Re: David Cross on Health Care

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, pcg wrote:

>>> 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"?
>
> As I explained before, "statism," as you define it, is already what we 
> have.

What you *haven't* explained yet is why any particular *degree* or 
*expression* of statism is a "Christian value".

>> 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".
>
> You're twisting the question. It's *not* a question of whether raising 
> taxes and providing benefits is a Christian value. It's a question of 
> whether taking care of the poor and sick is a Christian value.

No, that's *not* the question here.  If it were, then Cross wouldn't be 
talking about "universal" (i.e. government-provided) care-taking.

> If the answer is yes, then one would expect Christians to support those 
> who want to undertake such an endeavor. The only thing that could give 
> them pause would be if supporting such an endeavor would cause them to 
> break another commandment. Is that the case here?

Well, if taxes are a form of theft, sure!

>> Especially when the "universal health care" program in question 
>> supports abortion and other services that, historically, have been 
>> *anti*-Christian values, etc.
>
> If Christians (in general) threw their support and resources behind the 
> movement, they would have a voice on these issues.

If you're saying that Christians would be able to cut off funding for 
abortion if only they supported funding for everything else, I'm sorry, I 
don't think that's a particularly likely scenario.

> Raising taxes has nothing to do with it. I would respect any Christian 
> who supported universal health care, but wanted to work to ensure that 
> it could be done by slashing useless programs instead of raising taxes.

Well, now, I guess all we have to do is define which programs are 
"useless".  That should be a piece of cake.

> Here's a question: I wonder if the all the churches and religious 
> organizations across America would give up their tax exempt status if 
> all the tax revenue generated would go providing health care for those 
> in need.

That's funny, because one of the reasons they *have* tax-exempt status is 
because they provide all sorts of social services.  So basically, what 
you're asking is if all the churches and religious organizations would 
rather pay the government to do their job for them.

>> No one is questioning whether "health care" is something that 
>> Christians can agree with.  It's the "universal" part that's at issue 
>> here.
>
> Do you mean to suggest that a possible Christian value might be "take 
> care of some of the sick, but not others?"

All depends on what you mean by "sick" and "take care of", and on who is 
supposed to be expressing these "Christian values", doesn't it?

I really *don't* want to wander too far off-topic here.  The issue is not 
healthcare per se.  The issue is David Cross's assumption that "real" 
Christians need to get on board with the political agenda that he, 
personally, happens to be in favour of.

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