Healthcare, socialism and christians

Look up The Gospel of Supply-Side Jesus, that pretty much sums it up.

phillipoffrance said:

Hi

My name is surprise surprise, phillip.

My question for you is. Why are 'conservative chrsitians' such a huge lobby in the US?

No one ever seems to mention that Jesus was probably the most socialist guy of his time.

in one of his only directly quoted statements in the Bible he told you all to take care of the sick? So why is it, in this healthcare debate, is there huge opposition from right wing christians?

I simply state that christians in the US are now conservative first and christians second. Ie, if the plan comes from a liberal, even though it is christian, it is evil. But if the plan that was against jesus' teachings came from a conservative, it would be swallowed. Because liberals have bought you abortion etc, anti christian things, you take scorn to all their actions. However, conservatives have also taken anti christian actions. Yet you dont scorn them...

Partisan conservatives first...christans second

I am a French (raised in UK) Christian, so I don't know the culture. But it seems to me this is the case. It also seems to be something rarely pointed out.

Can someone please mount a defence against this statement. As I would be very interested in hearing it.


(for the conservatives amongst you)

Click to expand...

When Jesus made the call to care for the sick and poor, was he talking to the government or to individuals?

You seem to have fallen into the same misguided impression of American conservatives as the left here has which is that you are equating opposing GOVERNEMNT care for the poor and sick with opposing doing it at all.

Going back to Jesus, ALL of his directives and commands were aimed at the individual, were they not? Did he say "go and set up government programs to care for the sick and poor" or did he say simply "go do it"?

chaz345 said:

When Jesus made the call to care for the sick and poor, was he talking to the government or to individuals?

You seem to have fallen into the same misguided impression of American conservatives as the left here has which is that you are equating opposing GOVERNEMNT care for the poor and sick with opposing doing it at all.

Going back to Jesus, ALL of his directives and commands were aimed at the individual, were they not? Did he say "go and set up government programs to care for the sick and poor" or did he say simply "go do it"?

Click to expand...

And then the question becomes, what is the most efficient way to have th biggest impact and to help the most people?
I don't have the ability to provide medical services to a poor person who needs a tumour on his brain removed. But I'm MORE than happy to assist in paying for a poor person to get that tumour removed. So how is that counter intuitive to what God calls us to do?
Sure, God called us as individuals to "go do it" but, failing our ability to perform a quadruple bipass, what can we do?


I mean, Christians were among the first people to set up hospitals and that is something we (should) take pride in. But they had doctors working in those hospitals, not just every random Christian who could indentify "eye" and "knee".

Now, I'm not saying you are advocating that average workaday christians should be working in hospitals, but, without the money coming from taxpayers to pay for these procedures, where else would it come from? Remember: companies are interested in profit ONLY and providing services to someone who could never pay them back wouldn't be an option.

Sidenote:
Did God explicitly state that government should NOT be involved in assisting the poor/sick/indigent/widowed? I don't remember reading that verse.

rambot said:

Sidenote:
Did God explicitly state that government should NOT be involved in assisting the poor/sick/indigent/widowed? I don't remember reading that verse.

Click to expand...

No, but neither did He say that it SHOULD. But again we come back to the fact that God's/Jesus's instructions were to the individual. And then let's not forget the contratdictory nature of saying on one hand, "God says to help the poor so we should set up governemnt programs" and then on the other hand saying that what God says shouldn't be part of our government when it comes to homosexuality or abortion. If we're supposed to keep God/Chuch out of government then let's do it all of the time, not just when God's view fits our own political one.

I just get a little peeved when opposition to GOVERMENT programs to help the sick and poor is portrayed as being counter to Christ's call to help them.

Same false logic is applied when one says that opposition to the current healthcare proposal is the same as opposing ANY reform.

rambot said:

where else would it come from?

Click to expand...

Individual donations pooled together.

Do you forget that the Catholic Church runs a great many hospitals with zero tax dollars?

would you give up your insurance and depend strictly on individual donations? why haven't you done that?

Hi Philip,
Welcome to CF (Christian Forums)
My problem with government run health care and socialism is the fact that it is done only by forced taxation.
It takes getting the government involved in enforcing (by threat of imprisonment or violence) religious beliefs. That is what I am completely against.
It's not that I don't believe in caring for people who are sick or poor, I sincerely do. But sending men with guns (police) to lock up somebody who choses not to participate in my religion is so completely repugnant to me that I cannot support it.

Bascially Christianity actually has very little to say for or against on the issue of how and if the government should provide these kind of services.
But people with strong political views and strong religious views who are not that introspective can easily get confused between the two even when they don't relate (which sometimes they do).

reverend C said:

would you give up your insurance and depend strictly on individual donations? why haven't you done that?

Click to expand...

HUGE difference between privately, voluntarily purchased insurance and a government program funded by forcibly obtained taxes.

Yeah, I don't think Christ is the type of person to not be wary of any type of authority, even if this authority is partly a mediator in instilling good programs for people who need them. At the same time, I have no doubt that he would prefer the idea of tax money spent more to something like health care than to a defense budget. Jesus wasn't a neoconservative, folks. He didn't even believe in militaristic intervention (although he did believe in nonviolent resistance).

Received said:

(although he did believe in nonviolent resistance).

Click to expand...

He also realized the sometimes violent resistance is the only way. Or have you forgotten about how He dealt with the moneychangers in the temple?

When Jesus made the call to care for the sick and poor, was he talking to the government or to individuals?

Click to expand...

Chaz, we may see things slightly different here.
Do you think that we can completely separate individuals from the government in the USA? After all we do have a representative form of government.

"The Gettysburg Address is a speech by Abraham Lincoln......
....Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Click to expand...

PS Chaz is one of my favorite people to read on this forum as he is a very good writer and has very good reasoning and common sense. He makes for a good discussion.

sdmsanjose said:

Chaz, we may see things slightly different here.
Do you think that we can completely separate individuals from the government in the USA? After all we do have a representative form of government.

Click to expand...

I don't think we can completely separate them, but I think that more so now than ever before the concept of "of the people, by the people" is more theory than practical fact. We've got a "ruling class" of sorts. A group of people which it is very difficult to become part of, that our leaders and legislators are chosen from. NOTE: When I say more so than ever before, I'm not just talking about the current administration, the problem I speak of has existed for decades.

One problem with saying that helping the poor and sick is a government function is that there seems to be a tendency to say "hey I support the idea of the government doing that, so I don't need to do anything( or as much) myself". Do you think that's anything at all like what Christ was getting at?


Also there's the problem of the fact that most who invoke Christ's call to help the poor and sick to justify government programs are the same people who say that God has no place in government when the topic switches to homosexual marriage or abortion.

chaz345 said:

No, but neither did He say that it SHOULD. But again we come back to the fact that God's/Jesus's instructions were to the individual. And then let's not forget the contratdictory nature of saying on one hand, "God says to help the poor so we should set up governemnt programs" and then on the other hand saying that what God says shouldn't be part of our government when it comes to homosexuality or abortion. If we're supposed to keep God/Chuch out of government then let's do it all of the time, not just when God's view fits our own political one.
I just get a little peeved when opposition to GOVERMENT programs to help the sick and poor is portrayed as being counter to Christ's call to help them.
Same false logic is applied when one says that opposition to the current healthcare proposal is the same as opposing ANY reform.

Click to expand...

But if we are giving OUR money to government programs, how is that not us doing something to help them? We may not be directly helping them but the money is meant to help them.
We wouldn't be going into family homes to help them deal with domestic violence issues, but we would be paying someone with skills to do that work. Sometimes helping the poor is more complicated than just tossing them a turkey dinner at christmas. Sometimes, we have to do the whole "teach a man to fish" thing and that requires a lot more work than an afternoon in a kitchen at christmas.
To be clear, I'm not advocating a hands off approach. I still think it's vital that individuals do what they can to help the poor; as MUCH as they can....

And you didn't address my primary concern:
What is wrong with paying professionals to help those in need given that we may not have the skills necessary to help the poor or sick?

Do you forget that the Catholic Church runs a great many hospitals with zero tax dollars?

Click to expand...

That's funny! I was going to raise this EXACT point.

You argument (if I understand it correctly) is that God calls on individuals to be doing the work. Individuals donate money to the church and the church hires doctors. So giving money to the church to pay doctors is okay even though individuals are not peforming surgeries.

Why isn't it okay to give money to a government for that exact same purpose?

Yes, I recognize that donations to the church are different than forced taxation.... but the argument isn't about the motivating factors, it's about what is the "right" way to care for the sick and destitute and what is the "wrong" way.

As for gay marriage and abortion, the Bible never even comes close to addressing issues directly (since they were not culturally relevant to the time and place of the Bible's writing), whereas Christ's message is rife with references to helping the less fortunate.

rambot said:

But if we are giving OUR money to government programs, how is that not us doing something to help them? We may not be directly helping them but the money is meant to help them.
We wouldn't be going into family homes to help them deal with domestic violence issues, but we would be paying someone with skills to do that work. Sometimes helping the poor is more complicated than just tossing them a turkey dinner at christmas. Sometimes, we have to do the whole "teach a man to fish" thing and that requires a lot more work than an afternoon in a kitchen at christmas.
To be clear, I'm not advocating a hands off approach. I still think it's vital that individuals do what they can to help the poor; as MUCH as they can....

And you didn't address my primary concern:
What is wrong with paying professionals to help those in need given that we may not have the skills necessary to help the poor or sick?

That's funny! I was going to raise this EXACT point.

You argument (if I understand it correctly) is that God calls on individuals to be doing the work. Individuals donate money to the church and the church hires doctors. So giving money to the church to pay doctors is okay even though individuals are not peforming surgeries.

Why isn't it okay to give money to a government for that exact same purpose?

Yes, I recognize that donations to the church are different than forced taxation.... but the argument isn't about the motivating factors, it's about what is the "right" way to care for the sick and destitute and what is the "wrong" way.

As for gay marriage and abortion, the Bible never even comes close to addressing issues directly (since they were not culturally relevant to the time and place of the Bible's writing), whereas Christ's message is rife with references to helping the less fortunate.

Click to expand...

There is a huge difference because the Catholic church can't come and throw you in jail if you decide you don't feel like donating. We don't give money to the government, they TAKE it from us whether we want to help or not. Last time I checked, if I did that to you, its call theft.

rambot said:

Why isn't it okay to give money to a government for that exact same purpose?

Yes, I recognize that donations to the church are different than forced taxation.... but the argument isn't about the motivating factors, it's about what is the "right" way to care for the sick and destitute and what is the "wrong" way.

Click to expand...

I believe that in terms of Christ's commands, the fact that it is voluntary is the heart of the matter. The other problem with doing it through government programs as relates to Christ's directive is that nowehre did HE say, "Go and make others care for the poor and sick" and yet that's exactly what advocating for government programs amounts to.

This gets even stickier when one considers the fact that as a group, those who tend to advocate for government programs voluntarily give less than those who advocate against such programs. Somehow I don't think that Christ would buy into the idea that supporting help through government programs, lessens one's individual responsibility.

phillipoffrance said:

Hi

My name is surprise surprise, phillip.

My question for you is. Why are 'conservative chrsitians' such a huge lobby in the US?

No one ever seems to mention that Jesus was probably the most socialist guy of his time.

in one of his only directly quoted statements in the Bible he told you all to take care of the sick? So why is it, in this healthcare debate, is there huge opposition from right wing christians?

I simply state that christians in the US are now conservative first and christians second. Ie, if the plan comes from a liberal, even though it is christian, it is evil. But if the plan that was against jesus' teachings came from a conservative, it would be swallowed. Because liberals have bought you abortion etc, anti christian things, you take scorn to all their actions. However, conservatives have also taken anti christian actions. Yet you dont scorn them...

Partisan conservatives first...christans second

I am a French (raised in UK) Christian, so I don't know the culture. But it seems to me this is the case. It also seems to be something rarely pointed out.

Can someone please mount a defence against this statement. As I would be very interested in hearing it.


(for the conservatives amongst you)

Click to expand...

I think you need a little different perspective on things. Try out a book by Mark Levin "Liberty and tyranny" Great thoughts on the ( pro's and con's) in Conservatism, Statistism applied to civil society in our Constitution and Declaration of independence! Putts you on one side or the other. Most of civil society's problems stem from a moral one and most people try to blur the line between right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust and means and ends. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is assumed responsibility's. Statists want utopia and will take your liberty/freedom in the pursuit of so called fairness.

chaz345 said:

I believe that in terms of Christ's commands, the fact that it is voluntary is the heart of the matter. The other problem with doing it through government programs as relates to Christ's directive is that nowehre did HE say,

Click to expand...

Okay, well, I appreciate your understand that "volunteerism" and "charity" being the heart of the matter. I think that I disagree. That said, I am MORE than happy to have my tax dollars being used to pay for social programs.

"Go and make others care for the poor and sick" and yet that's exactly what advocating for government programs amounts to.

Click to expand...

I think you may be missing my point here.
I am not a doctor and I can't cure, or help someone deal with, say lupus. Is God calling me to perform the job of a doctor?

This gets even stickier when one considers the fact that as a group, those who tend to advocate for government programs voluntarily give less than those who advocate against such programs. Somehow I don't think that Christ would buy into the idea that supporting help through government programs, lessens one's individual responsibility.

Click to expand...

Are you referring to the studies that indicate that "right wingers" donate more than "left wingers"?
Because those studies have had some pretty serious challenges raised against them.
For me personally, the biggest question is this:
Are donations to churches considered to be charitable donations? And if they are considered charitable donations, is it still fair to say that church goers (who are "predominantly" right wing) are more philanthropic towards their fellow man, or that their donations are more targetted at their church and its infrastructure?

For example:
a "liberal" (nonchurch goer in this example) gives a 100$ donation directly to the food bank.
a "conservative" (church goer) gives 100$ donation to the church, not labelling the donation as specifically for the food bank.
This money gets divided towards ministry costs, building maintenance, purchasing of office supplies and music equipment/instruments, salaries of church staff, and the food bank.

One could argue whether a donation to a church is even a charitable act and not simply an investment.

Giving a donation to an organization like a church is not the same type of socially beneficial philanthropy that a donation to a community organization.

I'm not knocking churches, nor the people who attend them (I'm one, after all). I work in the social work industry and I am very aware of how beneficial churches are to their communities.

However, I don't feel that the several hundred dollars I donate to my church each year would be filtering into the communities needs as efficiently as it would if I were to be donating to local charities.

King Neb:

There is a huge difference because the Catholic church can't come and throw you in jail if you decide you don't feel like donating. We don't give money to the government, they TAKE it from us whether we want to help or not. Last time I checked, if I did that to you, its call theft.

Click to expand...

As I said:

Yes, I recognize that donations to the church are different than forced taxation.... but the argument isn't about the motivating factors, it's about what is the "right" way to care for the sick and destitute and what is the "wrong" way.

Click to expand...

We've got a "ruling class" of sorts. A group of people which it is very difficult to become part of, that our leaders and legislators are chosen from

Click to expand...

That is a very interesting statement that deserves its own thread.

One problem with saying that helping the poor and sick is a government function is that there seems to be a tendency to say "hey I support the idea of the government doing that, so I don't need to do anything( or as much) myself". Do you think that's anything at all like what Christ was getting at?

Click to expand...

No not at all.
IMO those that take that problematic position have the wrong perception of Christ’s teachings and/or are looking for an excuse to not do anything themselves.
Because some people look for excuses to not do more individually does not negate our attitude and actions regarding our representative form of government helping the poor.

Also there's the problem of the fact that most who invoke Christ's call to help the poor and sick to justify government programs are the same people who say that God has no place in government when the topic switches to homosexual marriage or abortion.

Click to expand...

Again, if we have people that are inconsistent and have faulty reasoning about several government issues, that does not negate our attitude and actions regarding our representative form of government helping the poor.


In a representative from of government I do not see how we can completely separate our Christian attitude and actions from our individual attitude and actions. That is another reason that your first statement quoted at the top of this post is a very interesting topic.

Chaz, Thanks for the discussion, keep it coming

Stan