On Healthcare and Christian Virtues
Fr. Jake offers a rhetorical question that nevertheless deserves a response.
I must admit to being simply astounded that anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ would be against providing health care for every child of God.
Unless you cut out the 25th chapter of Matthew, the parable of the Good Samaritan, the year of Jubilee, and various other big swaths of scripture, it is simply impossible to refute the clear message that God has a preferential bias for the poor.
This is dishonest rhetoric. It is true that the Christian eschatological hope is exactly, in part, what Fr. Jake yearns for here, that everyone have succor and find their peace. How could a Christian be against that? [An aside: The Good Samaritan? How is that about poverty? Who is poor in that story?]
Well, first of all it isn’t charity. It is charity when I give to the poor and for other causes. It is not charity when, by force, I take money from my richer neighbor and give it to the poor. The revenue gotten from taxation, while the IRS is in now way anywhere nears as corrupt or likely as rapacious as the average 1st century Middle Eastern Roman tax collector, is not my nor anyone else’s charity. If a person does not pay, like then, that person faces a jail sentence. Charity is a principal virtue for the Christian. Charity cannot be given when there is no choice.
Fr. Jake continues with some statistics, the origin which he may be unaware, which are dishonest as well. “46 million” in this country are without healthcare. If you take out the millions who can afford healthcare but, because they are young and/or foolish and choose to spend their money elsewhere, don’t avail themselves of it … are not part of the crises as is normally considered. They are not the “poor” to which the church fathers sought to aid and of which the Gospels preach. The 46 million figure also includes the illegal residents … which Fr Jake notes “are not covered under this bill.” so then why include them in the 46 millions? Why not use a more accurate figure, which has been estimated elsewhere but is far less than 46 millions. Or “It will not raise your taxes” … which (so far) remains true … unless you consider your employer’s provision of your current healthcare part of your remuneration for your services (which it is) … for that will in fact be taxed. So not raising your taxes requires a particularly narrow evaluation of what “your taxes” means.
Thus while he notes that “a lot of disinformation and likes” have been spread about HR3200. Well, well, a lot of disinformation has been spread in favor of the bill as well. The (pseudonymous) Czar of Muscovy blogging at the Gormogons, has read the entire bill … and found it lacking in many respects, i.e., has quite a number of unmet criticisms. In fact, one might offer, that there is enough here that is objectionable that one might offer that while anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ might like to see everyone receive the aid and succor for which their heart yearns … HR3200 is not in no way shape or form the sort of bill by which that goal might be reached.
Furthermore, while yes, detachment from material things is seen as a virtue. I would offer this post from long ago on healthcare in the more abstract. Or here where I wrote:
Fr. Schmemann suggests that counseling and care (of Christians by Christians) at the end of life is incorrectly motivated. What he calls for is that instead of looking at quality of life and extension of the same, the priority of a Christian as he nears the end of his days in this life should be martyrdom. Now martyrdom doesn’t mean dying spectacularly in defense of the faith. It means, essentially witness. In this context, martyrdom means that the end of your life should be sign, a witness of your life in Christ. Extension of life, for a Christian, should be the highest priority, after all there is the life to come. Your life should be an expression and witness to that fundamental ontological freedom.
Filed under: Christianity • Government • Healthcare • Mark O. • Religion
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
It is charity when I give to the poor and for other causes. It is not charity when, by force, I take money from my richer neighbor and give it to the poor.
A thought:
So-called conservatives would be more credible if they gave up this “taxation = taking money by force” shtick. Taxation is part of the social contract. If one does not want to pay taxes, one is free to leave this great nation and find a nation that does not charge taxes. Or, conversely, one is free to live below the taxable level.
But, no, one is not free to live off of others (ie, it is inappropriate for me to pay taxes for your roads, schooling, fire dept, defense etc, while you enjoy the benefits without paying, unless you live below the taxable level.
Taxation is an agreement, not a crime.
Now, some taxes may be more just than others, but in that case, you make the case against the tax in question, you don’t suggest taxation = armed robbery.
When you begin an argument thusly, you have already lost the argument.
Dan,
When I make an agreement I have choice. Do you or don’t you have a choice over paying taxes? When you choose to change and increase taxation targeted at one group to benefit another … there is a valid argument that this is a taking and is by force. You can suggest “you’ve already lost the argument” but you have to make a better argument than you have in order to make that claim.
Charity, as I suggest, must be a free will offering. Is that wrong? Was the mythical Robin Hood’s victims charitable on account of the activities of the Merry Men?
Taxation is not taken by force. Not in our great nation where one is always free to leave. It is a social contract. If you disagree with a tax (and there are plenty I disagree with and think are unjust), you are free to work to change it. If you don’t agree to the social contract (ie, “I get to live in this country and I pay taxes as part of that deal to support the commonwealth”), then leave. Find a nation which does not tax.
But, at least in our free nation, you are absolutely not paying taxes by force. It is an agreement. It is wrong to characterize it as taken by force. Even though I disagree with many taxes and how they are used, I would not say they are taken by force. It is a social contract, a communal understanding.
IF a people agree that “Yes, we want to pay for a fire department, a police force, schools, health care communally,” and they vote to do so, then if someone does not like that contract, they are free to leave. But it is not “forced charity” to pay for common needs via taxation. It just isn’t.
Now, I, for one, am not at all convinced that Obama’s approach to health care is the best solution. Nor am I convinced that what we’re currently doing is the best solution. In fact, health care is, at least to me, an extremely complex issue.
So, what I’m saying is that if you have arguments against Obama’s particular plan, make your case about that. When you begin by calling taxation “forced charity,” you have already lost me as a potential convert to your position. It’s poor reasoning and demonization and that kind of behavior immediately provokes in me a retreat to the “other side,” of which I’m not convinced, but at least they’re not spreading obvious misinformation (that I know of).
Fyi.
Dan,
Taxation is never charity. Can we agree on that?
Uhm, 46 million is misinformation. “Not your taxes” is misinformation. I noted that above … if you manage to read past the tax != charity point.
Absolutely. Taxation is not charity.
When the ancient Israelis were “taxed” by God (ie, commanded to set aside part of their land for the poor), THAT was not charity, either. That was justice. God said that portion of the produce “belonged” to the poor, the foreigners, the needy. It’s justice.
Sometimes, taxes CAN be justice oriented (not always, but sometimes), but probably not usually charity.
If I manage to get past the tax = forcible taking of money? Well, that’s my point. You lose me at the first red herring. If you want me (ie, people in general which you hope to convince) to listen to the argument, you’d do better not to write something that causes us to write you off right at the beginning.
Dan,
What I wrote was, to remind you, “Well, first of all it isn’t charity. It is charity when I give to the poor and for other causes. It is not charity when, by force, I take money from my richer neighbour and give it to the poor.” And lo, you agree with this statement. Likely you even agree that democracy can exemplify misapplied force, i.e., I suspect you find CA prop 8’s democratic result an example of that. You might even term that as “application of force” (via democracy) on a minority … but the term for some reason is not applicable when you disagree. In fact you decide, in a huff, to stop reading.
Sigh. Whatever.
If I may…
The idea that taxes are a community contract and you are free to leave works better for taxes that are more local. I can leave my town, city or county easier than I can leave my state or country. Thus, the more people who are affected by the taxes, the more likely it is that vast absolute numbers of people are taxed for things they don’t want.
Fire and police for the protection of all are one thing. But I think we can agree that you can get to a point that the money can wind up straying from that ideal. Indeed, we do have a say in government, which can ameliorate issues with this. But “love it or leave it” seems rather 60’s-Republican of you, Dan. Indeed, one can (and the better off you are, the more likely that you can), but the use of tax money, I’m sure you’d also agree, doesn’t get a free pass to be spent on anything because “hey, it’s a community contract”. Hence turnout at town halls. This shows our democracy is working.
Mark’s main issue, I believe, is with a minister of the Gospel suggesting that the only way to follow God’s commandments in this regard — by passing laws to make others pay for this — somehow equates to Christian charity much like the good Samaritan. He’s “astounded” that any Christian could think any other way.
And in this, as Mark notes, you agree with him.
“Taxation is not taken by force.” Try telling that to the IRS when you don’t pay your taxes. It’s not like you are in church and you give a tithe which is entirely voluntary.
It’s a social contract. You don’t like the terms of living in this great nation, you are free to work for change or leave.
Taxation is not taking by force unless you have no choices. It’s a red herring.
Dan,
That’s well and good, but there is not necessity to hold to social contract as a theory of government. The wiki page notes quite a number of standard criticisms of it which I recommend to you, to which I will add another. Social contract theory, especially as expressed by Hobbes, suggests that people “outside of society” gather together voluntarily submitting some of their freedoms to the collective so that it might protect them from the ravages of anarchy, and this is the basis of that contract (the arrangement of freedom for protection). Yet there is a fundamental problem with this, namely it is not anthropologically accurate. That is decidedly not how society earlier or present came to be. What occurred is that people choose to follow a single person, a leader (or group of people). Our country for example, “follows” in the leadership of the founders. This is very different from a contract, and you’ll find that some (or many) of the assumptions about government will change as you change this underlying assumption. If you are interested in reading more about this there are three books by Bertrand de Jouvenel expressing and following this chain of thought (D. Mahoney has a summary book by IVI press).
Look, taxes are in fact taking property (money) from you by force. On the other hand, we do in fact all agree that taxation is a necessary element of a governed society. This is why limited government is important. It is why it is important for those in government to remember that they are spending “other peoples money” when they invoke any new spending programs.