#10
Luke,
Yes, I guess I should look it up, as well as spelling it properly (environmental justice). But despite having grown up in a home where my mother regularly sent letters to legislators and other influential people on behalf of the environment, I never learned the term or its standard definitions.
Report comment to moderator
1. A just war is sometimes necessary. War should be waged with a strategy for the swiftest victory possible. This will save more lives and untold suffering as opposed to a drawn out, incremental war. Our troops on the field are to be supported.
2. We reject policies that abandon large segments of hard working Americans to a life of providing for slackers. “He who shall not work, shall not eat.”
3. We look for political leaders for whom a foreign policy based on authentic, visionary and principled advocation of the rights and responsibilities of mankind is paramount.
4. God calls us to be advocates for those who are most vulnerable in our society (the fatherless and widow). We look for political leaders who yearn for economic justice and put an end to wealth redistribution, robbing the productive to subsidize the wicked. We advocate for the right to life of unborn, elderly, and handicapped persons.
5. Each human being is created in the image of God and is of great worth. We look for political leaders who actively promote racial justice (avoiding the active racism inherent in quotas and “hate crimes”) and equal opportunity for everyone.
6. The earth belongs to God. We are its stewards. We oppose any abuse of the environment, including the current imposition of mercury-laden CFLs on the general population, the misreporting of normal weather patterns to generate hysteria and confiscatory taxation, and enforced “recycling” that actually pollutes more than it helps.
7. Christians have a biblical mandate to welcome strangers. We also have a biblical mandate to provide security for our people. We call for fair immigration policies that are actively enforced.
8. We oppose any form of socialized medicine, which has been proven time and time again to cause more death, earlier death, and more suffering. To have a nation where a dog can get an MRI in a day while a cancer victim must wait six months (Canada) or elderly with high BMIs can not get hip replacements (England), sentencing our own citizens to a death or a life of suffering, is incompatible with a Christian profession.
9. Civil justice is laid out explicitly in God’s word. We implore our nation to heed it. Restitution in theft type cases and the death penalty in cases of murder and forcible rape should be the main features of our judicial system. We are innocent until proven guilty. Two or three witnesses must be used for conviction. Jails and prisons should be humane and single cell only.
10. Education is the obligation and privilege of a child’s parents. Each child should be educated in the way each child’s parents see fit, without hindrance or interference on the part of the state, with the exception of alleged child abuse, which should be investigated like any other alleged crime.
Report comment to moderator
Bradley’s assessment is just about right.
Few Christians will argue with the opening sentence of each of the ten principles. The National Council of Churches (NCC) can read the general Biblical principles as well as anybody—just open the Bible and read the words.
However, what those Biblical principles in action mean to the NCC is an entirely different matter. Even the devil can quote Scripture and then twist it inside out to promote his own agenda.
Bradley’s description of the NCC agenda as it relates to those Biblical principles is spot on. They ceased being a voice of genuine Christianity decades ago. They now speak for someone else.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline- Re: number 6
See post number 10 and follow advice!
Report comment to moderator
Marie (#17) describes those Christian principles in action—good job Marie.
The NCC, in contrast, is a fraud.
Report comment to moderator
Fusion – Nothing in there can find a basis in the Bible, until one gets to the NCC’s twist on what to do politically (which will inevitably undermine Christians and promote atheist/socialist goals).
Report comment to moderator
Opps – that should be “can’t find a basis”
Report comment to moderator
I resent any church telling me who to vote for whether republican or democrat. I once caused the biggest stink in my church because a member got the membership roster and sent out letters asking us to vote for a specific candidate and made reference back to our church and that he was a member.
Report comment to moderator
It’s kind of funny to see Christians arguing against Biblical principles due to the suspicion that they might also be Democratic party principles.
I endorse comment #13.
Report comment to moderator
#13: Jesus asked to sell all your possesions pick up your cross and follow him.
Get him to lead and I’ll follow. But, show him to me. I want to see him. Not the imaginary him, the real him in flesh and blood. I want to shake are real flesh and blood hand. Something tangible.
Report comment to moderator
#21 “until one gets to the NCC’s twist on what to do politically (which will inevitably undermine Christians and promote atheist/socialist goals).”
It would be hard for you or me to prove that all atheist are leftist, as Chris Hitchens, the well known anti-theist is politically conservative.
In regards to socialist goals, I don’t believe that democracy is a Christian concept at all, no government form described in the bible whether Jewish or even the Kingdom of heaven describes a democracy. Hence, I don’t see how Christians are undermined unless voting democratic advertently leads to the persecution of saints.
Report comment to moderator
#25.
To do that you are just going to have to wait till he comes back again (according to the bible). And for now Christians have His portrayal in the bible to model their lives after.
Report comment to moderator
KIM,
The NCC isn’t telling you who to vote for either.
Report comment to moderator
Fusion – Socialism clearly isn’t a Christian form of government either (one is to give cheerfuly and serve willingly and personally, not have everything taken by a confiscatory government and fob off service on uncaring bureaucrats).
Voting Democratic – for the current Democratic Party (if those votes carry) will inevitably lead to persecutuon of the saints.
Report comment to moderator
#29 “Voting Democratic – for the current Democratic Party (if those votes carry) will inevitably lead to persecutuon of the saints.”
could you kindly explain this theory.
Report comment to moderator
#29 – “Voting Democratic – for the current Democratic Party (if those votes carry) will inevitably lead to persecutuon of the saints.”
Perhaps. If so, it would not be a new development in history.
But it is more of a sure bet to say that “Voting Democratic – for the current Democratic Party (if those votes carry) will inevitably lead to persecutuon of the Boy Scouts.”
Report comment to moderator
#27: To do that you are just going to have to wait till he comes back again
You don’t seriously believe that do you? If it hasn’t happened in two thousand years, why would it ever? How come all the magical things were recorded by primative people? Nothing magical has happened in over a thousand years.
Report comment to moderator
25 – It will happen, RDean. I promise. You will see Jesus in the flesh someday. As Chris Daughtry sings – “Be careful what you wish for – ’cause you might just get it all…”
Report comment to moderator
re #32:
Rdean,
As long as my belief system doesn’t hurt others or interfere with their human rights, it shouldn’t matter if I decide to believe in the existence of unicorns or extraterrestrials (I actually believe in the latter). Man isn’t a purely logical being. Hence, I choose to believe that there is another facet to our mere existence. I decided to admire and associate my self with personality and actions of Jesus because it is based on love (sadly, He has been used by others to further their goals outside this concept). Whatever time period He decides to return is His decision and not my primary focus. Belief in miracles or acts of magic as you name it, is up to your persuasion. But many things happen everyday that defy logic. while there are other things whose workings aren’t visible to the naked eye, but we see the results and appreciate them and also call them miracles.
Report comment to moderator
“The Conservative Christian Principals in Election 2008″
1. War is God’s way of “thinning the heard”. Thou shalt be in favor of it at all times.
2. God call us to live in our own little world,
and keep the “riff-raff” away (with guns if necessary).
3. God created America to be his “Bully in Abstentia” around the world. Don’t talk to people – slap ‘em around!
4. God call us to be advocates for those who are well off in our society. If a person is poor, it’s their own damn fault.
5. Each human being is created in the image of God and is of infinite worth. It’s just that some human beings are worth more than others (Americans, Christians, straights, etc.).
6. The earth belong to man to do with as he sees fit. The sooner he destroys it the sooner Jesus can return. Get busy!
7. Conservative Christians have a mandate to shoot strangers on sight and ask questions later. If everyone behaved like the Good Samaritan, the world would be a pretty crappy place. Don’t even think about it.
8. Conservative Christians look for a leader who will advocate for health care for all who can afford it. The rest should pray to God for mercy on their immortal soul before they slip into eternity outside the doors of the emergency room.
9. Because everyone who is charged with a crime is guilty (of something), we look for a judicial system that mirrors our image of God: without mercy. No appeals, no second chances.
10. Because education leads people to question the authority of God, we oppose efforts that increase education, especially among the masses. Children are property.
*****
Anthony,
See how easy it is to stereotype unfairly?
Report comment to moderator
About #10 – people who think like you do believe children are property too. YOUR property.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Unlike your strawman list, the list in Anthony’s post was not sarcastic. Neither was it created by Anthony, but by the NCC.
Who’s stereotyping?
Please go back to pretending to be polite and fun-loving.
Report comment to moderator
TRR,
Go back and read Anthony “interpretation” of the NCC’s principles. That’s what I responded to.
Report comment to moderator
I did. I was wrong.
You were wrong too.
Call it even.
Report comment to moderator
TRR,
I made my points sarcastically to show how ridiculous Anthony’s “interpretation” was. I acknowledged that mine are stereotypes. So how am I wrong?
Report comment to moderator
blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
from daughter of hrw
(evil giggle)
Report comment to moderator
whaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
(evil laugh)
Report comment to moderator
And yet again she’s banned from the computer.
Christ summarized the 10 commandments into two. You would think the NCC would follow his lead.
Many people here frequently complain that serious discussion is hindered by the presence of non-evangelicals. When presented with a series of principles which counter their perception of Christian political principles, not only are the posters here dismissive — “their not really Christian anyway” — even the original writer deems the principles worthy of nothing but contempt and at best sarcasm. In some ways, their response was no different than my daughters.
Report comment to moderator
I have frequently pointed out the incompatibility of Christianity and capitalism on core issues, however, I would also agree that Christianity cannot be equated with socialism. Clearly, Christianity and any religion for that matter should develop their own principles. Yet as the primary season begins in the US, I find many here dismissive of an attempt to assert Christian values and quite content to support neo-con economic ideas.
An other decidedly different Christian group attempted to write out Christian principles for the election season. For the most part they are far to general and mean everything and nothing, but fleshed out they could’ve provided an interesting basis for debate.
Instead the principles are ignored and the concept itself is attacked because of its root or origin. A mild version of ad hominium. Bradley flippant responses assumes that since its the NCC, that he can divine what they really meant. Therefore he reads welcome strangers, fair immigration and against xenophobia and infers open immigration and no rules. He reads adequate, affordable, and accessible healthcare and infers “universal”. Perhaps a back handed admission that universal is the best means but his inference and tone suggest not a willingness to discuss but rather put down.
BTW “thier not …. in my last post should have been “they’re not ….
Report comment to moderator
SERIOUS QUESTION: I got an email from a friend tonight talking about the church Obama attends and that they support Africa but no where say anything about the US and that to be a member you have to be black. While I would normally hit delete and not worry about it, I would like to know if any of you got this. I don’t know how to research it myself. My inclination is to chalk this up to more dirty politics but I would like to know how to respond on this. I tend to like him even though I will not be voting for him.
Report comment to moderator
#44, “I have frequently pointed out the incompatibility of Christianity and capitalism on core issues.”
And you have frequently been incorrect.
Captialism does depend on people’s willingness to work and that willingness is hugely biblical.
Capitalism thrives when people make good-faith mutual transactions wherein both parties have their need met. It facilitates millions of free market win-win scenarios every day.
Capitalism is the best and most pervasive cure for poverty yet known to man.
But as people are not perfect, so it is with capitalism.
I would also go so far as to say that Christianity can thrive under any number of different economic systems. Wherever repentance of sin is possible, that culture is potentially compatible with Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
#45
Kim,
The best place I know of to look for accuate info on such claims is snopes.com. I just checked it, and they are still looking into that one and don’t have further info yet. (But the page showing that is dated today, so it appears to be something they’re looking into currently.)
My guess is that it’s taking some facts and spinning them to imply something quite different. For instance, most church web site are not going to make mention of America by name. Why would they need to? They’ll tell about their doctrine, their programs, their staff, missions they support, how to find them and how to contact them. Not mentioning America on your website doesn’t necessarily say a thing about your attitude toward your country.
Report comment to moderator
Christianity isn’t about economic systems.
Report comment to moderator
I think a big part of our problem in this discussion is that the left does not distinguish between individual actions and actions by government. On the one hand they accuse the right of wanting a Theocracy, and then turn around and lambast them for not applying “Christian” principles in government.
Christianity isn’t about government either.
Report comment to moderator
And you have frequently been incorrect.
My perception of reality has never been incorrect according to my perception.
Captialism does depend on people’s willingness to work and that willingness is hugely biblical.
All economic systems depend on people’s willingness to work. Capitalism specifically requires a minimal state to enforce contracts and recognize property rights. It’s growth oriented and motivated by greed and self interest; those satisfied with less are counterproductive to growth oriented capitalism.
Capitalism thrives when people make good-faith mutual transactions wherein both parties have their need met. It facilitates millions of free market win-win scenarios every day.
Capitalism thrives when contract law is respected and enforced. When contracts and property rights are infringed because of corruption, threats and intimidation, insider trading etc, capitalism suffers. The winners and losers depend on the contract and the market at a particular time. Not everyone wins.
Capitalism is the best and most pervasive cure for poverty yet known to man.
The greatest increase in living standards occurred in the post WWII period facilitated by the social democratic governments of western Europe and the expansion of the New Deal in post war America. Since the mid-70s when capitalism and the neo-cons began to re-assert themselves, living standards for the middle class have stalled or fallen. Especially with a lack of ideological competition, neo-cons have employed the rhetoric of invincibility and inevitability in their attempt to dismantle the social democratic state.
Report comment to moderator
#48 and 49
If you read philosophers/theologians such as Kuyper, Dooyeweer and I’m assuming Van Til, you would understand that each sphere of human existence can be reformed/redeemed by a Christian approach. Obviously I’m not a proponent, but I agree that one’s core belief systems should influence each area or sphere of their lives. For if you don’t extend your core beliefs to each facet in your life, they are not truly core beliefs. However, the caveat here is that the institutions of each sphere need not and should not intersect. Therefore, you should have Christian labour unions, Christian schools, Christian political parties etc but not run by any set denomination only by Christian individuals.
By inserting your core beliefs into various spheres, a Christian should have a Christian view of economics not a capitalist (classical liberal) view. Hence, the NCC’s vague principles could be used as good starting place to flesh out Christian applications not be rhetorically dismissed with neo-con like slogans.
Take this a natural conclusion, a Christian individual would then take Christian principles to the political arena. In acting out Christian principles, he’s not establishing a theocracy especially if he realizes compromise with other people, whose core beliefs are different, is the only way civil government can function.
The difference between individual actions and government actions is the plural nature of the latter. Made of various groups of people, governments naturally have to compromise. If as an individual you hold beliefs so strongly that any idea of compromise strikes you with mortal dread, than politics is not an appropriate activity.
Neo-concservatives and their allies frequently argue for the impersonal nature of the government and its position as a separate entity apart from the people. In this they are wrong for they fail to note that the government is the people.
Report comment to moderator
#45: the church Obama attends and that they support Africa but no where say anything about the US and that to be a member you have to be black.
I guess that’s better than the 8% of America that believes he’s Arabian because of the Fix News smear. Typical Republican strategy. I never heard of a “black only church”. Many Churches discriminate against all kinds of people, so it obviously wouldn’t be a suprise.
#34: As long as my belief system doesn’t hurt others or interfere with their human rights
Obviously, that means you are not going to stand in the way of gay rights and believe science should be taught in public schools unsullied by the occult?
#33: You will see Jesus in the flesh someday.
Many people don’t even believe that he even existed. Dead people don’t come back. It’s never happened, it never will happen. There is no such thing as mysticism or the supernatural. If you can prove a single occult happening, then suddenly, everything else is possible. But since the beginning of the age of science, cons from the mystical have been debunked over and over again.
Report comment to moderator
OK…..obviously the National Council of Churches has no understanding of man’s free will to start war. Of course it’s not God’s will, but God allows humanity the power of choice to accept His values or reject those same values. And sometimes, military personnel are used to keep the peace. Real peace comes from knowing Jesus as savior.
The NCC’s #8: [b] Those who follow Christ are called to heal the sick. We look for political leaders who will support adequate, affordable and accessible health care for all.[/b]sounds like socialized medicine like they have in Canada.
Methinks after reading the “translation” of the NCC ideas, they ought to leave us voters alone and let us decide how we will choose a candidate. Happy 2008 to you all.
Report comment to moderator
Justus331,
Well it would be nice for conservatives in general and conservative Christians in particular to come up with a real concrete plan (not slogans) that addresses the tens of millions of Americans without medical insurance. Many of them cannot afford the insurance or they cannot get the insurance at all because of pre-exiting conditions. I’ve yet to see any concrete solutions from the conservative Christian community to this national problem.
Yes, I know that Christians help people. But this is a problem of such a massive scale that no church or denomination wants to take it on. In the meantime, tens of thousands of their fellow citizens are financially ruined by medical bills they cannot pay. Sit in a hospital waiting room with a family weeping because they have no insurance to pay for an operation that will save their child. Sit in an attorney’s office and watch a husband weep as he signs over the deed to the only home he and his wife have lived in to pay for her long-term care. The number one cause of bankruptcy in America is medical bills.
I generally find that people ignore a problem until it hits them personally. Those of us with a nice income, a stead job, health insurance, and relatively good health tend to think it will never happen to us. But it does to families every day.
Since neither individuals nor churches have the resources or the will to deal with the massive problems related to health care, insurance, and financial ruin, we turn to the next best source – government assistance.
I suppose there is one other option. Just let people die. Let them go hungry. Let them suffer in sickness and in pain. Ignore their cries for help. I know plenty of people who advocate this, some of them Christians even. The believe we have absolutely no responsibility for our fellow human beings. It’s basically “every man for himself” and to heck with everyone else.
Well, Christian or not, we all do have a responsibility for our fellow man, to take care of the sick and the poor. We have a moral obligation in these matters. The conservative philosophy that says “it’s every man for himself” is morally bankrupt. To see some Christians embrace that kind of selfish, immoral thinking is disappointing.
Again, what are the concrete plans from conservatives and Christians to take care of the tens of millions of Americans without insurance?
Report comment to moderator
Christianity and socialism do not mix. Socialism requires the oppressive taxation of the majority to fund the ideas of a ruling class. No man can sit under his own vine and fig tree, figuratively speaking, when he’s busy making brick for Pharoah’s palaces, or the Senator Byrd Memorial Park, or what have you.
Theft is expressly and consistently forbidden in Scripture. So is trespass of any kind. Private property laws are scrupulously upheld.
God’s directive to one man (not the entire church) to sell what he had and follow Him had to do with that man’s heart, which was hung up on money. We may have to do the same, or not. But we are none of us commanded to sell all we have. We are commanded to be good stewards of it. We are to be honest, hard working, and charitable.
The source of charity, biblically speaking, is the family and the church. Not the state.
Report comment to moderator
Acts 4:32-37
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.
There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Report comment to moderator
Marie and Justus: The problem I have with the attitude you’re expressing is what Anlir describes in #54.
Lack of health insurance is a real problem. It’s not part of some “liberal agenda” and it’s not a myth. The types of cases he describes really happen, every day. I know one person who is directly affected by this situation, and on a national scale, it’s millions.
The church can’t address this problem. A church might be able to help a few people with a few bills, but does not have the infrastructure or the organization or, frankly, the will to meet the need on the scale it exists. And churches are not all willing to help people who don’t share their beliefs (although some are.)
Yet when someone proposes a government solution — an entity that does have the infrastructure and the organization to do it — you all invoke the specter of “socialism” and stand opposed to any effort to help.
So what are the people who lack health insurance supposed to do? Just suffer, I guess.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
First, on a recent thread, you falsely accused me of lying and then lacked a shread of integrity by refusing to retract it when you knew you were dead wrong.
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote, “My perception of reality has never been incorrect according to my perception.”
There is yet another sign of a lack of molral integrity–the refusal or inability to admit that you or your perception has ever been incorrect or wrong.
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote; “All economic systems depend on people’s willingness to work.”
But capitalism provides far more incentive to work to a wider array of people. Some economic systems actually mitigate against the willingness to work for many in the system.
What is universal in all economic systems is greed. Captialism works most effectively against human greed because it motivates more workers to take on a “May I help you?” attitdue in their work, since their success depends on helping the customer.
Corruption does hurt any economic system, but history proves that corruption is most rampant and destructive under communist and socialist systems.
Capitalism is by far the best and most pervasive cure for poverty yet known to man.
You are simply incorrect the social democratic governments of western Europe and the New Deal. The New Deal extended the Great Depression for a decade. It was WW2 that finally pulled us out of the Great Depression and huge unemployment rates.
The greatest rise in living standardes has clearly been in free market capitalist countries where a base of Christianity was strong enough to provide decent values and an honest work ethic.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG askede, “So what are the people who lack health insurance supposed to do? Just suffer, I guess.”
They will suffer MORE in a government run system run on the false presumption that health care is an absolute right on a one-way-street of provision. To believe that health care is an absolute right is to deprive us all of an effective system built on shared human responsibility and reciprocity. More people will suffer in a system wherin people become ‘health wards’ of the state and have no reason to participate fairly in the remuneration process.
And the church does have a key role to play in the process as well as other private institutions. Less people suffer under limited government.
Report comment to moderator
A superficial look at capitalism sees it only as a framework for greed and selfishness (as if other systems were somehow free of these). Actually, it thrives on “trust” for its function and good service for its survival.
Voluntary transactions in a free market economy tend to bring progress to both parties in the deal. Each side wants what the other has to offer. Both win when the exchange is made as both parties act in a measure of good faith.
It’s the good faith that can be the rub. That’s why any economic system needs an inherent base of solid moral values and virtues to succeed.
Report comment to moderator
Will someone please explain to this ignorant outsider why so many Americans don’t like what you call ’socialised’ medicine?
Report comment to moderator
#54: tens of millions of Americans without medical insurance
The real problem here is the bait and switch of the Republicans. People on this site don’t understand exactly who these uninsured are. You see, the poor are automatically insured. If that’s true, which it is, who are these tens of millions of uninsured?
For many middle class families, their insurance from their employer only covers the worker and NOT the children. You see, it’s the CHILDREN that are uninsured. Tens of millions of children. This is the dirty little secret of the Republicans. It’s actaully no suprise. How many are against abortion, but don’t support benefits for children? It’s like, once they are born, responsibility ends.
Report comment to moderator
Are we reading the same Bible? Antony’s post and some of the responses to it are so fraught with Biblical ignorance as to be laughable. Perhaps if some of you would spend more time reading the Gospels and less time reading the Republican platform you would be better Christians.
I’m reminded of something Gandhi said: “I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”
Report comment to moderator
Apparently, in Joel Mark’s world, you’re damned no matter what. Like the Soup Nazi in Seinfeld, it’s “No soup for you!” if you get sick and you don’t have money or insurance. If a person is poor or sick, it’s their own fault, ergo, we shouldn’t lift a finger to help them.
The more astounding thing is that this “let them eat cake” attitude is coming from someone who claims to be a minister of Jesus. It appears that his seminary training taught him little about grace, mercy, or the Beatitudes.
Hell will freeze over before we see a real plan from conservative Christians for dealing with the millions of uninsured Americans and the health care crisis this country is dealing with as we speak.
Report comment to moderator
Marie #55
Socialism requires the oppressive taxation of the majority to fund the ideas of a ruling class.
Irony, critiquing socialism using the socialist concept of a ruling class. I thought that class warfare was verboten in US politics. You failed to realize that in a social democratic state (eg: Sweden)the ruling class or the gov’t is the people. Gov’t is for the people by the people.
We are commanded to be good stewards of it.
Capitalism requires the continuous opening of new markets and the exploitation of resources. The criteria is not stewardship but maximizing shareholder returns. To be good stewards capitalism must be managed and controlled.
The source of charity, biblically speaking, is the family and the church. Not the state.
Of course, the state is not a charity. Its a manager, an overseer, of civil society including economic activity. Universal health care is good policy not charity.
Report comment to moderator
Joel 59
HRW wrote, “My perception of reality has never been incorrect according to my perception.”
There is yet another sign of a lack of moral integrity–the refusal or inability to admit that you or your perception has ever been incorrect or wrong.
Yet I do not lack a sense of humour.
Report comment to moderator
#66,
Anlir, do you intentionally distort my comments or is it an accident every time? In Joel Mark’s world, no one is damned unless God Himself does it. Where do you get your ill-will toward my comments? It comes off as so knee-jerk to me.
Who ever hinted in any situation that, in your distorted words, “we shouldn’t lift a finger to help [people].”
Anlir, I’ve lost hope that you will communicate with or about me in good faith.
Report comment to moderator
HRW is correct that with regard to his comments, I lack a sense of humor. Since his past attacks on my honesty, which were baseless and disrespectful without cause, I do not find humor in anything he writes.
Report comment to moderator
Joel #60
But capitalism provides far more incentive to work to a wider array of people.
Agreed, work or starve is a good motivator.
Captialism works most effectively against human greed because it motivates more workers to take on a “May I help you?” attitdue in their work, since their success depends on helping the customer.
In the industrial capitalist economy, factory workers are not motivated to do any more than their own work and in fact an assembly line based factory doesn’t want individual initiative since it breaks down the line. The service economy is tertiary and subservient to industry and is nto a good example when discussing capitalism. Owners, shareholders and CEOs are not motivated to assist workers rather to maximize profit. As we have witnessed countless times since the ’80s, downsizing the labour force is the quickest means to allievate deficit and ensure profit.
You are simply incorrect the social democratic governments of western Europe and the New Deal. The New Deal extended the Great Depression for a decade. It was WW2 that finally pulled us out of the Great Depression and huge unemployment rates.
Prior to WWII, most western European homes didn’t have telephones. Rural areas, and even some urban ares, didn’t have indoor plumbing — a shower was considered a luxury. At the conclusion of WWII, the spectre of communism was very real and the elites in the west realized they had to match the rhetoric of the east with a more equitable distribution of income and goods. Social democracy took hold leading to the greatest increase in material standards for the majority of people.
A historical debate has always framed the effectiveness of the New Deal, although your interpretation is new to me. Usually the question focuses on what ended the Depression? To me the question is an academic game since the answer; the war or the New Deal both vindicate Keynesian economics in which the gov’t primes the pump to restart the economy. Personally I don’t think the New Deal provided enough priming and the larger influx of money for war lead to greater employment. The post-war social programmes, GI Bill, etc helped the working and middle class solidify and protect their gains.
Report comment to moderator
Joel #60
The greatest rise in living standardes has clearly been in free market capitalist countries where a base of Christianity was strong enough to provide decent values and an honest work ethic.
Capitalism has fared best in which rule of law is respected for only through rule of law are contracts and property respected. In western Europe, Roman civl law augmented by Napoleon provide this base and in Anlgo-Saxon countries its common law. The basis for this Rome, the Enlightenment, and pre-Christian germanic tradition not Christianity. As you may know the Catholic church ran its own parallel legal system alongside Roman civil law. The two were distinctly different.
A European friend of mine argues that advancement of Napoleon roughly paralleled the spread of Enlightenment ideas and this line on the map also creates the border for the successful European states. A quick at map indicated he had a point; more valid than yours.
Report comment to moderator
They will suffer MORE in a government run system run on the false presumption that health care is an absolute right on a one-way-street of provision. To believe that health care is an absolute right is to deprive us all of an effective system built on shared human responsibility and reciprocity. More people will suffer in a system wherin people become ‘health wards’ of the state and have no reason to participate fairly in the remuneration process.
Your first sentence has been endlessly debated among the pros and cons of universal health care. Obviously I disagree with your statement but its difficult to compare and contrast based on ancedotal evidence. However, universal health care is better public policy. It prevents bankruptcy, finiacial hardship, removes it from the employer control, eases the corporate burder and is cheaper to the state. Remember America pays more for limited care than other nations pay for universal.
Universal health care does not deprive anyone of responsibility and reciprocity. You continue to be responsible for your health and you reciprocate by paying a sustainable level of taxation.
I’m not sure of your last sentence are you referring to employees in the health industry or the patients? Either way neither is a problem anywhere else.
Report comment to moderator
And the church does have a key role to play in the process as well as other private institutions.
Of course it does — my daughter was born in church founded hospital which continues to receive contributions from the Catholic church and, in part, is administered by the church. The government however payed my bills.
Less people suffer under limited government.
Proof please
Report comment to moderator
Joel #61
Voluntary transactions in a free market economy tend to bring progress to both parties in the deal. Each side wants what the other has to offer. Both win when the exchange is made as both parties act in a measure of good faith.
Capitalism theortically assumes equitable parties in any transaction. Since most contractual arrangements are made with inequitable power, wealth or knowledge exploitation is bound to occur. Both only win if the equity is inherent within the system. Ironically this is possible only in a social democratic state.
It’s the good faith that can be the rub. That’s why any economic system needs an inherent base of solid moral values and virtues to succeed.
Any economic system will thrive if it solid moral values and virtues are present. But the point is to allow for a lack of virtue. For me, history indicates a lack of virtue and for Christians they will realize the fallibility and sinful nature of man to realize capitalism will just as easy enable the non-virtuous to thrive as well as the virtuous.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #69
Anlir, I’ve lost hope that you will communicate with or about me in good faith.
Likewise Joel.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder what they would think of Huckabee and his past?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH6pqJOmUWc
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
I found many of your comments at #73 to be reasonable (elsewhere it, in fact). Thanks.
It’s not that we agree on policy but perhaps we CAN agree that those on the left seeking more of a government led role for universal health care are not being fair to accuse those on the right of “damning” people willfully to suffer and taking a “let them eat cake” (Anlir’s quote) attitude.
Both sides need to disagree more honorably. I think you took a step in that direction without compromising your convictions or ideology.
Report comment to moderator
Its a fallacy for the right to characterize the left’s position as more government as opposed to the right limiting goverment. In truth, its about how and for whom the state works as the state is constantly in the market from both the production and the consumption side. A minor adjustment in intellectual property and copyright law will either benefit pharma or generic industries and the consumer. The left generally argues for shorter protection and the right for longer protection, both are arguing for state interference. And in this case, the right is arguing for more.
Americans on both the left and right have a somewhat vicious moralistic streak to them in comparison to other nationalities or at the very least to their Canadian neighbours. Questions of the state’s role in any market should be based on pragmatic policy not good vs. bad, right or wrong. Universal health care makes sense from a policy presepective. What leads to the rants from the American left is the increasing frustration they have with the right who they think refuses to do a good and right thing and to be truthful are not even participating. And yes the left has my sympathy and understanding.
The left needs to do a better job of explaining why they have a pragmatic solution but for this type of discussion to move forward in America the right needs to play catch-up. They need to come up with pragmatic public policy which will improve the present mess. Its a mess from a pragmatic presepective when you have a hodgepodge of public and private programmes, a bloated bureaucracy, limited care, etc. They need to present these policies and outline how they will improve care and how they are better than their opponents plan. Other than medical savings plans, which is an old idea, I have heard anything yet.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Well, those of us on the Left (with a capital “L”) have long proposed a solution for America:
A single-payer system.
We have a great model in Medicare, which is a single-payer system. It uses private companies to administer the plan and pay the claims. The administrative costs are way lower than private insurance companies.
The private insurance industry is motivated by profits, not health care. Money is the bottom line, not making sure people are taken care of. It’s fundamentally at odds with societies need to care for people when they’re sick.
But we have a huge and powerful insurance industry in America, which lines the pockets of politicians (primarily Republicans, but also Democrats). They are determined to protect their profits at all cost. It’s to their financial advantage to make sure that universal coverage never happens in America. The last thing they want to do is cover sick people because it will eat into their profits. Greedy heartless bastards is what they are!
Report comment to moderator
I know the left has long proposed a solution for America. Several in fact with Edwards and Kucinich coming close to univeral health care. And the lack of similar solutions from the right is a cause for frustration and anger among the left. Hence, while I understand Joel’s call for civility in the debate he needs to realize the right needs to offer solutions or let the left take care of it. As it is now, by defending the status quo, they risk becoming nothing more than a shill for the private insurance industry which is not interested in a pragmatic solution to public policy rather they do what they are legally bound to; maximize shareholder profits.
Before we call the CEOs greedy heartless bastards , we must realize they are doing what the law requires – maximize profits. This is effective capitalism at work. The solution is to do what the state needs to do when capitalism oversteps its bounds and eventually will imperil itself; step in. Intuitively the right recognizes this which is why it regulates the pharma industry so heavily. My point would be to regulate in the interests of the people not the corporations.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
If you’ve ever dealt with a health insurance company in America you’d know that “greedy heartless bastards” is one of the kinder things people say about insurance companies.
I work in the insurance industry and I know what a cold, heartless, machine they can be. In spite of the fact that I work in insurance, I have had my own personal fights with our carrier to get them to pay for stuff. We’re one of BlueCross’s biggest brokers and we get no consideration from them on our own claims. I despise calling their customer service center!
Report comment to moderator
#79, HRW, “Its a fallacy for the right to characterize the left’s position as more government as opposed to the right limiting goverment.”
No, it’s just the unspun truth. The left advocates a stronger hand for the gov’t, as the regulator, arbiter and funding resource.
Report comment to moderator
Capitalism is heartless — its a system after all. It operates on greed but unless we are figuratively speaking of illegitimate offspring of Adam Smith and Riccardo, its not a bastard. Thinking beyond moral imperatives (with which I agree), the left needs to present a pragmatic case for universal health care which is fairly easy. The real trick is to use the energy of capitalism to deliver health care without the need to maximize shareholder profit. To this end, the neo-cons offer no solution except to continue to go to bat for corporate profit and not the needs of the public policy. Remember to advocate based on pragmatic necessity not some moral imperative. Moral imperatives usually lead to name calling and no practical accomplishments.
Report comment to moderator
Read my pharma example Joel. The advocation for increased gov’t intervention in terms of extending copyright is an indication that the use of gov’t intervention is neither left nor right. The state is necessary for property and contract enforcement but the format and structure of its rules are up for grabs. Whether its for the people or for the corporation remains the question.
Report comment to moderator
VNETTE, in post #63, you asked: Will someone please explain to this ignorant outsider why so many Americans don’t like what you call ’socialised’ medicine?
Answer: it just doesn’t make sense to have a federal government dictate what doctor you see, and what they will do. I’d rather see physician compettion to defray costs and get better and competent doctors. Remember, anything the federal government touches turns to sub-standard and useless.
STEVEG @ #57: So what are the people who lack health insurance supposed to do? Just suffer, I guess.
That is my point, Steve. It’s YOUR guess. I read
Anlir’s post, and while there is some validity in it, I still have a problem with the federal government’s invlovement.
The gist of the original post by Anthony Bradley ( an informative one at that) is the NCC’s list of what THEY think should be a barometer of considerations to voting for Presidential candidate. I think their list is unfounded monkey dung.
Report comment to moderator
Regarding point #4 and “economic justice”:
Was it our right to have Christ save us from our spiritual poverty? Did we deserve to be redeemed from our eternal debt of sin? Were we entitled to forgiveness and adoption as children of God? Was God obligated to provide a means of salvation?
…or, was it a free gift, charity from God?
Christ satisfied the demands of justice but doing so was a gift of grace. Government welfare is entitlement, not charity. It’s owed and deserved, not a free gift. Christians who espouse the idea of social/economic justice belittle Christ’s redemptive work. They make meaningless the concept of charity and service to the poor. The theology of social justice destroys the very concept of gratitude for God’s saving work. It destroys our understanding of personal duty to our fellow man.
Report comment to moderator
Oh…………..and what’s with the girl’s hair in the picture????????????
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's blogs to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!