Churches seem to get the governments help in a variety of ways particularly when it come to their charity work. Now they specifically receive government funding for a variety of charity programs in substance abuse and homeless issues. Tax exemption is the most overarching example that I can think of. The power of the church to speak on social issues is tremendous. In someways I think that it has been muted because of what it receives from the government. Some of the most active people for the separation of church and state such as Rev. Isaac Backus as far back as 1773.
Of course I would listen to them. More importantly I wouldn't have a choice. Their ideas and thoughts would be in the public square. I would not brush it off as religious blather though I would consider it's source as I would from any other perspective. The point and issue to me seems to be that this whole debate is being carried out by politicians and economists. It doesn't seem natural.
I think that the idea of natural rights was an idea within the Enlightenment larger than privilege and was used as justification with a foundation in reason for the right to claim independence from the king of england. I believe that rights are defined in the constitution and some are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't think that was a "privilege". I would say that it has worked out pretty awesome considering we live in the richest , most technologically advanced society in the world and I think that has a lot to do with the power of the free market to allow people of all backrounds to meet and make decisions for the common good. However the freemarket has always been critiqued and controlled by the other social institutions including the clergy. I also think that one of the strengths of the us is the ability to change that was written into the constitution.
As far as the idea of there not being natural rights I think that many religions would say that there are rights and that they are bestowed by God.
I guess what I am trying to say is not that there is no moral leadership in churches and that the government needs to step into help. I am saying that the debate being conducted on healthcare is being done without the involvement of the churches. Why is that? I am tuned into the internet, the radio, and so an extend the tv. That seems to be our public square and I am not hearing the faithful speak. It seems to me that this indicates a retiring less active role for churches in society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sweet. I am officially your first follower. Your blog is much more...controversial isn't the right word but...controversial than my blog. And more up to date (but I mean to fix that).
ReplyDeleteAnyway - good points here. Yes- churches get the government's help. As a nonprofit, they rely on the governement as well as their congregation's help to survive as well as contribute. However, a church relies heavily on good will, donation and the sweat and hard work of its people. In my experience and years going to church, never was it announced that the state/federal government put up a new fellowship hall, helped rebuild a house, sent a family on mission. These things were soley accomplished within the church's means. Maybe it was a big secret governmental cover-up. Maybe it was never disclosed. I wouldn't know.
Moral leadership in the church has turned to a "Think Globally, Act Locally" action set. They're quite active and vocal within the community. Leadership is as strong as ever on that scale. I don't thinke we have the same on a global or even US scale. Not one religious leader (comes to mind) that could bind all people, regardless of their belief set, together. Religion isn't as important to the general poplulace as it was 40-50 years ago. That may be why, on a national scale, there is a lack of voice.
As for "rights", Yes, the U.S. is silly with 'em. We are a very lucky to have a set of rights to live by, and it's worked out very well for me. Other people might not feel that way. Make no mistake, the rights written into the Constitution are the work of men, on behalf of God, but not by God. That's a whole nother blog entry...
What worries me about "Rights" and a universal healthcare system, is if the governement can give you healthcare, what will they want in return? Couldn't they then exercise their right to mess with an individual's right to style of life? The goevernment has a lot of advantages, especially in the areas of influence and persistance, over the private sector. They could seriously undercut costs, making it very hard for an employer to continue their private coverage for workers. That could lead to a drop in coverage altogether or a switch to gov' coverage which might not be as good as the private coverage.
It's a sticky situation. How do all the uninsured get healthcare? What a question. Let's call Canada and see what they do.