New Strategy

Ok, I really do want to keep a regular sequence of posts going. One of the things stopping me seems to be that I have a running parade of thoughts in my head that never seem to arrive at a conclusion, so I never feel ready to write about it. I'm going to adopt a new M.O. I tend to read Andrew Sullivan's blog with some frequency and almost every time it links to something interesting, or is just interesting in its own right. Therefore I will make it a practice to link to and comment on something I've read at least once per week. Hopefully I can use this crutch to get in the habit of writing, and segue that into writing original posts of my own. Today's topic:

Does the New Testament's direction to care for others imply that we, as Christians, should promote government programs like socialized medicine to help care for the disadvantaged?

The letter in the above link says no:

I agree with your position about the Gospels not mandating a welfare state.
Jesus seemed most concerned about what we were like on the inside, which is why
the widow's tiny donation to the poor of a mite - all that she had - was worth
so much more than the very large donation of another. A welfare state attempts
to care for the poor, but does so through compulsion. From the perspective of
the teachings of Jesus, those who are compelled to "be good" aren't really any
better off than those who choose not to do good. In fact, some of his
harshest attacks were for those who kept "the letter of the law" while not
attending to those things which we have a difficult time measuring: kindness,
generosity, forgiveness, love. Giving grudgingly is not following the Gospel
message. Those who contend that the Gospel message teaches us to have a welfare
state have uncoupled Christ's teachings, choosing to obey - or, rather, force -
one, and neglect the other.

This libertarian defense begs the question on a more fundamental issue: should we premise our political positions on our religious interpretations? Practically everyone around me would say "Of course! My faith is the very core of my being, how could I not base everything I think and do on it?" It's a fair enough argument, but if we're going to even ATTEMPT to adhere to some separation of church and state, then we have to find some other way to convince each other. I certainly don't want my senators thumping Bibles (or any other book) while they're defending their bill to fund a statue in their hometown square. At its base, though, that's exactly what this argument is doing. Granted it's taking a more moderate read of Jesus' teachings than the traditional Bible-thumpers, but whether or not Jesus would endorse universal healthcare REALLY shouldn't enter into this debate.

Stepping back, I'm inclined to see this person's e-mail as a moderate response to a fundamentalist tactic. The fundamentalists have long argued that religious moderates don't adhere closely enough to scripture, or that we don't take faith seriously. The natural reaction for so many is, to paraphrase, "Yeah huh! We take it even more seriously than YOU GUYS! You just have to read it more closely!" To my eyes, the discussion started as a secular one, the fundamentalists claimed that God was on their side, and the moderates struck back by reclaiming God for THEIR side. In doing so, they have granted the premise that God has chosen a side at all, and now we have a religious discussion. And no, "They started it" is not an adequate response.