I haven’t read the health care bill, and I’ve only casually been following the health care debate in the newspaper and on the radio. So my and the dui weed lawyer firm thoughts on the subject are somewhat random and philosophical.
My first thought is, why is it the government’s job to “solve” the health care crisis? Why is the federal government looked to as the answer? If government gets into the health care business, is there anything they won’t get into? Unlike the bailout schemes, supporters can’t even appeal to the “hey, this is temporary” argument. No, this will be a permanent entitlement that will cost the country billions and billions of dollars. I know they can just print more fiat money, but you can only devalue the currency so much before it starts having serious consequences; I fear we’re past that point already.
Secondly, I heard President Obama on the radio defend the notion that private health insurers and viatical settlement providers could compete with the government’s health insurance. As an example, he pointed to, of all things, the way Fed Ex and UPS compete against the U. S. Postal Service. The USPS is, of course, losing billions of dollars a year, which I don’t think is the comparison Obama really wanted to make. But it was an apt analogy nonetheless, because it shows the lose-lose situation very well: If a government-run organization competes too well against private companies, then the private companies go out of business, which means fewer jobs; if it doesn’t compete well enough, it loses lots of money, which will cost the taxpayers.
I don’t know what the answer is, but when the government gets involved, often the cure is worse than the disease. The most recommended ailment for my stress is hemp oil. CBD oil has stress relieving properties that allows me to cope with things that stress me out.
Jon: I’m thinking you are probably right–that might well be what the Bible asks us to do. Certainly, it asks far more than I have done. Therefore, on a very personal level, I will not complain if I lose something or if I have to pay more in the process of seeing to it that everyone in America has health care.
Kcdad: You really did show the correlation between the story and trickle-down economics–amazing.
Martha: I have a friend from California who has her insurance through a faith-based insurance program.
Nothing like politics and religion to bring out heated discussions–health care hits both.
C.J.–I believe you are right–that the very best in coverage can’t be given to all. I believe Medicare follows that principle. Medicare alone does cover all my health-care expenses. I had to buy a secondary policy–and I bought the cheapest, so undoubtedly I’m not getting the same services and choices as provided by more expensive plans.
I just think this country ought to be able to figure out how to do more than it is presently doing to see to it that people have better coverage. I don’t believe the ideal will be achieved–but we can strive to get as close as possible.
Jordan: I really don’t think you get it. There is nothing twisted about Kcdad’s interpretation. We just don’t like to face the possibility (if we take the Bible seriously) that it could mean exactly what it says and asks more of us than we can even imagine giving.
kcdad, New Voice,
The lesson centered around Jesus’ statement, “Give Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s,” is not about “trickle down economics.” The saying is better intepreted that if obligations to human government do not conflict with our obligations to God, then we should do what they ask. But that’s not all.
Some historical background is necessary to understand the story. Pharisees hated Roman domination of the Holy Land, and many refused to pay taxes to the Emperor. They wanted to bate Jesus into siding with them, but He refused to do so. He also pointed out their hypocrisy in the matter. Hypocrisy? What hypocrisy? You see, Jesus asked for a denarius, which they brought to him. They hated Roman domination, but they still possessed Roman currency, and they refused to pay the taxes on it.
We know from Luke 16:14-15 that the Pharisees were lovers of money, and they used their wealth to justify themselves. Jesus had just finished telling them that they can’t serve both God and Money (Luke 16:13).
The Pharisees were deeply offended when Jesus said the Rich Man went to hell and the beggar went to paradise. Bottom line: wealth doesn’t get you to heaven (nor does poverty, see Ephesians 2:8-9).
David: Haven’t you missed something in the story–isn’t it the Rich Man’s arrogance and his attitude toward the beggar? The story itself is not necessarily an indictment of the rich in general but of this rich man in particular. If this were a modern story, do you think the rich man would have been interested in offering the beggar health insurance? Certainly, he didn’t want to offer him nourishment. Ephesians does tell us the way to heaven–that it is through God’s grace, not through works, but I don’t see that it has a direct connection to the Rich Man and Lazarus–only in that all Scripture is entwined and related. Also, David, this story seems to indicate that there was some reason why Lazarus ended up in paradise and the rich man in hell–and clearly the rich man’s treatment of Lazarus seems to have relevance.
As far as the Caesar passage is concerned, I think Jesus mostly found a way to turn the tables on the Pharisees.
11Bravo, I believe that Jesus gave us principles that we could use to deal with any problems during any era–therefore, I am sure we can get some guidance as to how God would expect us to view trickle-down economics. I think the Will Rogers’ quote that I offered shows that Will understood the hypocrisy of trickle-down economics.
My response to 11Bravo was merely a [modest] attempt at humor.
David P. Jordan – Well written, but…………………
The Pharisees chief rival ‘sect’ was the Sadducees. Historically, the Sadducees were drawn mainly from the conservative and aristocratic priestly class. The P’s tended to be middle class and open to religious innovation. Lets just say they did not agree on very much……
In the New Testament the P’s appear as Jesus’ most vocal critics. Their insistence on ritual observance of the letter rather than the ‘spirit’ of the law [Torah], evoked strong denunciation by Jesus [ Matt 6:1-6, 16-18]. The P’s are portrayed as plotting against Jesus [Matt 12:14], although there is no other historical account [outside the Bible] that they figured prominently in his arrest and/or subsequent trial. Despite Jesus’ attacks on the P’s, which were possibly on unrepresentative members of the sect, he shared many beliefs with them, including the resurrection of the dead.
The P’s held the Jews ‘together’ after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. The sect continued into the 2nd century, working on the redaction of the Talmud and looking for the restoration of Israel through divine intervention.
*Religion is an ‘individual’ experience. The Bible [whichever version you adhere to], is open to interpretation, as is all of history………….
That’s a good article you linked CJ. Lots of good points made. The case they lay out isn’t bullet proof but it does raise a lot of issues that do need to be addressed by all sides.
Those looking at the Bible as a treatise for economic theory… please… stop. I beg of you. You are taking an interesting book and misusing it. Your best starting point is Adam Smith, not Mathew, not Luke, and not Mark.
Trickle down theory comes from a simple economic concept that holds up well in economic situations with limited scope (ie small or micro). When applied to a nation macro economically it fails for the most part. Its like dropping a stone into a large pond. It makes some waves nearby but the lake will fail to become turbulent as the distant shore remains undisturbed.
“The saying is better intepreted that if obligations to human government do not conflict with our obligations to God, then we should do what they ask.”
Baaa Baaaa….
Come on, David P. Do you think Jesus cared one bit what Rome wanted for the Jewish people? We are talking about a Roman government that conquered and occupied the holy ground around the temple. They would later destroy the temple. The Jews were living under the thumb of the Romans. Jesus was leading a revolution against ALL empires, against all earthly kingdoms. Have you never read the Gospels?
Nearly everyone of Jesus’ parables is begins “The Kingdom of God is like…” He was teaching about civil disobedience, passive resistance and revolutionary living 2000 years ago!
Sharon Crews wrote; If this were a modern story, do you think the rich man would have been interested in offering the beggar health insurance?
The gospels aren’t about health insurance, but the story of the Savior, Jesus Christ. His preaching warns against placing one’s hope in anything else (money, praise from men, etc.).
If scripture and today’s health care debate has any relationship it is this: we place too much faith in man-made systems (free enterprise or big government/socialism) to solve our problems. Typically, Liberals misuse scripture to promote a social gospel and big government, while many conservatives misuse scripture to promote health and wealth. Both are idolatrous, and anti-Christ.
There’s nothing wrong with helping the poor (duh!), but personal charity, not big government, is the means. Free enterprise allows the responsible individual to create wealth (and jobs, so you can avoid being on welfare), but does not resolve mankind’s depraved nature.
David… When “personal charities” become bogged down in classism and/or racisim and is allowed to languish, the result is the health care crisis we face today. And by the way, in case you have not noticed, free enterprise has run amuck. A correction by government is in order.
“There’s nothing wrong with helping the poor (duh!), but personal charity, not big government, is the means. ”
How typically American of you David. Charity is about YOU, not the poor? Do you really think a starving person cares WHO gives them food? Do you really think a homeless person cares WHO gives them shelter?
Yes, for you, charity is probably all about how good it makes you feel.
The key is everyone deserves food, shelter, education, legal representation AND health care. God doesn’t care where it comes from… but since we aren’t doing it ourselves, perhaps government should.
“Free enterprise allows the responsible individual to create wealth (and jobs, so you can avoid being on welfare), but does not resolve mankind’s depraved nature.”
There are so many things wrong with this statement I will take it to my blog.
(I consider it a classic of Americanism.)
EmergePeoria,
Rising health care costs are the consequence of too much government and fraud, not free enterprise. Reduce government mandates, increase competition, eliminate fraud and enact tort reform, and the cost of health care will decline significantly.
kcdad,
Everyone has a need for food and shelter, but government should be the last resort. All of us that are able-bodied must work for a living and live within our means in order that we do not become a burden on society. Those who are truly unable to work for a living and/or care for themselves are an exception, and I don’t oppose publicly-funded programs for them. But we can reduce the need for such tax-payer funded programs through charitable contributions.
BTW, Individuals donated over $300 billion in 2008, so don’t peddle the nonsense that “we aren’t doing it ourselves.”
Mahkno,
“Trickle down economics” works where it is tried, and fulfills its purpose to create wealth, however, heavy taxation, regulation and other woes of big government can stifle its effects state by state (California, Illinois, Massachussets, Michigan, New York and Ohio for example).
Don’t have time on vacation to enter into all the issues here (and there’s a lot of disinformation on *both sides* of the health reform debate) but on the Lazarus and rich man parable I have one thought:
There is a world of difference between arguing for a moral responsibility of the rich to care for the poor (which the parable clearly teaches) and establishing a huge taxpayer funded system to attempt to provide that same service. The parable has nothing to sustain a forced robbing of the rich to give to the poor. It has to do with responsible, charitable giving from the rich (of which most of us are) to the truly poor.
None of the government charitable systems previously established have helped the plight of the poor (or those in minority for that matter). This includes free education, free health care, free or reduced cost housing and the like.
Private charity can and will lead to true help for the poor when we get off our duffs and actually start doing some of it instead of sending people to the state for help.
You can now all return to your competing misinformation about the health care bill.
Health Care, i have written on this issue before…. Heartland Clinic has done a lot of great work within our community. People on medical cards [not all ] abuse the cards. This issue is like a dog caseing their tails , over and over…There no easy answer on this … But i will tell you all, i have seen what our local lawmakers have came together to give us all , help with our health care and for the record, Congressman Aaron Schock has done a lot for health care in P eoria and beyond… He is very quiet and doesn’t blow his horn…But i have witnessed it…I pray we can get help , so a lot of people without I ns. can get the help they need. As far as OSF, they help a lot of people with the Sisters Carity work… The people without Ins. need to educate theirselves..
kcdad, how much do you give? how much do you give to those less fortunate? how much time do you give to shelters with your time and money? how much do you contribute to help the poor? how much do you give to feed the hungry? Do you give to those without clothes? do you tutor freely? do you give rides for those without wheels? what have you given to those less fortunate than yourself within the past year?
Seraphin? {Puh-leese)
How much? I see that is probably a big issue for you, huh? That really is the issue isn’t it? How much does one give? What if I say I give a denarii? What if I give just a penny? What difference does it make to you? What if I do give old clothes to the Salvation Army or Goodwill? What if wear them til they wear out and neither organization will take them? What if I do offer tutoring and counseling “freely”? (I love how you get that money term in there again) What if I do give people rides, or take food to my neighbors… what if I do? What if I don’t?
Shouldn’t you be worried about you? Why don’t you list your “angelic” behaviors since you chose that name.
James: “The parable has nothing to sustain a forced robbing of the rich to give to the poor.”
I suppose it makes one feel better to think charity is voluntary… however Christian’ teaching certainly differ with that perspective.
Shane Claiborne’s book, The Irresistible Revolution states: “If you have two coats in your closet, you have stolen one of them from the poor.”
John the baptist: “The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.”
Gospel of John: “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?”
James: “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.”
Romans: “Share with God’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.”
I don’t see anywhere “it would be nice if you decided to give to charity” or “make sure you give more than the next guy”. We are compelled to because it isn’t giving, it is sharing. It isn’t ours to begin with, so we are not giving anything. You didn’t earn anything, so it isn’t yours to give.
Welcome to the Gospel.
David P Jordan:”Individuals donated over $300 billion in 2008″… now that you have the dollar figures, now look to where that money was spent… who got it? How much of it was foundational giving and tax write offs? (If the government gives you a a write off for your donation, it is money that should have been taxed and therefor public money you are giving away and it is allowing you to determine where it goes… so where did it go, all this private charity? (please don’t say United Way… I worked for those creeps when I was a social worker in Minneapolis.)
Kcdad: You’re confronting all of us with the part of the gospel that isn’t considered “good news” by many. I haven’t reread Jordan’s post on this subject, but I was struck by the thought that he might truly believe that all these passages have nothing to do with how a Christian is to live his/her life. The only other passages that many like to ignore are those that tell us to love our enemies. I am always amazed that so many Christians who insist as I do that the Bible be taken literally, mitigate that stance when it comes to these hard-to-live-by passages. I hope none of you out there doubt that Kcdad’s version of communism is very much rooted in the book he quotes above. I struggle with this all the time myself–because I see far more in the Bible that would support Christian communism as opposed to Christian capitalism. In fact, I know of no man-made economic system that could truly be considered Christian.
I did find Jordan’s comment, “The gospels aren’t about health insurance, but the story of the Savior, Jesus Christ. His preaching warns against placing one’s hope in anything else (money, praise from men, etc.).” Jesus said, “Follow me”–and I don’t believe he means–just to heaven–he expects much more. Lest I be misinterpreted, I do believe that the term gospel itself does mean Good News and that does specifically mean the good news that Christ is Savior–then there is the harder part about him being Lord. Theology and politics–we do pick the most forbidden topics. I believe that there isn’t a topic–health insurance, etc.–for which we cannot find guidance in the Bible.
kcdad:
A Christian imperative to give (which I’m not contending with) for Christians is not the same as taking money from everyone at the point of a gun to provide it.
I consider charity to be voluntary. But that doesn’t make it optional for me. I live in a neighborhood that is less than I can afford so that I can give more, and that was a conscious decision for my family to do so. I don’t believe the Claiborne quote is fair to Scripture, btw, but it doesn’t lack shock value.
Giving to the poor and needy, abundantly, is required of (rich–though most of us are) Christians as a part of what we believe. What is not required is taking money from our neighbors and giving it to the government to waste in ways that not only make the poor worse, but are not charitable at all. Nor do I believe that requiring someone who doesn’t believe the words of Jesus to give (and forcibly through their taxes, mind you!) anyway is a just and right thing to do.
What the government does isn’t charity. It’s forced wealth redistribution and theft. People provide charity, and I believe they’d do more of it if the government got out of the way.
James: You think charity is about YOUR giving… it isn’t. It is about those in need, those who have been unequally treated in society, receiving. Get out of yourself for a moment and look at Jesus’ commands from a different perspective. The poor are to be given to… you should give if you have more than enough… you should share, but if you choose not to, the poor should still receive their share. Robin Hood, that myth, is about forcing those who would not share, to share with those that need it. Was Robin Hood a communist? Was he anti-christian? Did he force people to give “at the point of a gun”?
“It’s forced wealth redistribution and theft.” Exactly. EXCEPT, someone can’t steal what isn’t yours in the first place. So it isn’t theft.
James: In theory, I might go along with your thoughts if Christians had done–in the past–the kind of giving, not just to their friends and people “like them,” but to those in need often looked down upon by our society–often considered too lazy to deserve help, etc. Christians definitely failed miserably in the ways they have treated black people–even to the point of condoning slavery in this country and the racism that followed. I was taught in church in Peoria in my youth that blacks were punished by God through the curse of Cain to be slaves–that was a footnote in the in a King James version of the Bible that almost all of us used–the name escapes me for the moment; yesterday I actually remembered the name but the memory is gone for right now. Personally, I decided not to complain about the tax money, especially that which goes to the poor–even those I may deem unworthy–because I believe the church and Christians have failed miserably at serving the “least among us,” which is definitely Jesus’ command. I have come to believe that Jesus probably would be all for government or individuals redistributing the wealth to make things a bit fairer–I’m sure that those of us who are wealthy by comparison can still live and do live a “good” life. What I always love the most is those who belong to the religious right (and theologically I am one of them) who insist that this is a Christian country and want all of our laws to conform to Christian values, etc., but are the very ones who believe that their “Christian” government is not responsible for following the commands of Jesus about caring for the poor—but certainly ask that all Americans follow and even be punished for not sharing or following their Christian views on abortion, gays, freedom of speech and worship for Christians–but sometimes not so desirous that others have that same freedom. Down from my soapbox.
That would be the Scofield Reference Bible.
If I dont believe in the gospel or the politics of communism then why would I believe that my wealth isnt mine to keep? Your arguement is based on the teachings of a religion that I may not follow so why would I care what its gospels teach? If I dont want to help those in need then why should I be forced to? Im not required to help minorities or the poor according to my belief system.
And yes Robin Hood did force charity at gun point and yes he was a thief.
Stephen: You’re right; there is a problem no matter what, isn’t there? I was focused on the arguments of those on the blog who do base their arguments on the Bible; I was pointing out why I didn’t agree with their view of Scriptural commands. If Christians can’t even come to agreement, then there is no hope of reconciling non-Christians and Christians. However, I find it most interesting in regard to my argument with those who claim to adhere to Christian thought. In this case, they clearly agree with you–one who, at least, for argument’s sake does not claim to follow Christianity–both of you believe your wealth is yours to keep or give away if you so choose. You (Christian and non-Christian) have both found a way to agree.
I have come to believe that Jesus probably would be all for government or individuals redistributing the wealth to make things a bit fairer–I’m sure that those of us who are wealthy by comparison can still live and do live a “good” life. What I always love the most is those who belong to the religious right (and theologically I am one of them) who insist that this is a Christian country and want all of our laws to conform to Christian values, etc., but are the very ones who believe that their “Christian” government is not responsible for following the commands of Jesus about caring for the poor
I am saying that as someone who does not follow your idea of religion this is not at all desirable and feel that the government has no religious obligation to do anything for the poor or take stances on moral issues.
Your statement is that the government should work to further religious concepts and that is not acceptable to me.
The difference is that because I do not follow your faith then I do not have an obligation to it whereas you do.
“I have come to believe that Jesus probably would be all for government or individuals redistributing the wealth to make things a bit fairer”
So you think that it would the right thing for government to do….
“I am saying that as someone who does not follow your idea of religion this is not at all desirable and feel that the government has no religious obligation to do anything for the poor or take stances on moral issues”
So you think it would be the wrong thing to do…
“I always love the most is those who belong to the religious right (and theologically I am one of them) who insist that this is a Christian country and want all of our laws to conform to Christian values, etc., but are the very ones who believe that their “Christian” government is not responsible for following the commands of Jesus about caring for the poor”
And what are you saying here? That you agree or disagree with those on the theological right?
What are you saying? (btw Robin Hood didn’t have guns… and is not historically considered a thief…he is considered a hero. King John, the pretender, along with the Sheriff of Nottingham are considered the thieves)
I think I understand what you are saying… What you have is yours and you are going to do whatever you want with it no matter what ANYONE says; Jesus or the government. Is that it?
Stephen: I am essentially agreeing with you. I honestly had forgotten to think about you in the equation. I would have to come up with a whole different argument for you–I am having enough trouble getting those of us who are Christians to agree in theory. I definitely agree with your last post. Frankly, I don’t think you have to worry about most right wing Christians disagreeing with you–I may be overly generalizing, but most are Republicans and Republicans aren’t in favor of entitlement programs–which are usually the ones that provide for the poor. Also, I don’t want to come off as superior or pious in this discussion. I don’t come close to giving what I believe I should give–so that could well make me a hypocrite. All I’m saying is that I’m happy that the government takes from me to help me fulfill my Christian obligations–so I’m a cheerful giver. I really don’t recall ever complaining about taxes. Now I did object to the museum tax–as frivolous spending for our economic times, and because I really do believe some of these luxuries should be paid for with private money. Also, I know that some of my taxes probably go to line the pockets of the rich in one way or the other–I do object to that, but I just have to accept the good with the bad. I will be curious to know how Christians justify feeling as you do–based on Christian teachings. I do know there are ways to skew the Scriptures–I’ve heard it done often.
Kcdad I was reposting those lines. I do not agree with any sort of redistribution of wealth and I dont really care what Jesus thinks about it so I do not want the government to run on his teachings. I am saying that I feel I have no obligation to help the poor or anyone else and I do not feel that the government should tell me what I can and can not do with my own wealth not matter how I have come into it.
btw Robin Hood was a thief whether you can justify his thievery I dont really care.
sorry Kcdad he stole at arrow point. That work better for you
Kcdad: Glad you rejoined the discussion, but I can’t tell whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with my arguments–as usual–but making me do all the thinking. :)Answering the question as to whether or not I agree with those on the religious right is probably the hardest question you could ever ask me. My answers will always appear to be a paradox–hopefully, not a copout. I was raised in the religious-right culture, have fought with it in my early adult life, and have finally come to a way to deal with what is good and reject what I feel is bad about the those who adhere to the stereotypical religious right. And truly love so very many of them who helped shape my life. I agree with the theological stances of the religious right–all with regard to the beliefs about the divinity of Christ and salvation through him, etc. I disagree with the religious right on many of their stances on social issues–and, of course, I disagree with them on the grounds that I believe that they are ignoring a whole lot of Scripture–that strangely enough they often choose not to take literally. I am grieved more than angry by my disagreements with those on the right.
Kcdad, I will probably say that I am not in favor of the complete redistribution of wealth, as you may be. I think the government should help the poor–and right now I see national health care as one of the ways where I want some degree of equality. Individuals and churches should go beyond what the government already does. However, I think it is a wonderful idea that we have a form of government that can help those less fortunate in some very important ways: health, maintaining freedoms, human and civil rights, etc.–way beyond most other governments that have existed in man’s history. I just don’t understand it when those who profess Christ want to stand in the way of that help.
I will tell you exactly what I think. We own nothing. It is immoral and unthinkable to own anything. Land, property, wealth… they are all temporary and transitory. It is precisely this ownership that has caused so much hatred, anger, resentment and jealousy throughout our history.
Let me tell you a good kcdad story. A college kid came around early this summer selling magazines or encyclopedias… you know the pitch. He happened to be from Latvia or Estonia and this was his first time in the US. He asked if I knew someone who had a cheap car for sale from him to use while he was here. I gave him my bike. He looked at me like I was crazy, (maybe because I had just offered him lunch and a soda as well.) Anyway, I told him to get as much use out of the bike as possible and to not sell it… give it to someone else when you are done with it.
Do I miss the bike?… not at all. At first I felt like I had betrayed myself, that he had conned me, or that I had “lost” something, and then I realized that the world was a better place because he had the bike, not me.
What makes our species, and the world a better place? Vast unequal distribution of wealth and property, or selflessness and community? Which causes wars or encourages peace?
I encourage people to consider this principle from nearly every major religion: denial of the self. We are a human species, a family. Our true identity lies in the whole, not in our individual expression of that community. We are not so unique to think we as individuals matter. No matter who are, no matter how rich or powerful you may be, no matter what celebrity or fame you achieve, you will soon be dust like everyone else… all that you accumulated; worthless. “VANITY!” the author of Proverbs calls it. Vanity… the preoccupation with self. What matters is the community, the family, i.e mankind. The concept of “self” separates us from the whole, alienates us and everyone else from the community of mankind.
Stephen: Just because you call someone a thief, it doesn’t make him one… I am sure the Sheriff of Nottingham was considered a thief by many more people than Robin Hood was… It all depends upon whose ox is getting gored, doesn’t it?
kc, your argument fails in its premise that those in need are “those who have been unequally treated in society.” How have those in need of charity been treated unequally? What exactly has been done to them? What opportunity has been denied them? You don’t seek equal opportunity, but rather equal results.
I believe that many individuals are worthy of charity, but their need has nothing to do with what society has done to them.
Oh, and the college kid to whom you offerd lunch, soda, and your bike was likely a little creeped out.
“I will tell you exactly what I think. We own nothing. It is immoral and unthinkable to own anything. Land, property, wealth… they are all temporary and transitory. It is precisely this ownership that has caused so much hatred, anger, resentment and jealousy throughout our history.
Let me tell you a good kcdad story. A college kid came around early this summer selling magazines or encyclopedias… you know the pitch. He happened to be from Latvia or Estonia and this was his first time in the US. He asked if I knew someone who had a cheap car for sale from him to use while he was here. I gave him my bike. He looked at me like I was crazy, (maybe because I had just offered him lunch and a soda as well.) Anyway, I told him to get as much use out of the bike as possible and to not sell it… give it to someone else when you are done with it.
Do I miss the bike?… not at all. At first I felt like I had betrayed myself, that he had conned me, or that I had “lost” something, and then I realized that the world was a better place because he had the bike, not me.
What makes our species, and the world a better place? Vast unequal distribution of wealth and property, or selflessness and community? Which causes wars or encourages peace?
I encourage people to consider this principle from nearly every major religion: denial of the self. We are a human species, a family. Our true identity lies in the whole, not in our individual expression of that community. We are not so unique to think we as individuals matter. No matter who are, no matter how rich or powerful you may be, no matter what celebrity or fame you achieve, you will soon be dust like everyone else… all that you accumulated; worthless. “VANITY!” the author of Proverbs calls it. Vanity… the preoccupation with self. What matters is the community, the family, i.e mankind. The concept of “self” separates us from the whole, alienates us and everyone else from the community of mankind.”
kcdad take your hippie crap and stuff it. Did you drop acid and smoke pot in 60’s? Snort coke, drop acid and smoke pot in the 70’s? Did you smoke crack, drop acid and smoke pot and snort coke in the 80’s, 90’s and now? No one buys that bullshit story you just wrote. LOL!!! latvian or estonian kid selling encyclopedias?!! Oh that is too stupid to be true. It sounds like something some hippie-shit writer wrote in the 70’s before you decided to plagarize it and make it your own.
Ok Kcdad I am not questioning your communist ideas Im just stating that the government should in no way attempt to enforce them. I dont care how transitional our wealth etc is I believe that I have one existance and that the wealth and possecions I have are mine to enjoy while Im here. I dont care about the community of mankind I have one goal and moral purpose in my life and that is my own happiness. To place others above self is destructive to achievement.
How can I achieve my maximum existance if I am required to carry the weight of those who are not working to better themselves? In your perfect world once wealth is evened what prevents some members from just collecting? Whats the incentive to working when one can just sit back and wait for their portion? What if someone makes choices that cause them to be in poverty or socially outcast are they under your same blanket of people who are unequally treated?
BTW Robin Hood may have been a noble thief but the taxes being collected, though prehaps unjustly, were still taxes. Robin Hood is a hero for many because he robed from the rich to help the poor. Kcdad Im sure that to you that is all well and good because in your world view wealth is everyones to enjoy. Is stealing less wrong if you steal from the government or a business? Can theft be justified if you are doing it for moral causes? I think the commandment is thou shalt only steal if it is morally justifiable.
Wasnt the sheriff collecting taxes?
But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
Don Malesku [wan’na be gangsta’],
“Did you drop acid and smoke pot in 60’s? Snort coke, drop acid and smoke pot in the 70’s? Did you smoke crack, drop acid and smoke pot and snort coke in the 80’s, 90’s and now? No one buys that bullshit story you just wrote…..”
– Don. It sounds like you are coming off a serious drop-of-acid yourself. Maybe you should check back into your little room?
Wait a minute — you own nothing, kcdad? Do you rent your clothes? Are you typing your comments on a computer at the library? Whose toothbrush and comb do you borrow? Do you rent a car? Or do you just take public transportation/walk/ride your bike? Didn’t you just tell Karrie you bought a book? Don’t you own that book now?
Perhaps a more pertinent question: What does this have to do with health care? Is this yet another post hijacked by kcdad and turned into a discussion about communism? Must every single discussion turn into a critique of kcdad and his world view?
Wow! Kcdad’s thoughts come right out of the Bible–I could easily find chapter and verse to support his contentions about ownership–most of the verses are already in my memory bank. The Bible definitely says that we own nothing–that it all belongs to God. Yes, I know that you will say that God doesn’t expect the government to take it away from us–I would agree. I would take some exception to what Kcdad said–but not much. I firmly believe that his is the Biblical ideal–the mark that I miss often, but I recognize its validity. This morning in Sunday School we studied Abram, who was rich and did own land. God didn’t fault him for owning land but did ask him to leave it all behind to go into the unknown to a new land that God would provide–but not in Abraham’s lifetime. I guess that’s where I would disagree mildly, very mildly with Kcdad–we can own whatever but should always be willing to give it up just as Kcdad did with the bike–but that is an expectation that Christ has for his followers–he didn’t expect (because they weren’t his followers) Pharoh or Caesar to give up their land, wealth, and power–he let them have their earthly status but maybe not so lucky in eternity.
I just don’t believe, however, that God would have faulted or would fault our government for helping the poor; I believe he expects the same of governments as he does of his followers–the reverse is probably not a safe choice if one believes in the God of the Bible. I know I can find some Bible verses that reveal that Israel and other nations were punished because of the way they as a nation treated the poor. It all comes down to what you believe about God. The way I look at it is that God died for me while I was a sinner–I didn’t have to be worthy of anything he has given me, so why should I expect the poor to live up to my standards before I give to them. The comparison is just too humbling for me.
C.J., please, please tell me that you don’t see the Christian principles in Kcdad’s comments. I am so sure that you and I both come out of a tradition that says everything we own is God’s. The word “communism” does tend to throw us off, I suppose. It did for me for a long time with Kcdad until I began to understand. Maybe Kcdad tends to take another step that some of us aren’t quite as willing to take. He’s saying that whatever we have we should be willing to give, not just to God, but to a total stranger. I do believe you and I both could come up with plenty of verses that agree with that sentiment. You know, “Even a cup of cold water given in my name.” If someone asks for your coat, give him your cloak also.” Christianity does sound a bit like lower-case communism, doesn’t it? I understand your pushing Kcdad to the point of admitting he does own things–but I can’t judge him because I really believe that he probably is more willing to let go of stuff than I am so that he can share with others–I have learned that about him. Sorry, but I think that my Christian views say that all this has absolutely everything to do with health care. Before Sunday School today, a group of us had this very discussion over coffee. One man who was in management at a local factory (not Cat), as a retiree lost all his health care. He would not have any health care today if his wife didn’t work. He has an adult daughter who has severe problems that keep her from functioning well in our world–who is eligible for Medicaid. She took a job working a couple of hours a day and lost all her Medicaid, but she wants to work. I can’t help but make the observation that Jesus–son of God–spent most of his earthly ministry healing the poor. Surely God could have found better things to do with his time on earth. Can’t that be some kind of example for us. Isn’t there some correlation that can be drawn for those of us professing Christians? Are you your brother’s keeper? I thought that is what we were taught. Kcdad does tend tp goad us into understanding our own world views. A friend of his pointed that out to me–and now I see him in a whole new light. He does keep all of us reacting in one way or the other.
C.J. asks “hat does this [the current discussion] have to do with health care?”
At first I thought very little, but………………..
One of my main concerns with health care has always been quality of care. Without getting in too deep now, consider this scenario –
If you are stricken with cancer, you are going to want the best health care/treatment money can buy. Right? Those of us who live in Peoria area have OSF, Methodist and a few other treatment options. Not bad………….
Hopefully you are insured, but if you are not or have poor insurance, then what?
What if you live in some remote part of the country, and the best care is not available because it either doesn’t exist where you live, or you simply can’t afford to travel to the nearest treatment center?
In the end, if anyone of us were stricken with cancer, wouldn’t we ALL love to fly to the Mayo Clinic for treatment? Maybe head to that certain clinic where a revolutionary treatment for cancer is being used with amazing results, but…………… we have to settle for what we can get because of our insurance and/or financial state.
Of course many of you might look at health care in terms of ‘wealth.’ Only the wealthy can afford the BEST possible health care.
Health Care = Wealth / Wealth = Health Care
Because some of you junior Republicans out there have this thing up your ass about wealth re-distribution, people who have less wealth should be denied the best possible health care. Right?
NV You like to refer to me as a republican but Im not. I honestly have little to no interest in or opinion in politics. In fact I would say that my positions on morality and politics are totally opposite to that of most of the republican party. I want as little government as humanly possible. I do not care about what health care is available to someone else as long as I have access to what I can afford. So yes you could say that I think that the people who have wealth should have access to what they can afford to pay for and those of us who do not get what we can afford to pay for. I do not believe that I have any responsiblity to care for or financially support anyone else. Case closed. If that is something you want to do go donate time, money whatever to a charity but do not make me. I am responsible for my own health, wealth and pursuit of happiness. Why do you think that your position is any more correct then mine? Because Jesus said so?
Stephen Scanlan-Yerly,
Sure thing. You are responsible for your own health, wealth, etc, until……………….. YOU find YOUR health failing, your wealth gone and your happiness a smile on someone else’s face.
Then you [and your type] will be in the street with your hand out, blithering like little babies……………………………….
You talk a very big ‘talk.’
Many people survive without government hand outs and public aide. I am not wealthy. Happiness is relative.
NV I live my life in the same manner as my way of thinking.
Stephen,
You are responding to my posts, you obviously own or have access to a pc, internet, etc. I am thinking you live somewhere in or near Peoria?
Lets just say I believe that you are doing more than just surviving. Don’t try to come off as some type of backwoods survivalist, etc. I doubt you live entirely off the ‘fruit of the land’ or by the ‘sweat of your brow’.
Just be careful how you live and how you think. A fire or storm could destroy everything you OWN in this world. Then where will you be?
You will be in line waiting for govt. cheese like so many others!
Also what is so bad about holding everyone accountable for their own existance? Is it that bad that people should hold self interest over collective interest? Why should I worry about what you need to survive wouldnt it make more sense to concern myself with making sure I have what I need and then if I am able to do that choose to assist in your existance?
Your talk is just as big in that you feel that you and your type should force some sort of collective charity on all of society. Once again I have no problem with you donating as much of your time, wealth, life whatever to as many charities as you choose but when is it ok for your concept of morality to be forced on to me by saying that I should be required to assist those less fortunate?
I have no debt, I have never had a credit card, I am self employed and I have money in savings. If a fire burned everything I own tommorow I could easily survive without government handouts.
Stephen,
“wouldnt it make more sense to concern myself with making sure I have what I need and then if I am able to do that choose to assist in your existence?”
Yes that makes perfect sense! There will however come a time when YOU need assistance, then what?
Lets understand something. I do my bit for god, king and country. I do what I can, when I can. I am hardly a communist, and the last thing I have the time [or inclination] to do is FORCE anyone to my way of thinking. I am no saint, and like most [all] people I take care of me and mine FIRST. No question!
I am just saying that your attitude is going to get you into trouble.
I am also willing to bet that at sometime in your life, in some way, shape or form, you HAVE taken a ‘handout’! I am not just talking about govt handouts either.
Any handout I was given, or have taken, comes from someone who willingly gave me said handout. That goes in accordance to the way I think. Someone who was in a position to give me something choose to and me seeking to better myself took it. The idea that the government should tell me that I have to provide for the greater good is what I have a problem with.
I have given to charities, individuals etc.. but it was because I was in a position to do so and made the desicion to do it. I just do not believe that I have a moral responsibilty to provide for everyone who needs assistance. Individuals need to work to provide for themselves.
How does doing what is best for myself led to problems? The arguement is that if I always make desicions that will led to a positive outcome for me how will there be a negative result?