Re: David Cross on Health Care

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, pcg wrote:

>> Well, it all depends on what he means by "you", then, doesn't it?  Does 
>> Cross mean to imply that America is a Christian state?  I thought the 
>> First Amendment to your Constitution kind of prohibited that idea.
>
> I know you're sharper than this. Of course he does not mean to imply 
> that America is a Christian state. He means that America is a Democratic 
> Republic, and when a bill that supports Christian values is up for 
> debate, it's odd to see so many Christians vehemently oppose it.

So we're back to my question:  Since when is statism a "Christian value"?

I mean, surely Cross can't be asking why Christians don't contribute to 
healthcare-oriented charities or support hospitals etc., because the 
simple fact of the matter is that they do.

>> And I missed the commandment that tells Christians to be statists or 
>> socialists or whatever it is that makes healthcare "universal".
>
> and
>
>> Is it "very Christian" to be charitable with other people's money?
>
> This argument conveniently ignores the fact that we already have a state 
> in which we spend "other people's money." That's how our government 
> works.

Actually, no, it *doesn't* ignore that fact.  Christians were paying taxes 
in Caesar's day too.  The question is why we should assume that raising 
taxes and giving people any particular set of benefits with that public 
money is necessarily a "Christian value".  Especially when the "universal 
health care" program in question supports abortion and other services 
that, historically, have been *anti*-Christian values, etc.

> By your argument, the military is being "charitable" by protecting those 
> who don't pay much in taxes. In a sense, that's so, but of course nobody 
> complains about it, because we all understand that such protection is a 
> basic entitlement for all citizens.

Not only that, but without military protection there is no point in having 
*any* sort of government *at all*.  A government that can't protect its 
own existence is in no position to do anything *else* for anybody.

> There's no good reason why health care shouldn't or couldn't be a 
> similar entitlement.

There may or may not be a good reason to raise taxes, but that's not the 
issue here.  The issue here is why one side of this debate should claim it 
has "Christian values" on its side and the other side does not.

No one is questioning whether "health care" is something that Christians 
can agree with.  It's the "universal" part that's at issue here.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot