In an interview after the service, Jefferts Schori said Episcopalians “celebrate a diversity of opinion within the church” and their leaders traditionally have expressed opinions – among them that the death penalty is immoral.
“We believe that health care is a basic human right,” she added. “He (Jesus) heals people.”
The bishop was in the city with and at the invitation of the Right Rev. Nathan Baxter, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of North Central Pennsylvania, who will return to Trinity on Oct. 25 for a service at the church, which is to be designated the “pro-cathedral” of the northern half of the diocese.
Schori’s visit Sunday drew more than 400 Episcopalian parishioners and clergy from churches throughout much of the diocese, including this city, Lock Haven, Jersey Shore, Mansfield, Wellsboro, Altoona, State College, Coudersport, Bloomsburg, Selinsgrove, Sunbury, Lewisburg, Exchange, Renovo, Muncy, Montoursville and Upper Fairfield Township.
[Comment deleted by Elf]
Surely, if health care is a basic right, then so is food. Is ECUSA advocating the creation of a national government supermarket?
Phil: Don’t put ideas in her head.
I bet there was a time that a pro-cathedral in Pennsylvania would have had an ASA of 400. Without drawing from all the parishes of 16 other cities.
“We believe that health care is a basic human right,” she added. “He(Jesus) heals people.”
Alright. I’ll grant Jefferts Schori her point. But I’ll also point out that Jesus healed without a government mandate and never called on the government to take up his task of healing. That, he left to the church, the community of believers in God who followed him. The result of taking up that task was the Luke reported of the church at Jerusalem that, “There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.”
The Apostle Paul wrote to the community of believers, “I am not commanding you, but I want to test the sincerity of your love by comparing it with the earnestness of others. For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich. And here is my advice about what is best for you in this matter: Last year you were the first not only to give but also to have the desire to do so. Now finish the work, so that your eager willingness to do it may be matched by your completion of it, according to your means. For if the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what he does not have. Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, as it is written: “He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.”
And finally there is the story of Laurence, Deacon at Rome, remembered on our church calendar August 10. “The sources for the martyrdom of Laurence are among the earliest, though the details are thin. Laurence was one of the seven deacons at Rome and closely associated with Pope Sixtus II, martyred just a few days before him. His examiners insisted he produce the Church treasures. He promptly did so: assembling all the poor, he is reputed to have said, “These are the treasures of the Church” (From Exciting Holiness).
Now, since no one can hear the tone of my voice in these words, let me say I’m not being sarcastic, snarky, or facetious. My point here is that this care and healing by Jesus and the church was not shifted to nor accomplished by the government. I would challenge Dr. Jefferts Schori to take Jesus and his early followers seriously and instead of calling for a government mandated health care plan, she should implement a church plan that would cover all the members of the Episcopal Church who do not have adequate health care insurance. My understand from the report the Presbyter of my local parish is that GC mandated health insurance for all church workers? Well, why be so shy about the matter. Take the millions being used to sue and wage legal battle, sell disputed building to the congregations that have maintained them for generations, and put the money where the mouth is, instead of asking government to do our heavy lifting.
If health care is a basic human right, does that mean that rationing of health care on the basis of age would be a constitutional violation?
re 4: The church building only seats about 300 in the main sanctuary, acto their website. ASA has been running about 180, though last year was slack; nonetheless they had 347 at Easter.
Surely, if health care is a basic right, then so is food. Is ECUSA advocating the creation of a national government supermarket?
Yes, TEC backs the Millenium Development Goals, one of which is to end hunger. We also support the One Episcopalian campaign to end global poverty.
But I’ll also point out that Jesus healed without a government mandate and never called on the government to take up his task of healing.
If you have the ability to heal all 46 million uninsured (not to mention the underinsured) then I would suggest you are squandering your gift. It seems to me that Jesus didn’t heal anywhere near 46,000,000 people. I don’t think we have documentation that He even healed 46.
I love the “rationality” of her “argument” [sic].
“Jesus healed people . . . call in the State!!!!”
Too rich.
Thank God for the State to take over the work of Jesus for us all.
Brian (8.),
Thanks for taking note of my post but I’m not sure where you went with it. First if by “you” in your point you mean “me,” let me say right off I don’t have the power to heal anyone apart from the the power of the Spirit working in the world. And the particular type of healing I practice — counseling — is applied regardless of insurance or no. So, perhaps I’m not squandering my gift, just working it the best I can.
And as to Jesus no healing 46,000,000 people. It seems a moot point to what I said above. If Jesus only healed one person in his ministry and then said to his followers, “Go on and do the same,” wouldn’t that be enough? My point is its what we should be doing to continue the healing ministry of Jesus.
Believe me when I say like I said above (since you don’t get the tone of my voice in this post), I’m not being critical and I’m not being snarky toward you or Dr. Jefferts Schori. I’m just saying, along with Paul the Apostle, “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.” It does no good for our leaders to point at government and tell them that they should be doing what they don’t even do for the people under their care. Perhaps if we lead by example, voluntarily providing for those of our community, then maybe the broader culture would see a better way. The only means of government implementing its policy is coercion. We should remember that when Christian leaders tell the government what it “ought” to do in a free society.
(And once again, just for emphasis, I’m not being rude, snarky, or otherwise critical when I write this…)
AW
I’m just saying, along with Paul the Apostle, “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.†It does no good for our leaders to point at government and tell them that they should be doing what they don’t even do for the people under their care.
What you, and those more snarky Republican pundits above, are saying is that we must not use what God has given us. It is only OK to heal people if the government is not involved. If the government prevents people from dying, this is somehow a rejection of Jesus and His teaching. So my view, along with ++Katharine, is that ANY means that God has given us to help His people is a source for good. But the idea that Republican = God that most consevatives have is why we watch people go hungry and die. The government can afford 46,000,000 and I am happy to add my taxes to do my part (or even the part of those who won’t do theirs). In the end, we will all have to answer for what we could have done.
She says that TEC “celebrate[s] a diversity of opinion within the church”?
Lawsuits, depositions–she has a strange way of celebrating. I think I’d rather skip the festivities, thank you.
Heavens above Brian, I don’t think you could have misunderstood me more!
First, I’m neither a Republican nor a pundit nor a conservative nor do I believe that Republican = God. And I am certainly NOT saying “that we must not use what God has given us.”
What I AM saying is that we as the the church must FIRST use what God has given us — in both the church and the world, in order to show a better way. If we have not done it first and better when we are clearly taught to in tradition, how can we even begin to witness to what the State should do? When you say, along with Dr. Jefferts Schori, “…that any means that God has given us to help His people is a source for good” I assume you mean government intervention. But as I said above, the government can only operate on the basis of coercion — compelling those who don’t agree with a policy to do so at risk to their own finances or person. Yes, where you are happy to add your taxes others might be happy to give to private charities. Should the State decide who is right? The government, as a matter of fact, cannot afford 46,000,000. It must take it from the willing AND the unwilling. This is the very heart of Ideology. And I can not really see any government implimentation of and Ideology as a good.
So please, Brian, I ask you. Listen and don’t characterize or stereotype me in order to put me in a certain posture to make a point. There is too much of that on this site as it is.
(And again…despite words on the page — I’m simply sharing — please do not read any snarkyness into my lines. I know how fast things get hot but I’m keeping my cool.)
RE: “So my view, along with ++Katharine, is that ANY means that God has given us to help His people is a source for good.”
Wow — stealing is okay. Kinda suspected that.
But some of us believe that it does far far more good for sick people to be helped by individuals and their money, then the State and its confiscated money.
So even on pragmatic terms — rather than that old-fashioned notion of our elected leaders swearing to adhere to the Constitutional basis on which our country was founded, or the even more antiquated notion of not stealing or coveting others’ property to do with as you please — it is a bad idea for the State to do what individuals may do. It is harmful to people in fact for the State to confiscate money from others to do poorly what individuals do so much better.
Even if the confiscators are Really Really Really Sincere and mean Really Really Well.
AW and Sarah
You present an either/or situation. The government must not step in until individuals do. I don’t share your optimism about humanity. If it comes down to a choice to let a person die or let the government help them, which would you choose? Which would Jesus choose? Because the reality of the situation is that Americans, regardless of their religious beliefs, are willing to let people die. They are doing it every day and they have a good number of justifications for why. Some of these justifications even invoke God.
AW, using your exact words:
What I AM saying is that we as the the church must FIRST use what God has given us—in both the church and the world, in order to show a better way. If we have not done it first and better when we are clearly taught to in tradition, how can we even begin to witness to what the State should do?
You assume we should do something. We are not. So your solution is that we should. It is a rather circular argument. I agree with the principle, but object to the reality of people dying when it is preventable.
But as I said above, the government can only operate on the basis of coercion—compelling those who don’t agree with a policy to do so at risk to their own finances or person. Yes, where you are happy to add your taxes others might be happy to give to private charities. Should the State decide who is right?
Again, on principle I agree that the State should not act to compel. But reality: Should the State allow people to die so that we can be free to choose. This isn’t a hypothetical, real people die everyday.
The government, as a matter of fact, cannot afford 46,000,000. It must take it from the willing AND the unwilling. This is the very heart of Ideology. And I can not really see any government implementation of and Ideology as a good.
So, let’s say for example that you can get people to voluntary embrace your Ideology (Christianity) and they can with true fervor and faith cover 40,000,000 people. What happens to the 6,000,000. Your right to freedom outweighs their right to live? Or is it egalitarianism, where we all have the same chance? Your Ideology costs 6,000,000 people, but you are willing to trade those people so that the government does not enforce their Ideology.
As far as snarky, I was referring to others and not you. All I ask is that you follow your (or Jesus’ or Paul’s) belief to their inevitable end and make that choice. It’s 2009 and we ghave 46,000,000 uninsured-it is something out of Dickens and we should be ashamed.
I salute Sarah’s wariness of state involvement in religious issues. Unfortunately, there have been a number of rather vocal persons professing to be from religious elements of our society who have advocated that state functionaries be involved in prayer (e.g.,in public schools) and have protested the lack of state involvement in religion. Sarah is quite right to oppose these things. The Church is always at risk when secular government entwines itself in matters that are not of this world.
NoVA Scout
Health care, caring for the sick, etc. are of this world. I don’t want the Senate writing my liturgy, but I am OK with overlap.
When the state uses my money(and yours), taken by force, to support someone else’s medical care or food, or clothing, or housing, then the state deprives me the use of the money and the right to spend it on whichever good cause I choose. Spending money taken by force, no matter what the cause, is not compassion, it is thievery. While I am no constitutional lawyer, I am a serious student of history and a political science instructor. In all my studies I fail to find any provision of the US Constitution authorizing the state to provide any charity to anyone. I know some will insist that the “public welfare” clause covers that, but James Madison put paid to that fiction a couple hundred years ago. Supreme court decisions notwithstanding, since they are men and men can err, just like church councils, I believe the welfare state to be unconstitutional and contrary to the design of our founders. We as Christians are charged to care for the poor and needy among us, not turn it over to the government. As a slight digression, conservatives in this country give much more to charity than progressives.
The pit viper in the room is the phrase “celebrate diversity of opinion within the church.” This sound so…so… very right and good. But it does not mean what it says, as is so often the case with TEC pronouncements. Nor it is in fact a desireable characteristic if the phrase is taken literally. TEC is in favor of that diversity which it approves of, nothing else. And what it approves of is, when you come right down to it, not something to be celebrated, but condemned. This duplicitous phrase belongs in the same class as “inclusive,” for no church can be completely inclusive, for such a position would inevitably mean that it could maintain no standards. Both phrase seem to be quintessentially American, so consistent with democracy and equality and civil rights, that it is difficult to critique them, for one soon seems anti-American, parochial, and, of course, fundamentalist.
As an ex-English teacher, such semantic manipulations infuriate me
because they falsify meaning and obscure intent. Ofcouse, advertising does this all the time. All Schori has done is borrow the techniques of Madison Avenue and adapt them to the demands of
marketplace piety. Larry
Diversity is a given in any church although it may not be broad enough to suit some. The goal is attain unity in the things that matter and not increase the diversity. I remember a quote from a member of a congregation which had merged with another church and still died. “We were diverse to the very end.”
RE: “Because the reality of the situation is that Americans, regardless of their religious beliefs, are willing to let people die.”
Huh?
Well duh. Of course we all are. For instance, you’re not heading over to the Sudan to save people’s lives. When do you leave?
RE: “Should the State allow people to die so that we can be free to choose.”
Absolutely.
It’s what our country fought and died for. Such rights are enshrined in our Constitution — that little document we all agreed to abide for and to which our elected officials swear obedience.
I would far far rather be dead then have the State arrogate to itself the power and the right to make decisions for me or others so that I might “live.” Give me liberty or give me death. Freedom and individual liberty are far far far more important to me than death or life. Obviously.
Every day people make foolish decisions — or risky decisions — and die as a result of them. Good for them! And thank God we are still free to do so.
The State is not God, nor do I wish it to pretend to be. Further, I will fight tooth and nail for that pretense to be snatched away.
RE: “It’s 2009 and we ghave 46,000,000 uninsured-it is something out of Dickens and we should be ashamed.”
Au contraire — there are in fact [i]billions[/i] of uninsured, all over this green earth. It is not the State’s right nor prerogative to redistribute income in order to do what it — or Brian — deems to be moral.
And we should not be ashamed at all of our paltry 46,000,000 [sic — not a valid number anyway].
1) What Obama is trying to do is immoral.
2) What Obama is trying to do is unConstitutional and therefore grossly illegal and un-American.
3) What Obama is trying to do will not help poor people and will harm the most vulnerable in our society, while other rich and less vulnerable people will do just fine by taking advantage of their own vast safety nets of various social and financial means.
It is pointless for people to address the first two of these.
Americans no longer share the same fundamental values and foundational worldviews. Conservatives have an utterly different and antithetical moral standard from liberals — not to mention an utterly different and antithetical American standard from liberals.
That is why these debates are so hopeless and pointless — because *even if one could agree on the practical issues* liberals would still desire the State to control the healthcare decisions of the individuals, and conservatives would still desire the individuals to control the healthcare decisions of individuals.
I would far far rather be dead then have the State arrogate to itself the power and the right to make decisions for me or others so that I might “live.†Give me liberty or give me death. Freedom and individual liberty are far far far more important to me than death or life. Obviously.
I don’t question your desire to fight for what you believe is right. But you frame the issue so that you say you would rather die than lose freedom. Would you watch a newborn die for your freedom? How about a toddler? How many other people’s lives are worth your freedom. And I am not adressing those that choose death for freedom, but rather those who have no choice.
And while it is a valiant attempt at misdirection by challenging the numbers and expanding the argument to outside of the United States, it really fails. The problem is inconsistent ideology. It is not possible to make the teachings of Jesus fit with your political view, so you try to make distinctions.
RE: “How many other people’s lives are worth your freedom.”
We have already as a nation determined that in our founding documents. The fact that you don’t like that decision is neither here nor there.
RE: “And while it is a valiant attempt at misdirection by challenging the numbers and expanding the argument to outside of the United States, it really fails.”
; > )
Heh.
No it doesn’t.
Your “argument” [assertion] is that freedom is not worth the life of others, ie “if it comes down to a choice to let a person die or let the government help them, which would you choose?” And yet you *arbitrarily* stop at the border of the USA. No no no. In order to be consistent, your assertion will need to be applicable to all human beings.
Thankfully for my own sense of peace, I do not agree with your assertion.
I answered your question quite happily and freely. Freedom over the State. Individual liberty over collectivism. Not to mention that individual liberty will lead to more lives saved than collectivism.
But again . . . our above foundational principles are diametrically opposed and antithetical to one another.
In order to be consistent, your assertion will need to be applicable to all human beings.
Of course you know that this is untrue. We are talking about the United States and its particular political system. We are also talking about health care in the context of the United States. Do I believe we should be interventionist to save lives in other countries? Sure, as much as our resources allow. But what is at issue is your assertion that the government must leave people without adequate healthcare in order to preserve freedom.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/215291/output/print
THE CASE FOR KILLING GRANNY.
Now, if the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC is really serious about the environment, here’s a chance for saving the environment!
Recycle your used protein and calcium, go SOYLENT GREEN!
Episcopalians could make a real impact by volunteering!
Gee Kendall when did you lease your websight to Brian t19?
I do admit there is no need for us to think as he knows all and sees all for us as witnessed by the 25% response ratio and perfect perception.
Intercessor
Waiting for response #7 of 25.
RE: “We are talking about the United States and its particular political system.”
Well then you’ll need to say “Would you watch an American newborn die for your freedom? How about an American toddler? How many other American people’s lives are worth your freedom. Obviously other non-American’s lives are worth your freedom — but an American’s life? Dastardly!”
And . . . “If it comes down to a choice to let an American person die or let the government help the American person, which would you choose? Which would Jesus choose? Of course He would choose to strip you of your freedom for the American person — not the other non-American people — but certainly for the American persons!”
Which doesn’t — heh — have quite the same ring to it.
But again . . . the above notation about your inconsistent and thus irrational and inapplicable blanket assertion is neither here nor there — since you believe that it is a moral and good and even effective thing for the State to make healthcare decisions for individuals, and I do not, based on both of ours foundational worldviews about private property, capital, individual freedom, and the role of the State.
RE: “But what is at issue is your assertion that the government must leave people without adequate healthcare in order to preserve freedom.”
Not at all. My assertion is that “adequate healthcare” should be provided by individuals and the free market, not the State. The government has no need at all to “leave people without adequate healthcare.” They are, in fact, not in charge of providing people with “adequate healthcare” and by my standards, they are not even [i]capable[/i] of providing people with “adequate healthcare.”
Sarah, I don’t know if it is because you can not reconcile your political beliefs with your faith or simply because you find it amusing, but since you insist on being intellectually dishonest, I am going to end this exchange and move on.
RE: ” I don’t know if it is because you can not reconcile your political beliefs with your faith . . . ”
It is beautifully reconciled.
RE: ” . . . or simply because you find it amusing . . . ”
I find your vague irrational assertions to be amusing — not very usual for you, but amusing.
RE: ” . . . but since you insist on being intellectually dishonest, I am going to end this exchange and move on.”
Frustrating to have the inconsistent irrational assertions pointed out continually I know. Not to worry, there’ll be other threads where you can move on from having them pointed out as well.
; > )
Thank you Sarah….
Intercessor
[blockquote]I am going to end this exchange and move on. [/blockquote]
Dang, and here I am getting into the thread late. I wanted to ask BfT19 why he and other like-minded folks don’t get together to form a non-profit insurance collective to do what they’re thumping the tub to do. I’m sure they could get some deep-pocketed port-side grandee to provide the seed money. They could implement all of the bees that infest their bonnets like low executive pay, no limitations on pre-existing conditions, you name it. According to the President, this can all be done without taxpayer subsidy.
What’s so special about the government? Why get them involved?
Dang, and here I am getting into the thread late.
…
What’s so special about the government? Why get them involved?
Jeffersonian,
I am simply closing the exchange with Sarah because she is arguing her deliberate misrepresentation of what I said and refuses to explain how she can reconcile her faith and politics.
There is nothing special about the government. All things considered, I would prefer no government involvement. But here is my problem, stated several times above:
What if there are STILL people who are uninsured after all privated/non government institutions are exhausted? Do we let them die or do we ask the government to cover the uninsured? History shows us that no Church or private foundation has bothered to step in in the past. So why will that happen now?
But won’t the non-profit insurance company I’ve suggested take care of that situation?
But won’t the non-profit insurance company I’ve suggested take care of that situation? ,/i>
Only if it can be created and funded at the necessary level. If it could be done, why hasn’t it been? And why not use the faith-based initiatives of the Bush era? Because people don’t give enough and they won’t cover it.
If it can’t be funded at the needed level, then how is it that no taxpayer subsidy will be required if the government is running it? What magic property does government have that this private non-profit doesn’t?
Never mind, Brian, I’ve just had this whole healthcare thing explained to me by former Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich:
[blockquote]So, Boys and Girls, return with us now as the Senators will take a page from out of the old West. They are going to do what cowboy hero Roy Rogers did when he got in a jam: Call for Trigger, the Golden Palomino. Trigger, the trusty steed who road to glory against those phantom cattle rustlers who sold insurance against physical harm, provided however that the small town marks bought the stolen beef.
In this scene Trigger will come off his mount of glory at the Roy Rogers and Dale Evans Museum in Branson, Missouri and gallop to the mount of glory on Capitol Hill, rear up a dazzling 24ft, and by his sheer electrifying presence rescue the US Senate and the Administration from today’s rustlers.
It is Washington, DC, so they promptly slap on a confused Trigger a corporate blanket with corporate logos from insurance companies: Pre-Existing Trigger. Lower Cost Trigger. Patient Access Trigger. The Senators will jump on this horse and ride straight for the sunset. Giddy-up Trigger, past that broken down Public Option dray horse. Gallop into the conference committee with full force. Charge!
I am carried away by prospect of rescue by the one horse I can believe in. Sadly, Trigger will never save us from the rustlers. He’ll just stand there, mounted, in all of his spectacular equine power ever poised to spring into action, ever ready to hustle out the rustlers, or something like that.
Thank you.[/blockquote]
[url=http://www.reason.com/blog/show/136125.html]LINK[/url]
I feel so much better about the public option now that I know men like Rep. Dennis are behind it. Yippe-kai-yay [John McClane addendum deleted!!