Why Obamacare Fails to Get God’s Vote (Part 3)

Often as we probe real life with real faith,  there are no easy answers. Only shades of grey. Not fifty of them, thank God, as my friend and author Joel J. Miller points out in his critique of that latest fad.  But there is a vital need to maintain a healthy balance between two equally essential values that exist in tension with one another. And that’s not a bad thing.

Photo via http://abcnews.go.com/images

My home site is here for now for those who want to know more about me. My latest project is here. My passion is connecting real life with real faith.

My first post suggests the first of five reasons that Obamacare fails to get God’s vote: 1) God requires rulers to keep their covenant with the people.

My second post argues that 2) God rewards those who put their trust in Him.

The third reason appears below today. Subscribe now to the right to be sure not to miss any.

3.  God calls us to personal as well as corporate responsibility.

Obamacare further advances a culture of dependence on our government instead of encouraging personal responsibility. With my health care administered by the impersonal government, I need do nothing to have it supplied through the diligent efforts of others. I need take no responsibility. I can pursue whatever reckless or immoral behavior I choose. Somebody else will ensure I’m covered. And if I choose to not play by the rules? The government will act on my behalf to curb my expensive appetites, even banning my Big Gulps or Happy Meals as needed.

Certainly, both corporate and personal responsibility are needed. Without concern for others as part of our corporate culture, we would struggle even to survive, let alone thrive. Yet when we abandon individual responsibility, we become not only a burden to others but also easy prey for tyrannical demagogues.

But which is more Biblical, an emphasis on personal or on corporate responsibility? At issue here is yet another expression of the tension that exists between the One and the Many. It is the tension that exists in the very nature of the triune God of the Bible.

God is both one in essence yet many in three distinct persons. He is both an individual and three individuals in unified relationship with one another. We could say he is both personal and corporate without confusion or contradiction. He is personal so that Christ could bear our sins to satisfy the just demands of the Father and permit the Spirit to apply his atoning work to our hearts. But he is also most assuredly corporate: “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.” “I and the Father are One.”  “I pray that they may be one even as we are one.” “Let us make man in Our image.”

We are similar to our Creator, not surprising as we are made in His image.  We are corporately responsible to others – our family, church, community, country, and entire planet to varying degrees; but we are also personally responsible to our Maker for our actions in a way that no one else can be.

We see this personal responsibility reflected in countless Biblical commands:

  • To fathers: “He who does not care of His own family is worse than an infidel.” (1 Tim. 5:8)
  • To children: Honor your father and mother. (Ex. 20:12)
  • To rulers: “It is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness.” (Prov. 16:12)
  • To citizens: “Render therefore to all their due…honor to whom honor.” (Rom. 13:7)
  • To me: I will give an answer for every idle word I speak. (Matt. 12:36)

Christ’s parable of the talents reinforces this truth that each of us must take personal responsibility for our life choices, including those choices that affect our physical health. I will need to depend on others at some points to be sure, but ultimately, the responsibility must rest with me and not with the government. I must give God an answer for the choices I made. I will not be able to refer Him to the help desk.

We must be ever cautious to preserve our divinely required personal responsibility without neglecting our corporate duty to love our neighbor as ourselves. Nevertheless, because it is composed of fallen people, the consistent temptation of government will always be to encroach upon personal responsibility, to expand the reach of the corporate One at the expense of the Many personal responsibilities of the individual.

But here’s the crux of the matter: there is no longer any personal liberty if there is no longer any personal responsibility. The two are directly connected and both are required. Both the individual and the corporate share a responsibility to the Creator. Both are responsible for maintaining the vital and necessary tension found in God’s very nature.

I believe Obamacare unnecessarily restricts the individual’s opportunity to fulfill his or her personal responsibility by shifting the emphasis to what a few deem to be the good of the whole. By deemphasizing personal responsibility, it weakens the personal liberty required to fulfill that responsibility to God.

Violating Our Conscience: God and Obamacare (Part 4)

Go ahead. Share your thoughts in the comments below. What insight do you have for discerning that line between the equally important personal and corporate values in our society?

About Bill Blankschaen

Bill Blankschaen is a writer, speaker, author, content and messaging consultant, and general Kingdom catalyst. As the founder of FaithWalkers, he equips Christians to think, live, and lead with abundant faith.

His writing has been featured with Michael Hyatt, Ron Edmondson, Skip Prichard, Jeff Goins, Blueprint for Life, Catalyst Leaders, Faith Village, and many others.

Bill is a blessed husband and the father of six children. He serves as VP of Content & Operations for Polymath Innovations in partnership with Patheos Labs. He is the Junior Scholar of Cultural Theology and Director of Development for the Center for Cultural Leadership. He works with Equip Leadership, Inc. (founded by John C. Maxwell) and ministry leaders around the Pacific Rim to better equip ministry leaders there to lead with passion and greater influence.

  • Pingback: Why Obamacare Fails to Get God's Vote (Part 3) | BillintheBlank

  • Jay Saldana

    Nothing you have said in any of your posts argues definitively you stated goal against the Health Care Act. You argue with grand Theology and do a great job of mixed metaphors but it is all to naught. Everything said here could be used to argue for the Health Care Plan. Maybe you expect us to agree becasue it is too tiresome to pull it apart. The simple truth is that your worldview will not allow for the man Obama to succeed.
    The health care plan is but a beard for your argument against the man. Many of your arguments will only gain traction in a very Anglo world not filled with troublesome minorities who think. You argue in your first post for “Rulers who don’t break their covenants” and let slip by all the sainted rulers in scripture who did just that – not to mention the congress or the other party that has acted contrary to their solemn oath to protect the well being of the country. And then, you never prove or adequately explain, how it was that a covenant was broken. Constitutional error does not rise to a broken covenant in the eyes of most persons, given that most scholars it is simple a difference in scholarly legal logic.
    In your second post you argue for those “who trust God are rewarded”. While there is truth in the statement, their is little to link that statement to your side of the argument that does not, at the same time, link it to the other. Except of course the disparaged man in the middle.
    Now you argue for “Corporate Responsibility”. And you argue for the obverse of your statement! You mix platitudes (that is scripture used to argue for the opposite of its intended purpose in the original autograph) and arrive at a conclusion of your own making. Allow me to say this. There is no line between so called corporate and personal responsibility. We are only responsible. God will not say you were part of a body and so are excused for your mistreatment of your brothers and sister by that body. Sin by passive acceptance is still sin. If you allow it that is the same as doing it.
    Your argument is without foundation theologically. Once you are aware, you are responsible.
    Lastly, your argument for personal liberty reminds me of the man calling for an open mind and suddenly finding he has no thought, becasue his mind was so open his brain fell out. Using aphorisms like “personal liberty” is an emotionally loaded word with very limited communication. It means something different to each person who reads it. Who knows what you really mean. Great propaganda but a lousy premise.

    • http://BillintheBlank.com Bill Blankschaen

      Jay,

      So am I responsible to try to correct each point on which I think you have erred? Now that i know, I am now responsible? Can you support that claim from Scripture? Even so, I fail to see what that has tpo do with Obamacare — or any name we choose to give it.

      There is no line between personal and corporate responsibility? So the responsibilities of a family are the same as of an individual? Those of a nation, the same as my daughters? Those of, say, a school principal, are the same as of the man on the street? Not sure I understand your argument although you certainly have assumed to understand my motives in critiquing morally defunct legislation. I will try to refrain from casting the aspersions on your own character that you have so freely cast upon my own.

      Not sure why you seem to be hung up on this Anglo or minority thing. Christ died for all of us. Because we all needed it. That’s all I need to know. Praying…

  • Jennifer

    If I am reading your argument correctly (and I’m not sure that I am!) you are stating that if American citizens are forced to buy insurance (or have it subsidized in the case of low income families), they will abandon personal responsibility for their health. This doesn’t stand up to scrutiny very well. Do Americans who are poor and who have to pay their own doctor’s bills eat more fruits and vegetables than Americans who are covered by insurance? Do they smoke less? Do they exercise more? Do Americans who are covered by insurance eat more Happy meals? Do they smoke more? I don’t think so.

    And what about the people who are not yet old enough to take responsibility. Close to 7% of American children have no health insurance whatsoever (and the same again have inconsistent health coverage). Is it ok for parents to make that decision for them? Or is it even a decision? Studies have shown conclusively that children without healthcare coverage are more likely to go without preventative care, are more likely to die in hospitals (due to not seeing a doctor in a timely fashion) and are thus at risk.

    • http://BillintheBlank.com Bill Blankschaen

      Jennifer,

      Sorry for the lack of clarity — my bad. I was not stating that if we are forced to buy health insurance against our will that we will abandon personal responsibility. I am saying that as fallen people we will be more likely to abandon it or err in that direction when we have no stake in the game. Sorry, Jay. That’s likely another mixed metaphor.

      You see this phenomenon in the direct coorelation between home ownership and home appearance. The more people who own homes in a neighborhood, the better the neighborhood looks. There are exceptions, of course. There always are. But they are exceptions. I’ve seen it with the use of health savings accounts. When I didn”t know how much the procedure cost, I really didn’t give much thought as to whether I should do it because some insurance company was paying for it. But when the money was coming out of my own pocket, I asked and then chose to not permit some medical procedures I didn’t actually need anyways. I took responsibility and by doing so, helped the corporate cause, as well.

      We agree. Personal and corporate responsibility are both necessary. Exactly. Hence the tension. In answer to the hyopthetical question of which is more important, my personal responsibility or our corporate responsibility, the Biblical answer is “Yes.” Both. Which is why when the ability of the individual to be responsible to his or her Creator is significantly restricted, the necessary tension shifts decidely toward the corporate at the expense of the individual.

      Final thought on your question: “What about those of us who would exercise our choice to work as a collective to do as Jesus did?” First, Jesus never did what you are proposing. He never called upon the sphere of government to care for the poor. He called on the church and individuals. Every sphere but the government. He gave it a sword. Not a scalpel. there’s a reason government is good at the military –well, actually the military is the one branch of the governemnt that doesn’t function like the rest of the government, but I digresss.

      Second, and most importantly, your question is not the one at the crux of Obamacare. If it is enforced, we will not be choosing to to work as a collective. We will be forced to work as a collective. Jesus called upon us to care for the widow and the orhpan, the needy and hungry. He never added “And if you don’t, you’re going to jail.” I’m just not hearing him saying, “All power is given me on heaven and earth. Therefore, go – or else your doing ten to twenty!” One reason the Church has lost its relevance in society is that government has assumed a good chunk of the church’s role of caring for the needy. Unfortunately, the government does so without the heart that comes from people moved by passion for Christ and one another. It has different motives because it has a different purpose altogether. The government forcing me to buy a product has NOTHING to do with the second commandment. Especially when nearly just as many are uninsured before the legislation as after it. It does have a lot to do with the eighth one though.

      Glad you remembered to pick up the kids, by the way. Great night to you.

      • Jennifer

        Hi Bill,
        Thanks for the clarification. Just for the record, I’m not a huge fan of President Obama’s health plan. I don’t think that people should be forced to buy insurance if they don’t want it. However, and this is where we might disagree, I think that insurance should be available to people who DO want it even if they can’t personally afford it. And I think that children – being not able to make the choice – should be granted quality healthcare regardless of the insurance status of their parents. I am in complete agreement that having something “for free” will result in more people perhaps undergoing medical procedures that aren’t completely necessary. I find here (Canada) that doctors are more inclined to send you for tests than they might be if they knew we had to pay out of pocket. That said, I don’t agree that personal responsibility is necessarily reduced by increased access to medical care. I’ve found, on the contrary, that quality care can lead to more education and thus more self-responsibility in our own health care.

        To clarify one of my points: I was not trying to say that Jesus called on us or on government to work as a collective. I was trying to say that there are people who might want to choose to pool their resources to help others (in the way that Jesus helped others only in the sense of doing what we can to help). It may not be reasonably feasible for me to help my financially strapped neighbour to afford cancer treatment for her child, but working as a neighbourhood (community, province, country) we can put our resources together to do so – because lots of money pooled in an insurance company gains more interest and has more healthcare buying power than I have as an individual. It’s possible we are having some miscommunications because of the way our different governments are set up. Here we vote for what we want the government to do (our choice as a people). Sometimes we hold a referendum (the people vote directly for or against a piece of proposed legislation)

      • Jennifer

        Hi Bill,
        Something kept nagging at me after reading your reply and it finally popped into my head. It is true that we care for and take more personal responsibility for what we have an investment in. Monetary investment, however, is a luxury enjoyed by those who have money to invest. Those who are not fortunate enough to have paid insurance plans or health savings accounts (most of the people on this planet) nonetheless may have a significant emotional investment in the health of their families. You make the point that “There is a direct correlation between home ownership and home appearance. The more people who own homes in a neighborhood, the better the neighborhood looks. ” But it is not property ownership that makes this difference. Otherwise the owners of rental homes (SOMEONE owns the run down homes!) would take responsibility for the upkeep of their rental properties. It is the emotional investment that makes the difference. And people are much less likely to be emotionally invested in a temporary rental home than they would be in the family manor.
        The majority of us have an emotional stake in the healthcare game. Will some people abuse the system some of the time and avoid personal responsibility? Undoubtedly. That is between them and their maker. Will other people make use of President Obama’s health care plan to access health services that would otherwise be denied to them or their children and, in the process, learn more about the things they can personally do to stay healthy (good nutrition, exercise, personal management of asthma)? Undoubtedly. I don’t think that it is the system that will determine each individual’s level of responsibility.

  • Jennifer

    Continued… (I had to pick children up from school)
    “God is both one in essence yet many in three distinct persons. He is both an individual and three individuals in unified relationship with one another.” And we are made in the image of God. We are at the same time one and many. Is our responsibility not equally to both? I agree with the Jay’s opinion that “We are just responsible”. Jesus did not say to the sick – “Sorry, you’ve made some poor choices here. Please work on your personal responsibility”. It was in his power to heal them and he did so without judgement. We have the power to work as individuals and as a many to heal those who are sick in body. Jesus was not forced to heal the sick. He faced no Earthly penalty for not doing so. He had a choice. The crux of this matter seems to be that by “forcing” healthcare on the citizens of the United States we will be taking away their freedom of choice / personal responsibility (though some could argue that by voting for Obama and his healthcare platform a choice was made). But what about those of us who would exercise our choice to work as a collective to do as Jesus did? And what about one of the two most important commandments: “The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” DEPEND THE WHOLE LAW.

    • http://BillintheBlank.com Bill Blankschaen

      Jenneifer,

      Christ almost always addressed spiritual issues when he healed the sick. “Get up and walk — and you’re sins are forgiven.” Thus it did involve judgement — a correct assessment of their spiritual condition — and a solution. Government can’t do that.

      Thanks agian. Off to spend some time with my own kids.

  • jerry lynch

    Bill, I am sure you know that the individual mandate was put forth and embraced by the Republicans at first, endorsed by a conservative foundation. The Republicans also agreed on the need for national health care. Where was the Christian Right then? What changed to bring forth articles such as yours? President Obama was in favor of it.
    Every point you are trying to make thus far is another talking point of the Tea Party. And if you do not think being White and privileged has anything to do with this, or that President Obama is Black, your desire to link real faith with real life falls short by half. Christ may have died “for all of us” but not everyone thinks so and some actively disagree. Corporate greed is in charge of America right now and their interest, such as the infamous private health insurance companies, are piqued.
    In effect, you are eschewing helping others through social programs for us to be at the mercy of Corporate America. The evidence is abundantly clear how Big Business treats its employees without restrictions, another promise of the Republican platform.

    This point that “Obamacare” (you should at the very least, for accuracy and propriety, quote or italicize this term) is morally wrong is truly odd. Mistaken, an over-reach, constitutionally flawed–but evil? Do you fin social security to be a Ponzi scheme and morally repugnant as well? A lot of seniors out there disgustingly gorging on Big Gulps? (That Big Gulp talking point was on Limbaugh, wasn’t it, looking to disparage the taste buds of those “on the dole”?)

    There is a wide gulf (not Big Gulp) between us in how we perceive Christ’s message; To me. yours is unfortunately mixed: God and Mammon, or a house divided. Godliness and worldliness should separate and be easily distinguishable; your piece, in my eyes, has them coalesce into this chimera of Reason, indivisible.

  • James

    Hi Bill

    I’m intrigued at reading your posts on this.

    Regarding Part 2, I think you might have set up a false dichotomy between God and State. If it’s true that people trust in the institution that provides healthcare instead of God, do you think that people will put more trust in the state for their healthcare than they would their insurance company as it is at the moment? Surely under the current system there’s people who place their trust in their insurance company for their health as opposed to God just as much as there would be people trusting in government for their health under Obamacare. Either way there’s plenty of opportunity to trust in a human institution as opposed to God, and I don’t think that the particular institution makes much of a difference.

    In Part 3 you say that Obamacare, because of state funding, removes our personal responsibility. I, frankly, find this hard to believe. Firstly there are far more areas of life than just healthcare in which individuals would still have personal responsibility (finances, worklife, how and who we spend our time with just to name a few), so even if Obamacare does remove personal responsibility for an individual’s health care there are still many more areas of life left. Secondly I’d object to whether Obamacare removes personal responsibility for healthcare. Whoever provides an individual’s healthcare doesn’t change their personal responsibility to treat their body well (eating well, exercising, avoiding toxins such as smoking etc) as it’s a temple of the Lord and there are going to be people who don’t take good care of their bodies or abuse the system whether it’s privately financed or state financed, again it’s about the attitudes of people’s hearts rather than where the money comes from.

    I’m very interested in the rest of what you have to say, and actually in principle I agree with you, I don’t think God would vote his approval of Obamacare. I also think the things you’ve said are valid reasons that he might not be in favour of it, but actually they’re not specific (Parts 2 and 3 at least) to Obamacare and in fact true of multiple ways of organising/funding healthcare including the current/pre-Obamacare US system and you create a false dichotomy. Keen to hear your response.

    • Jennifer

      Hi James,
      I’m in agreement with your observation that responsibility for healthcare is about the attitudes of people’s hearts rather than where the money comes from. My son decided to eat lunch at home today and I asked him his thoughts about this issue (He has grown up taking government run healthcare for granted). His first comment was “That’s just nuts. People take care of themselves because they want to be healthy, not because they have to pay for it if they’re not. Otherwise we’d (Canadians) all be fat. It’s not worth being sick just so that you can go to the doctor for free.” (sorry, he’s a teenager currently obsessed with physical fitness). I then asked him how his life would change if we had to pay for his healthcare. His answer saddened me. He said that he would have to stop playing “all out” in sports and Karate because he would be afraid of breaking something and then feeling guilty that we had to pay for it. He said be a lot more “stressed out” about illness in case it was something serious.

      I won’t tell you what he said about putting our trust in God to protect us. Well…. maybe I will. And please remember to take this in the context of a boy thinking about physical protection. He said, “But God does a horrible job of protecting us!”.

      • http://BillintheBlank.com Bill Blankschaen

        Jennifer, See my comment to Jerry below for some of this. But aren’t you making my case? Or is that what you were trying to do? Your son — awesome as he may be, of course — seems to think that he will not live life to its fullest if the government isn’t picking up the tab for the physical consequences? Really! I can’t imagine your son embracing that thinking. I must be confused with someone else. :)

        Or is his trust so firmly in the government that he would not trust the consequences to God after acting wisely, evaluating risks, and determining as best he could what God’s plan might be for his life?

        • Jennifer

          Hi Bill. One of the beautiful things about the discussions that you have started is that we are exposed to things we may not have thought through before. We spend so much of our time on autopilot! I am, indeed, partially arguing your case – my son, for one, would be more careful in sports if he (we) had to pay for his medical bills. On the other hand, I was saddened by the knowledge that he would act out of fear. He is a pretty sensible kid and by “giving it his all” he means that he throws himself into his passions body, mind and soul and not that he acts recklessly and without respect for the limits of his body.

          My son embraces his own kind of thinking :) It’s one of the more rewarding, frustrating and downright scary and fantastic things about being a parent. You give birth to this little baby and try to raise him or her in the way you think is right and then – BOOM – they are individuals thinking thoughts completely outside your realm of experience. He doesn’t, by the way, think that God has any interest whatsoever in our physical well being. YOU try arguing with him :)

          As for his trust in the government? He thinks politicians are out for what they can get away with and only worry about how they’re going to get re-elected. I despair.

          • http://BillintheBlank.com Bill Blankschaen

            Understood.

    • http://BillintheBlank.com Bill Blankschaen

      Thanks, James. Appreciate your well-thought comments. I would correct your first interpretation of point 2. I do not think that further dependance on government for health care would absolve anyone of personal responsibility. I do think that for many it would push us further down a slope we are only too eager to go. We started that run from responsibility in the garden some time ago. And Jennifer’s point further supports my concern. Someone else is being forced to pay for it all. Even if you don’t — even refuse — to contribute through taxes, you still get the benefit. Guarunteed. We are always quick to note the exceptions or hard cases such as those who cannot work. But the Bible says if you don’t work, you don’t eat. If it doesn’t cost you anything, you are less likely to be wise in using it. Less likely. There are other factors for some — such as Jennifer’s awesome son — that motivate them to take better care of themselves than others. Admittedly, this line is a grey one as I pointed out. There is no celar number at which you can point to say “there we have gone toof ar.” Only later when looking back through the lens of the historian, can we see and say “Somewhere along that way, we went too far in our dependance on ourselves (government).”I prefer to avoid it. Especially when there are other, more biblical — and sustainable — solutions. And the one we have/had prior to this law also shifted the burden to someone other than the end user, a major factor in the rising costs as I stated elsewhere in the thread.

      Thanks again!

  • jerry lynch

    Argument One of “Why Obamacare does not get God’s vote,” by Bill Blankinshaen, reviewed:
    Bill: “We have a history, a culture – a Biblically sound one — based on our covenant with our leaders. We call that covenant our Constitution.”
    As citizens of heaven, our covenant is with God alone. We do not fight with the weapons of the world. We submit to the governing authorities not because of who they are but because of who God is and he has asked this of us. If the covenant were, in fact, with them, they, not God, would rule our lives and all that they decreed would be morally correct for us to follow. To be a “citizen of heaven” is not just some flowery expression but the reality of our existence.
    Bill: “Let’s not forget our own national heritage that coalesced around this very issue – the breach of covenant we experienced as colonies of the English crown.”
    This is horsepucky, mere worldly rationalization for violating Romans13: “Consequently, he who REBELS against the authorities is REBELLING against God…” Hard to get more specific than that, absolutely no wiggle room: the Colonies were wrong in their Revolution. End of story. Oh, and to be a Christian nation one needs to accept Christ as Lord and Savior: find that in our Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Declaration of Independence.
    You keep insisting, as our coinage says, that all we need is to just “trust in God.” Hindus, Muslims, and many New Agers do just that: is that enough? America says it is.
    Bill: “Consider a few examples of Biblical rulers God visited when they overstepped the bounds He gave them:
    Saul. He offered a sacrifice in place of the prophet/priest, thereby violating the separation of powers established by God in Israel.
    David. He selfishly numbered the people of Israel in violation of his legal boundaries.
    Moses. He simply struck the rock in anger against God’s instructions.
    Herod. He just started believing his own press about being a god.
    Pharoah. He abused the Israelites entrusted to his oversight by divine Providence.”
    Who resolved all these overstepping of bounds? God did! Not armed rebellion by disgruntled merchants over taxation and other abuses. Did Rome breach its covenant? If it were morally correct to rebel a breach of covenant with the state, imperative the way you phrase it and place the full weight of all Bill’s arguments, why is Jesus so silent on the issue in his day, supporting, instead, a tax that was literally crippling the Jews (and helped led him to the cross)?
    Bill: “If the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is, in fact, a violation of our national covenant, Obamacare is not simply a political faux pas — but an immoral one. When those put in authority by God break trust with the people God has entrusted to them, the leaders err in their duty toward God. No offense to Chief Justice Roberts, but God’s opinion is the ruling that will eternally matter.”
    This is blatantly self-contradictory and needs no further comment. But I will. You say the Supreme Courts can justly decide “Obamacare” is immoral then he goes on to say only God’s opinion on the subject matters, dismissing as well the Chief of those he claims decide morality of this case. Does it matter that Roberts is sort of an Independent or that the Court’s majority is Conservative?
    Bill: “The ultimate accounting for a politician’s breach of our national covenant will not be at the ballot box — although that is coming soon.”
    Republican Propaganda. Placing this health care bill all on President Obama, when it was originally initiated by Republicans and has had bi-partisan support for decades, is preposterous. His party affiliation and it appears dislike of the president is showing.

  • jerry lynch

    Argument Two of “Why Obamacare does not get God’s vote,” by Bill Blakinshaen, reviewed:

    This appears like nothing more, in the political arena, than disguised “social Darwinism,” the recent influence of the Tea Party and a favorite of Paul Ryan’s heroine, Ayn Rand. The main gist is that any socialism, even the likes of Social Security, panders to our “fallen nature” and is thus dangerous and morally reprehensible. Would not the “ministers appointed by God” care for “the least of these” in society? Wouldn’t the purported “covenant” of those ministers and us, we the people, naturally include provision for the poor and needy? If they are indeed trusted ministers of God, wouldn’t what the Church would do to assist the poor and needy (is that pandering to our fallen nature?) also be true of government?

    • http://BillintheBlank.com Bill Blankschaen

      Jerry,

      Ministers can be and are commissioned with different tasks. Those ministers of God in government and those in the church have distinctly different authority given them by God. The government can bear the sword. The pastor the sacrament of bread and wine. Think of Saul and the consequences of his taking on priestly duties. Think of Aaron’s leprosy when he tried shifting from his priestly assignment to a more governmental role.

      Again with that Ayn Rand stuff. You’re going to make me want to look into that…. :)

      Good night to you! Thanks!

  • jerry lynch

    Argument Three of “Why Obamacare does not get God’s vote,” by Bill Blankenshaen, reviewed:
    Bill: “With my health care administered by the impersonal government…”
    It is not impersonal; they are the ministers of God. Right? Aren’t we to submit, then, to what you claim is “impersonal”?
    Bill: “The government will act on my behalf to curb my expensive appetites, even banning my Big Gulps or Happy Meals as needed.”
    This was another outrageous talking point of the Tea Party and the likes of Limbaugh in response to Michelle Obama’s message on better eating habits as well as mocking and condemning the poor on assistance for their faulty taste buds. Crazy.
    Bill: “Yet when we abandon individual responsibility, we become not only a burden to others but also easy prey for tyrannical demagogues.”
    Before I comment on this section, I want to make it plain that I in no way see Big Business (Corporate America, the top 1%, call it what you will) as being fundamentally or inherently evil. God bless them all. What I am saying is that this “fallen nature” the author is so worried about in those that get assistance is just as prevalent in those that are rich, perhaps more so if we take what Jesus had to say on the matter, a “camel going through the eye of a needle” and other verses. Corporations are not people. They are enterprises whose overriding concern is the Bottom Line: profit. This is their one and only idea of “corporate responsibility,” Which may include helping others if doing so helped profits.
    Some questions to ask, given the ideas of the author: 1) Have the subsidies and tax incentives given to Corporations by the government corrupted their sense of “personal responsibility”? 2) Have the tax breaks given those Corporations and wealthy by the government corrupted their sense of “personal responsibility”?
    The disparity of wealth in this country, if you care to research it, is a “tyrannical demagogue.” This creates the situation where “personal responsibility” is to little or no avail. Or take those ravaged by the immoral practices of the Banking and Mortgage Industry, “tyrannical demagogues,” or the rapacious greed of Wall Street, another “tyrannical demagogue” allowed to feast on Americans due to deregulation by government.
    A million victims at least who through no fault of their own and despite their “personal responsibility,” find themselves in desperate straights needing assistance. The government has created this problem. Where is the moral indignation over these abominations?
    Bush policies nearly destroyed this country. Present Republican obstinacy over the debt ceiling and spending and no increase of taxes for the 1% almost and may yet destroy America.
    “The least of these” are those, such as children and those ravaged by Corporate greed, who will suffer without assistance. Trust God that giving them that assistance will temporally help them to survive and eventually lead them to better lives. Trust God that he now sees a need for such assistance in these dire straits.
    Or try watching a child slowly die due to a lack of care his parents, ruined by this economy, cannot afford…and then come back and call for this “social Darwinism” you extol as morally preferable.

  • jerry lynch

    Argument Three of “Why Obamacare does not get God’s vote,” by Bill Blankenshaen, reviewed:
    Bill: “With my health care administered by the impersonal government…”
    It is not impersonal; they are the ministers of God. Right? Aren’t we to submit, then, to what you claim is “impersonal”?
    Bill: “The government will act on my behalf to curb my expensive appetites, even banning my Big Gulps or Happy Meals as needed.”
    This was another outrageous talking point of the Tea Party and the likes of Limbaugh in response to Michelle Obama’s message on better eating habits as well as mocking and condemning the poor on assistance for their faulty taste buds. Crazy.
    Bill: “Yet when we abandon individual responsibility, we become not only a burden to others but also easy prey for tyrannical demagogues.”
    Before I comment on this section, I want to make it plain that I in no way see Big Business (Corporate America, the top 1%, call it what you will) as being fundamentally or inherently evil. God bless them all. What I am saying is that this “fallen nature” the author is so worried about in those that get assistance is just as prevalent in those that are rich, perhaps more so if we take what Jesus had to say on the matter, a “camel going through the eye of a needle” and other verses. Corporations are not people. They are enterprises whose overriding concern is the Bottom Line: profit. This is their one and only idea of “corporate responsibility,” Which may include helping others if doing so helped profits.
    Some questions to ask, given the ideas of the author: 1) Have the subsidies and tax incentives given to Corporations by the government corrupted their sense of “personal responsibility”? 2) Have the tax breaks given those Corporations and wealthy by the government corrupted their sense of “personal responsibility”?
    The disparity of wealth in this country, if you care to research it, is a “tyrannical demagogue.” This creates the situation where “personal responsibility” is to little or no avail. Or take those ravaged by the immoral practices of the Banking and Mortgage Industry, “tyrannical demagogues,” or the rapacious greed of Wall Street, another “tyrannical demagogue” allowed to feast on Americans due to deregulations by government.
    A million victims at least who through no fault of their own and despite their “personal responsibility,” find themselves in desperate straights needing assistance. The government has created this problem. Where is the moral indignation over these abominations?
    Bush policies nearly destroyed this country. Present Republican obstinacy over the debt ceiling and spending and no increase of taxes for the 1% almost and may yet destroy America.
    “The least of these” are those, such as children and those ravaged by Corporate greed, who will suffer without assistance. Trust God that giving them that assistance will temporally help them to survive and eventually lead them to better lives. Trust God that he now sees a need for such assistance in these dire straits.
    Or try watching a child slowly die due to a lack of care his parents, ruined by this economy, cannot afford…and then come back and call for this “social Darwinism” you extol as morally preferable.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X