tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20406961.post1408719935967062085..comments2023-06-07T09:13:41.693-05:00Comments on Episcopal Chaplain On the High Ground: Sometimes It's Hard to Claim Middle GroundMarshall Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02807749717320495495noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20406961.post-60888760451396615262009-11-07T16:08:25.750-06:002009-11-07T16:08:25.750-06:00Great to get that qualification.
You mentioned a...Great to get that qualification.<br /> You mentioned arguments that are useful starting points for making the case for government-backed healthcare.<br /> Suppose someone makes out a case against healthcare and claims to be just as christian as yourself? Do you ignore them? Excommunicate them? Assume they're from the fundiegelical side anyway, and you're never going to see eye to eye anyway, so why bother arguing?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07042565574908468276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20406961.post-78070215466369021472009-11-07T13:08:44.668-06:002009-11-07T13:08:44.668-06:00Well, brian, I hope you noted that this was for a ...Well, brian, I hope you noted that this was for a particular publication, with a particular audience: in this case, Episcopalians of the Diocese in which I'm canonically resident. So, I've stepped beyond your number 2: this is an audience for which I have reason to see as "on the same side," and for whom the statements of Scripture and the General Convention are accepted already as sources of authority. Were I writing for a broader audience - as I have in other posts - I have used arguments not dependent on God. And, of course, I couldn't in good conscience say that God had no place in <i>my</i> decision making, because I'm a public Christian. Whether it's authentic for anyone else, it would be false to claim it wasn't authentic for <i>me</i>.<br /><br />That said, I think there are good arguments for universal access to health care (better public health, national health security, civil rights), and indeed a good actuarial argument for a single-payer health plan (if the point is to spread the expenses of insurance as widely as possible, there's nothing wider in the United States than all citizens and legal residents). I think I've mentioned those in other posts. It's just that this post, as when I post a sermon, was not written originally for a wider audience.Marshall Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807749717320495495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20406961.post-6072682954399296632009-11-07T10:26:09.133-06:002009-11-07T10:26:09.133-06:00Suppose I'm an atheist/agnostic. Why should I...Suppose I'm an atheist/agnostic. Why should I listen to your arguments about "faith as the church has received it"?<br /> If you can't come up with rational arguments that don't involve a higher power, then you're asking me to either 1. Do what you tell me because they're are a lot more believers than non-believers, which is coercion or 2. Hoping that I'll go along with you because we're on the same side and try to fudge the fact that you're bringing in religion to the argument as evidence that this is a good idea or that there will be seriously bad consequences for not doing it, which is dishonest.<br /> The case for government-funded, taxpayer paid for, universal medical care has good arguments for it (and arguments against it)that are rational, verifiable and do not require the use of invisible suppport. Please use them. Otherwise, you're in exactly the same boat as those arguing for "Intelligent Design", no government funding for abortion/birth control and censorship, all on precisely the same grounds: "My religion/God/reading of the Bible/Christian Social Justice tells me to do this".Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07042565574908468276noreply@blogger.com