Comments on: Faith and healthcare

By: READER

READER — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:53:27 +0000

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

By: READER

READER — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:50:06 +0000

15
although sometimes it is not that complex – Christ said: “you’re either with Me or against Me”

Report comment to moderator

By: Harris

Harris — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:52:58 +0000

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

By: Random Name

Random Name — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:41:20 +0000

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

By: READER

READER — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:46:36 +0000

#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

By: Harris

Harris — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:50:45 +0000

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

By: littlejohn

littlejohn — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:17:00 +0000

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

By: Serious George

Serious George — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:57:02 +0000

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.

Report comment to moderator

By: nopm

nopm — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:19:24 +0000

I think Schaeffer was ordained in the BPC (which split from the OPC early on).

Report comment to moderator

By: Random Name

Random Name — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:13:18 +0000

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