Faith and healthcare
“The single best indicator of how a person will vote is how he or she worships God,” says pollster Frank Luntz in What Americans Really Want . . . Really. Does Luntz’s insight apply to the way people view healthcare reform?
He notes that there is indeed “a partisan difference in religion,” whereas 60 percent of Republicans attend church on a weekly basis, only 25 percent of Democrats attend worship. “Evangelicals are heavily Republican,” Luntz says, adding that “atheists and agnostics are almost exclusively Democrats.” For the most part, these numbers square with the Pew Forum’s Religious Landscape Survey.
Last week I spoke as a panelist at a healthcare forum sponsored by a Republican organization in an upscale neighborhood of Pittsburgh. Because the forum was advertised as a community event, I assumed there would be a broad spectrum of political views represented in the audience. In other words, I was prepared to take some flak for my conservative views. When a minister opened the program in prayer and almost every head bowed, I thought I might have been on friendly turf, but I still wasn’t sure. Due to the nature of the questions from the 130-person audience it became clear that most of the crowd was opposed to and fearful of Congress’ plans for healthcare reform. I was on friendly turf. But it wasn’t because most people in the audience prayed. Lots of praying people don’t share this Orthodox Presbyterian’s views on what Congress has been doing lately.
Was the room filled primarily with church-going Republicans? Most likely. Does that mean that most supporters of healthcare reform are atheist Democrats? Hardly.
True, most supporters of the current versions of healthcare reform, according to the Pew Forum, are Democrats, while less than one-in-five are conservative, white evangelical Republicans. Yet, as of last March, a large number of Americans supported at least a government guarantee of healthcare insurance. This group included elements of the Christian community, consisting of 48 percent of white evangelicals, 55 percent of Catholics, and 56 percent of mainline Protestants. The Pew Forum also notes that Christian organizations and churches with left-leaning political views are organized and very much in favor of the efforts of Congress. An organization called “Faith for Health,” a coalition of 33 left-leaning Christian organizations and denominations, is running a sophisticated program that includes congregational guides and grassroots informational campaigns for Christians and Jews. Among the coalition are eight large Protestant denominations, including the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the United Methodist Church. Meanwhile, the “Freedom Federation,” a coalition of mostly politically active Christian groups represents some Christians from the right.
Is one’s faith the single best indicator of the way Americans feel about congressional efforts for healthcare reform? The Pew Forum claims a person’s political affiliation is more reliable. But evidently denominational affiliation can be a good indicator as well. Clearly, there’s a connection between one’s faith and one’s view of healthcare reform.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top18 Comments to “Faith and healthcare”
I suggested a while back that we should divide into two countries:
One country liberal, atheist and agnostic.
The other country religious and conservative.
I can’t remember anyone giving me a good reason why this should not be done.
Report comment to moderator
Seems like that was tried about 160 years ago. But maybe the “liberal, atheist, and agnostic” states could give secession another try. The rest of us would like to see what kind of a constitution you would come up with.
Report comment to moderator
The old saw used to be the Anglican church (in the UK) was the Tory party with its head bowed, eyes closed.
I pray we avoid such a pitfall here in the USA.
Christians risk becoming little more than an adjunct to the R party in the same way NAACP, SCLC and other civil rights groups are liberalism’s reliable Negro Auxiliary branch.
But if you place your hope in a Kingdom and King not of this world, why would you put any hope in this world’s princes? Surefire recipe for disappointmt
Report comment to moderator
Dolous8 #2,
I think some denominations are legendary for splintering with schisms. I was told even Roger Williams left the first Baptist church or was asked to move-on. Those Seceders of 160 years ago wrote their constitution explicitly denying states the right to secede from THEM!
Report comment to moderator
RANDOM #1
Interesting proposition about 2 countries.
But even you can’t seem to stay away from Christians.
Would YOU want to live in a country of only liberals, agnostics, and atheists?
Report comment to moderator
Lee,
When you say, “Orthodox Presbyterian” does that mean you are a part of the OPC?
Report comment to moderator
#6 OPC, wasnt that the denom of Francis and Edith? (But alas, not wayward offspring Frankie?)
Religious folk tend to see illness/pain suffering as something inextricably tied to their betterment (”refining”) or else its viewed as a Job like trial
Report comment to moderator
My healthcare provider is medicare only. Not enough to keep me alive, but is any healthcare? At my age, does it matter? I live a good life (always have) and when the time comes for me to go, no amount of healthcare will stop it from happening. I like to tell people that when God is ready to call me home, He will have to send out a search party to find me, because I will be on the go.
Please, no theological discussion about that last sentence, OK?
Report comment to moderator
But even you can’t seem to stay away from Christians.
Few things are really new. I doubt when I start a new religion, it will be completely original. No doubt it will contain many ideas I “adopt” from Christianity. For people who look closely, they will be able to see the seams and traces.
For example, someonne mentioned that the Trinity shows traces of earlier polytheistic religions clumsily pasted together and described as “monotheistic.”
I suppose Nihilism reduces us to zerotheistic, though people here will scream “You are trying to turn yourself into a God.”
Are we going in circles here?
Report comment to moderator
#9
I think Schaeffer was ordained in the BPC (which split from the OPC early on).
Report comment to moderator
It will be interesting when World and its bloggers have something to to say on the topic of health care beyond horse-race commentary and poll games.
Until then, not so much.
SG
Report comment to moderator
As far as atheists or agnostics creating their own constitution, I can’t see where it would be any different from the one our non-Christian founding fathers gave us. It doesn’t mention God or Christianity anywhere. It is totally secular. Please don’t start screaming at me that the founders were Christians. They weren’t. They were, at most, deists. Washington refused communion. Jefferson created his own Bible with all references to the miracles of Jesus excised. Read Thomas Paine’s “Age of Reason” and tell me they were Christains. Read the Treaty of Tripoli, written by former President George Washington and submitted by President John Adams to the Senate, which approved it unanimously, stating the United States “is not in any sense a Christian nation.” Then tell me the founders were Christian. You guys should create your own constitution. The one we have suits us secular folks just fine.
Report comment to moderator
That there is a correlation between religious belief and practice and one’s politics is certain. Religion does lean conservative, but that does not necessarily mean “conservative” in a contemporary political sense (not least, because economic conservatism is actually a form of liberalism — this is an argument that I’ve engaged Tokarev and Reader on).
More importantly, it is the concern for the least that gives religion a particular role to play in society, inviting the leaders, rulers and politicians to act with mercy. The obvious trap is when faith conviction is seen as a stand-in for politics, in essence enlisting God on one side of the battle or the other. That’s a sure path for destruction.
Besides, if you want to reach the world, the last thing you do (it would seem) is take a side where you split society.
Report comment to moderator
#1 – watch our random, you may be prosecuted for high treason
Harris, I guess we have to either give up on labels or define them very carefully every time.
On healthcare one can vote partly on biblical principles (whether it’s right to force someone to pay for the consequences of someone else’s poor lifestyle choices and to subsidize abortion) but mostly on econ principles (what arrangement works better)
Report comment to moderator
I guess we have to either give up on labels or define them very carefully every time.
Maybe give up on living by labels, and try living in a difficult and complex world and thinking about it instead of constantly reaction by knee jerks?
Perhaps we live in a complex world where everything is not easily reduced to one brief comment box?
I have heard arguments claiming that of all the developed, first world countries in the world, the United States has the worst health care. That is something to really be proud of if true.
Report comment to moderator
Reader — I realize my comment was a little askew; “better definitions”? Yes. I think it better to use Scripture to challenge our societal (or economic) thinking. This role of challenging is why I get leery about “one size fits all” ideologies, left and right.
And yes, I agree, too, that healthcare will likely (and properly should) be decided along economic principles. Not that God doesn’t have something to say on the economy….
Report comment to moderator
15
although sometimes it is not that complex – Christ said: “you’re either with Me or against Me”
Report comment to moderator
Harris, it is in the nature of leftist/progressive philosophy to come with “one size fits all” solutions but isn’t it just as much in the nature of the right/liberal to suggest that we are different and have to be free to make individual choices?
labels, labels… but in this case I’m pretty confident we understand each other
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!