Luke 10
I find it interesting that the same people who argue for distinct separation of church and state are often the same ones who are raising the notion that opposition to universal health care in unbiblical. On the other hand, I would argue (as partially supported by the post below) that the responsibility for caring for the poor and needy is specifically non-governmental and rather falls in the realm of the church’s role. If there is an argument to be made here, it is that the church has failed its responsibility - not that government should take over its role, nor that seeking other answers to the question than government intervention is a biblical failure.
Because one espouses Jesus call for justice, to care for our fellow brothers and sisters, to fulfill the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, does not equate to a clarion call for the imposition of a theocracy. To be an advocate for health care for all and adhere to a belief in the separation of church and state is no way whatsoever a contradiction. It’s about alleviating the inherent injustice in the prevalence of mammon idolatry which has some spending millions on cosmetic surgery, wasteful luxuries, pampering of pets, etc.… while others die in need of health care or suffer from hunger. And finding common ground with people of all walks of faith — liberal, conservative, progressive, independent, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or freethinker.
Moreover, the church in America has failed even to create honest disciples of Jesus way, let alone care for the poor and sick. Left to such charity, many elderly would be scrounging for tidbits and starving in the streets, like happened in the age that preceded New Deal reforms.
Casting idyllic nostalgia for a utopia that never was and never can be in a post-Christian 21st century realm where everybody is interconnected and interdependent in a unprecedented way, and pining for theoretical theological purity is a fool’s errand.
I knew this cartoon would stir things up :)
I’ll second what AZSpot said and add that the goals of health care are relatively straight forward. Prolong life. Reduce pain. We can find questions of biomedical ethics—but generally speaking, we agree on 99% of what a medical system should provide.
The same is not true of religion. I want the state to avoid as much entanglement with my church as possible—because I value freedom of conscience. When the state gets bungled up in religion, things get bad fast. The goals of the state are frequently incompatible with the goals of religion.
Or, to put it differently, if Bellatoris recommended a doctor, I would take the recommendation seriously. I can trust Bellatoris, who I have never met, to have a pretty good understanding of what I’m looking for in a doctor. I would not have the same trust regarding a church.
I don’t mean to say that religion is a personal thing, that we’re all equally right, or some other such hogwash. I’m just pretty sure that Bellatoris is a heretic. (No offense, Bellatoris. I’m pretty sure he’d say the same about me.) The state is not institutionally competent to handle religious matters. And, unfortunately, the several churches have proven themselves institutionally incompetent to handle medicine for the poor.
