Jesus would spread the wealth, not protest healthcare reform

By ELIAS GARCIA

Published: Thursday, November 12, 2009

Updated: Thursday, November 12, 2009

Why does Christian America hate the public option?

Republicans and economically conservative Americans continue to denounce the attempt to provide healthcare for all as a socialist scheme to bring down the towers of capitalism. As a devout Christian man, I have always felt uncomfortable when Christian America associates with the GOP— which, it is fair to say, happens on almost every political issue. The men and women who want restrictions on abortion are the same who call for lower taxes and a government just big enough to protect the Second Amendment.
It wasn’t until the debate on healthcare reached the ludicrous heights of wearing teabags on clothing that I realized why absolutely nothing about this issue made sense to me. The answer to this strange question is offensive, but it shouldn’t be. Christianity’s faith that Jesus Christ wants everyone to be as healthy and happy under his law creates horrific cognitive dissonance with the eternal Right-Wing motto: Get the heck out of my wallet, that’s my money.

Their arguments aren’t clear and I suspect their minds are even less so, but there exist Tea Party protestors who consider themselves staunch Christian soldiers with Christian values. They want the Affordable Health Care for America Act to stay out of their wallets so much that they have viciously betrayed their faith.

What would Jesus do? The Evangelicals’ children wear the wristbands asking them the ever-helpful question. They teach their children in their early years that Jesus would share marbles and crayons. They then dress themselves in awkward garb and protest a measure because it would essentially have them share some of their money— if they’re lucky enough to be making more than $500,000 a year— and help 36 million people get cared for by a doctor.

The irony is that Jesus would have his church only make enough money to be able to help others with it. The sick feeling in the stomachs of every Tea Party protester who reads the last sentence comes because that principle sounds suspiciously close to an s-word. America is not Marx, America is not Lenin, America is not Castro— America must stay Carnegie and Vanderbilt because the American Dream tells us we can all get there one day.

Jesus would have everyone in the world sharing the fruits of their hard labor. Jesus would have us sending outrageous amounts of foreign aid to countries that don’t deserve it. “Anyone who doesn’t have money doesn’t deserve it,” says the economic conservative. Jesus would have us feed, clothe and care for people who cannot do so for themselves because of their government or their social circumstances. As much as our capitalist-selves hate it, Jesus would have us make welfare and public healthcare the primary purpose of government. Jesus would have us praise and worship his name while we do these things.

Cognitive dissonance is a tough and terrible thing. It keeps the best of us from making the most righteous decisions because of earthly reasons. I expect my opinions on this will be threatened once I receive my first stock options package. In fact, I suspect it is only a financially broke Christian who would stand up to say this. So here I am.

In the meantime, thousands of people are bankrupt from medical bills, people are being denied healthcare coverage because of their medical history and the evils of capitalist greed are triumphing. If the meek are to inherit this whole place, then America has some work to do.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

Your name

Sun Dec 13 2009 14:42

I think that, from ah humanitarian standpoint, Jesus would want every human being to have access to health care.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves -- why does the writer imply that the public option is the only way to do this? Instituting a public option is one potential path to "reform," but it is not the only one or necessarily even the best one.

The irony

Fri Dec 11 2009 07:04

I'd begun nodding my head regarding the writer's valid point that Christianity offers no implicit reasons to oppose the public option. Excellent. In my mind, 1) religion and 2) government's role in the health care business bear no relation to each other.

But after soundly establishing those grounds, the writer employs the very fallacy he's combating to support his personal view on the public option. Not good. Unfortunately, it's also more of the tiresome injecting of "WWJD?" into political arguments that have no relevance to theology. You cannot accurately equate Jesus' call for private charity to a moral imperative for a taxpayer-sponsored government entitlement program. It is presumptuous altogether to extrapolate Jesus' religious teachings to modern political discourse.

On top of that, it's frankly an awkward setup. How do you know that Republicans who also happen to be Christians selected their position on health care because of their religious values?

Nick

Fri Dec 11 2009 00:35

Taylor,
I wholeheartedly share your values of justice and fairness. But, please read the first 10 words of the bill of rights.

When lawmakers introduce legislation that is "motivated by religion", it amounts to a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution, the establishment clause, which mandates the separation of church and state. Your religious arguments are not necessarily "inferior" in discussions involving personal moral behavior. But, arguments from theology have no legal legitimacy in a public policy discussion. You have to defend your policy arguments using "public reason" and scientific knowledge. Having said that, if something is true and right, then you should be able to argue that it is true and right without any reference to theology.

Taylor Bird

Wed Dec 9 2009 22:13

Nick, the concept of public reason intrigues me. It implies there are a particular set of values that are universally associated with justice and fairness. I'm sure we can agree that 'advocating the case of the poor and defenseless' is one such value that belongs in the realm of public reason. You may derive the importance of this principle from science and your secular worldview, while I might evoke Isaiah 1:17's call to "seek justice, encourage the oppressed, defend the cause of the fatherless, [and] plead the case of the widow." Although the justifications are different, we both arrive at the same conclusion. So why should you be allowed to let your personal convictions guide your arguments, but not me? What makes my justification inferior to yours? Perhaps you see a direct correlation between scientific knowledge and rationality, and consider religious faith to be completely irrational. But that's just one worldview. For public reason to be all-inclusive, it cannot be grounded exclusively in secularism and scientific knowledge.

Nick

Wed Dec 9 2009 19:46

It is possible that some Christians might be convinced by policy arguments from Christian dogma. In principal, they shouldn't. They should only use what John Rawls describes as “public reason” in debating issues that affect a pluralistic society with no establishment of religion.

The principle of separation of state and church obliges politicians within political institutions to formulate and justify laws, court rulings, decrees and measures only in a language which is equally accessible to all citizens. If secular governments opened the parliaments to religious strife, governmental authority could become the agent of a religious majority that asserts its will while violating the democratic procedure. So, I do think that religious citizens have a civic duty to acknowledge that secular reasons and scientific knowledge take priority in the political arena in order to have "overlapping consensus" or agreement on justice as fairness between citizens who hold different religious and philosophical views.

I appreciate that your faith plays an integral role in your everyday life and in forming your views of justice. You certainly have the right and the academic freedom to justify your political statements from religious dogma. But, resorting to religious languages carries very little weight in the political sphere because it remains constrained to norms and interests of some sub-set of the public. So, it is your Christian arguments that are narrow and exclusive. My use of "public reason" is intended to be expansive and inclusive of all rational citizens.

Jim

Wed Dec 9 2009 14:08

Agreed, Taylor. Growing up in a very secular world, I must say that it is ironic how ferociously narrow and dogmatic secularism can be in fighting against the narrow dogmatism of some religious strains. Nick may or may not be right about his overarching views. But it is a shame to let anti-religious bias weaken the appeal to respect and tolerance he could be making.

Taylor Bird

Mon Dec 7 2009 21:35

Nick does not seem to be arguing for a religiously-pluralistic marketplace, despite the terminology he used. He's arguing for a society in which religion is kept private and does not play a role in public discussion. From what I can see, Nick believes that Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and members of other faiths should not allow their religious identification to influence their opinions, or at least their arguments about issues pertaining to society (such as health care). But this is an entirely narrow view; why should secularists be allowed to let their personal convictions to influence their opinions in the public spectrum, but not people of faith? How is that "religiously-pluralistic"? Sounds more like a public marketplace monopolized by the secular worldview.

Jim

Sat Dec 5 2009 23:45

I agree strongly with Craig. The article wasn't suggesting that its claims were superior to all other claims, or insisting that everyone debate health care from the same Christian standpoint it put forth. In other words, it wasn't going against the tenant Nick considers so important, that of a religiously pluralistic marketplace of ideas that puts a premium on free speech. However, shouting down any Christian position because it is articulated from a Christian point of view does threaten that very tenant. I agree with Nick that many Christians are ignorant of the world around them and do not respect the views of others. But surely we can see that insisting that Christians have no validity when speaking in Christian terms is just as narrow-minded and rude? Shutting down the opinions of others and insisting on a narrow standard of interpretation is both rude and intellectually untenable, whether in the name of faith or secularism.

Craig

Fri Dec 4 2009 19:38

Nick,

It seems to me that your main point is as follows: "making arguments from religious texts has no place in a modern public policy debate." However, even if we suppose this statement to be true, the claim has no bearing on the article above. Why? Because Garcia wasn't addressing his comments to our "modern, religiously-pluralistic, secular" society; his article was written with the hope of getting Christians to seriously rethink their views on the Health Care debate. Thus, his arguments are, in fact, MOST powerful when they are founded on the Bible and on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. With all due respect, I feel that your objections to this article, and to other "articles in the Graphic with arguments being made from Christian dogma and with bible quotes," are irrelevant. It only makes sense that, at a Christian university, points addressed to a Christian audience are supported by Christian principles. Whether you and I are Christians or not makes little difference--for someone who believes, the most compelling evidences will be those that are rooted in the values and implications of what they claim to believe. Perhaps you and I would find this particular article unconvincing as concerns the Health Care debate, but Christians might--and they're the intended audience.

Best wishes,
Craig

Nick

Thu Dec 3 2009 21:00

I get your point, Elias. Jesus said "sell all of your possessions" and "take no thought for the morrow" because the apocalypse is coming soon. So, you could find some hypocrisy in the Christian conservative opposition to Health Care. But, I would caution you from overstepping with an equally irrational argument IN FAVOR of universal health care from the hysterical call to charity found in scripture.

Most people no longer measure public policy against Christian dogma because we live in a modern, religiously-pluralistic, secular government. Arguing FOR or AGAINST heath care based on Jesus' teachings is so unenlightened and unsophisticated that most universities have moved beyond it. This type of discussion belongs in the 5th century along with other discussion topics like: Should the US government conduct exorcisms on criminals based on scripture? Should we dismantle the Federal Reserve Bank based on biblical condemnation usury? Should the US return to permitting ownership of slaves based on the bible? Every serious political pundit and every secular university is focusing on the relevant issues like: the proper role of government, how to maximize social utility, future medical costs, patient care, etc. They all realize that making arguments from religious texts has no place in a modern public policy debate.

There are still way too many articles in the Graphic with arguments being made from Christian dogma and with bible quotes used to support a position. I'm telling you (in the business world, legal profession, politics, or any other highly specialized discipline) your religious preference and your religious arguments are generally considered irrelevant. In the real world, you will have to make moral arguments from a secular framework such as utilitarianism or Kant to be taken seriously by a religiously diverse group.

WWJD

Thu Dec 3 2009 15:51

It's a pretty bold move to defnitively proclaim what Jesus thinks about healthcare. Your article would be stronger without resorting to using Jesus as your backup. How about some concession to the oposition? A point by point refutation of what "Republicans and economically conservative Americans " actually propone? Just a thought, people might take you more seriously if you write an article based on fact rather than emotion.

Your name

Sat Nov 14 2009 14:35

Darren, would Jesus (or good Christian men and women) look down on the lazy and condemn them, claiming they ought to be allowed to throw their lives away? Thank goodness Jesus doesn't just forgive Christians who are "hardworking" or "good" all the time, or I doubt any of us would be forgiven.

Darren

Fri Nov 13 2009 19:47

You're right. Jesus would give help to the poor and needy--those who do not have the means at all to support themselves, much less a family. But that is not what this is about. This healthcare plan and other "brilliant" ideas coming from the powers that be in Washington will all produce one result: laziness. The more we sympathize with people who are too indolent to get out of bed in the morning and make a living for themselves, the lazier we will get. Those who work hard will lose that drive because they see no point to it if the government will just bail everyone out. I know many people view it as a rash argument, but some recent actions by our government honestly resemble something you might see in a Communist nation. You're 100% correct when you say that Jesus would give aid to any and all that need it. Was He the government though? No. It is the individual Christian's job, not the government's, to be a good steward with the money God grants him. Let the hardworking people continue doing so, let the lazy people sleep in and throw their lives away, and let God use good Christian men and women to help the truly needy. There's a difference between being selfish and being smart with money.

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now