This ministry needs your financial support! Donate now!
Posted by Anthony on April 28, 2010
I was reading CS Lewis’s The Four Loves and came across the quote below. Obviously, Lewis is not specifically addressing universal health care or liberalism or the question of using the government to administer love. Even Christians can be found thinking that it is a noble expression of a loving society to have the government do the loving… and this with no apparent thought to the actual effect that this ‘loving’ will have on the people ‘loved’ and the attitude it fuels in the people-government doing the ‘loving.’ The most important thing seems to be that, well, people’s intentions are good, and it’s better to do something rather than nothing. Here is the quote:
This [is] Gift-love, but one that needs to give; therefore needs to be needed. But the proper aim of giving is to put the recipient in a state where he no longer needs our gift. We feed children in order that they may soon be able to feed themselves; we teach them in order that they may soon not need our teaching. Thus a heavy task is laid upon this Gift-love. It must work towards its own abdication. We must aim at making ourselves superfluous. The hour when we can say “They need me no longer” shall be our reward. But the instinct, simply in its own nature, has no power to fulfil this law. The instinct desires the good of its object, but not simply; only the good it can itself give. A much higher love- a love which desires the good of the object as such, from whatever source that good comes- must step in and help or tame the instinct before it can make the abdication. And of course it often does. But where it does not, the ravenous need to be needed will gratify itself either by keeping its objects needy or by inventing for them imaginary needs. It will do this all the more ruthlessly because it thinks (in one sense truly) that it is a Gift-love and therefore regards itself as “unselfish.” (pgs 50-51)
Some discussion.
In the conversations I found myself in objecting to health care, I heard repeatedly how selfish I was being. In the comments on blog entries I saw the same thing. “If you really loved people you would support this bill. You’re just selfish. You just don’t want to pay taxes.”
I oppose universal health care, especially when put forward on secular grounds, precisely because I do love people. I do not believe it is in the best interest of most people in either the short term or long term. The Lewis quote above alludes to some reasons why. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on March 30, 2010
Someone directed me to this gentlemen here who labels himself a conservative, the feral conservative, in fact. I’m not impressed. One of the articles is called “The Ten Things You Must Believe in order to Oppose Universal Health Care.” It is filled with nonsense. This notion that the only way you can care for people is by supporting and implementing universal health care is positively ridiculous. I’m seeing it so much lately that I wonder if there are talking points somewhere. My blog (which you are reading now) is just one example of a place where it is affirmed that we should like to take care of those who need help and proposes other mechanisms to do it.
You may contend that these mechanisms would not be effective, but it cannot be said- as people are insisting- that Christian conservatives don’t care. Of course, people are saying it. It is up to the reasonable person to challenge insinuations to the contrary. Good intentions employing bad arguments that are essentially sentimental propaganda should not be tolerated.
I wanted to briefly speak to one of the Feral Conservative’s latest posts, The Moral Compass of America’s Compassionate Conservatives.
He says,
After President Obama signed health care reform into law, I noted the reaction of the “compassionate conservatives” on line, in person, and in talk media. In short, their reaction is; “I do not want my money going to lazy people.” The presumption is that these reforms are the redistribution of wealth; taken from hard honest, hard working, self reliant people and handed out to immoral, dishonest, human parasites. Indeed!
So who are these lazy people?
Well, what I would like to know is where are these people saying that they don’t want their money going to lazy people! I see he doesn’t provide a source… Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on March 24, 2010
“the “right” within the church attempt to leverage the gov. to legislate morality. The “left” within the church attempt to leverage the gov. to legislate compassion. Both approaches fail miserably and are an abdication of our responsibility to be the voice, hands and feet of Jesus in this world.” – spoken by a friend.
Someone slid this article across my desk that inquires as to why evangelical Christians are against universal health care. Now, strictly speaking, I’m not an evangelical. Also, I don’t think that all Christians oppose universal health care, and I will not presume that Christians who do will share all my reasons. I hope this caveat spares me the litany of comments accusing me of ‘generalizing.’
I will take the article as my foil as it is one of the finest expressions of liberal hubris and arrogance that I’ve seen in a while. The author begins by indicating he seriously wanted to know why Christians who are supposed to be all about love would oppose health care. The end includes a long screed:
(p.s. this opinion is reserved for those Christians who have not actually thought about the consequences, and decided that more people are harmed than helped by the new law. They are being consistent with their beliefs. That being said, if you think you are in that camp of people excluded, you probably aren’t. You probably are just being geedy [sic], selfish and jerkish, but convincing yourself that this is why you oppose it, while the truth remains you just dont want taxed, or adhere to some abstract notion of how this bill is UnGodly).
Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on November 3, 2009
I am hoping that ABC’s “V” takes the place that Heroes formerly occupied before it jumped dozens of sharks. It is too soon to be sure, but there is certainly promise.
The idea of space aliens coming to earth is something that this blog has explored previously. For example, in this entry I argue that intelligent agents from outer space provide an interesting opportunity to test various world view hypotheses. For example, years of movies and stories lead us to assume that an alien encounter would belong in just two possible classes: 1., the nasty creatures out to conquer us (Ie, “Independence Day” and of course “V.”) 2. the creatures are super intelligent and benevolent to such an extent that they are, for all practical purposes, Divine (ie, “Contact.”) In both scenarios, the atheistic evolutionary framework is presumed. But what if alien contact yields a different result? What if the aliens are mere creatures- but unfallen? Or, what if they hold to a belief system identical to Christian theism? That’d be interesting, eh?
While “V” does not appear to break this kind of innovative ground, it was a breath of fresh air to have one of the main characters be a Christian priest who is… wait for it… skeptical. Christians are often portrayed as gullible or extremist whackos (see again, “Contact”) and your hard core evolutionary atheistic types are veritable bastions of cool headed logic and reason (see the TV show, “Bones.”) (Yes, it’s true that one Christian in “Contact” was more reasonable, but he wasn’t exactly definitive about his beliefs, either).
The Christian priest in “V” issues forth a sermon that makes quite a bit of sense: “Before you jump on the bandwagon, make sure it is sturdy enough to hold you.” There is no atheistic foil in “V.” Nonetheless, I am pretty sure that your hard core secular humanist would accept without question a message presented to them by aliens like those we see in “V.” I know this because they already have. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on August 20, 2009
There are plenty of folks about insisting that there is a universal right to health care. Obviously, health care is a hot topic right now, but the question of ‘rights’ permeates many other areas of our existence, so I thought I would address it. I doubt I break any new ground, but it’s on my chest and I want it off.
We have no rights. At least, not strictly speaking. If there is a God, he has as much ‘right’ to destroy us as to sustain us. If there isn’t a God, we have no more rights than an antelope being chased by a lion. Whether there is a God, or isn’t, we have no rights.
However, if there is a God, we can have rights relative to each other, if also God has bestowed them. In this case, for all practical purposes, we do have rights, and no one of us can change that, though we can refuse to acknowledge it. The rights are not intrinsic to ourselves but are imparted from a higher authority and no lower authority can abolish them. If there is a God, we might plausibly talk about something like health care being a ‘universal right.’
Many of the people insisting that health care is a universal right don’t believe in God. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on April 15, 2009
I once got into a disagreement with someone about the nature of communism. My sin apparently had been that I had issued a series like this… “Freedom and Democracy, Tyranny and Communism…” The objection was that the three preceding terms have to do with polity and governance while communism was merely an economic system. As such, it was said it did not belong in the series.
Frankly, given the course of history and its clear testimony linking communism with tyranny and piles of dead, I find the notion that communism is ‘only’ an economic system to be absurd. Similarly, with the close connection between capitalism, freedom, and democracy, I would resist the assertion that capitalism is merely an economic system, too. It is not my purpose to expound on the above. It is my purpose here to make the point that economics cannot be separated from ideology. If one wishes to insist that pure economics certainly can, I won’t belabor it. But can you have ‘pure economics’?
I think it is clear that you cannot. I don’t for a minute believe that capitalism is without its problems but the last century provides a testing ground that generates iron clad results. Capitalism tends to produce or facilitate free societies. Communism runs pell mell into tyranny, death, slavery, famine, purges, and oppression. These are simply historical facts. Evidently, there is a link between economic systems and morality, ideology, politics, values, and beliefs. Deny it if you like: to your own peril. Read the rest of the entry… »
