Category: Can We Talk?

Posted on

Can We Talk? Janie and Charlotte on Assimilation and Shared Values

Janie and Charlotte, good friends from college who have gone their separate ways politically, try to be reasonable about some hot-button issues.  We’ve talked about religious freedom, the proper role of government, and state-supported health care.  Most recently the topic was the wide-open one of immigration, which led to a slight narrowing of focus, as follows:

Janie: In our last conversation, we left off with a question from you: “Why does diversity cause such fear and anger in people? And how is unity possible when there is a fundamental rejection of our inherent diversity?”  We also agreed to look further into a widely-discussed Atlantic article by Peter Beinart: “How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration.”

To address your first question: Diversity causes fear and anger in some people regardless.  I do believe that the majority of Americans, both conservative and liberal, have no problem with diverse groups who come to America wishing to be Americans.  It’s true that most of us are more comfortable hanging out with people who are like us, with common interests and goals, but that’s only human.  By and large Americans take a live-and-let-live approach to other cultures as long as we perceive no threat.  Most of us, I think, even get a little misty-eyed when a naturalization ceremony is televised, when new citizens of every shade and background express their joy at becoming part of this nation.

As for the second question, I’m not sure about your premises.  I read your blog about Unity in Diversity and found some of it puzzling.  You say, “Our unity has always, will always arrive out of our shared values and our common dreams: liberty and justice for all . . .  a union the Founders conceived in the midst of the creative diversity of their day and . . . still being perfected here in the ethnic, religious, and intellectual diversity of our own day.”  The stated shared values of the founders were “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but I would say liberty was the chief value that pulled all thirteen colonies together.  That was in opposition of many of their own citizens who didn’t see the need to separate from the mother country.  The “creative diversity” you mention wasn’t nearly what it is today—almost all the colonists were white, Christian (by identity if not practice), and of European descent.  Their very real regional diversity was not a source of strength—it was a serious weakness that tore the nation apart in a mere fourscore and four years.

Over the last thirty years or so I’ve been hearing that American strength lies in its diversity.  But that makes no sense on the face of it; strength lies in unity.  Diversity is great for expanding our little worlds, learning generosity and humility, and trying lots of delicious new recipes!  But diversity in itself is not strength.  We are stronger when can come together in spite of our diversity, not because of it, and that means discovering our shared values and being willing to defend them.

That’s what makes some of us nervous.  As Beinart says near the end of his article, “Americans know that liberals celebrate diversity.  They’re less sure that liberals celebrate unity.”  What are those shared values, exactly?  What do we have to fear from immigrants and even native-born citizens who regard most of American history as a chronicle of injustice?  How should we feel about undocumented immigrants waving Mexican flags at protest rallies?  What about groups like LaRaza and the New Black Panthers, who don’t appear to have any interest in unity?

You asked about assimilation.  To me, that does not mean giving up your culture, your special holidays and observances, or even your language.  It does mean accepting the Constitution as the law of this land, obeying the laws, learning English (or at least encouraging your children to learn it), and pledging allegiance to the flag.  What about you?

Simple, no? Well, no.

 

Charlotte: I said at the outset of these conversations that I believe you and I can find much to agree on and I think we are finding some of that agreement here. For example, I can certainly agree with your description of assimilation above and I appreciate that you don’t think assimilation demands giving up one’s culture. Of course all people who live here should accept and obey the laws. But I have to wonder if your statement implies that immigrants and newcomers disrespect and disobey laws more than natives do. You said before:

What some fear…is allowing in more immigrants, “legal” and not so much, who do not subscribe to American ideas and want to change it to something else. Or they’re coming for welfare benefits or criminal activity or outright subversion. These are the minority, I know, but there are significant numbers to cause concern.

Where is this coming from, this conviction that there are “significant numbers” of immigrants who do not subscribe to American ideas and what to change it to something else? I know it’s out there; I see it too. But I don’t believe it’s nearly as real as many Conservatives think it is.

Stereotyping is rampant and over the top these days: Hispanics are all illegal and here to steal your jobs and rape your daughters. Muslims are all terrorists and secretly plotting to subvert the Constitution into sharia law. A LOT of people actually believe this stuff! How do we combat such harmful prejudices?

You say you don’t understand the premise of this question of mine: “How is unity possible when there is a fundamental rejection of our inherent diversity?” Then you quote from my blog and say some things there “puzzle” you. I am puzzled why you are puzzled; it seems pretty straightforward to me. I have been a huge advocate for unity for years and I thought my blog portrayed that passion.

Old and Young. Rich and Poor. Gay and Straight. Religious and Humanist. Black and White and Brown. E pluribus unum. From many, one.

When we move out of our uniform, homogeneous tribes and recognize the shared humanity inherent within our wide-ranging diversity, that’s when we will discover a glimpse of a true unity that is far better than any sort of uniformity.

So I am agreeing with you that affirming our shared humanity and our common goals is an important source of our unity. See my blog post, “The Problem with Unity Is Uniformity.”

But then again, I have had experience talking to people who seem to believe even naming our differences is divisive. I’ve heard people say they are “color-blind” and they only see how we are alike. But that’s just not possible. We ARE different. Our diversity is a fact. And honoring each person’s uniqueness honors their humanity.

I do believe that both our variety AND our commonality provide strength for America. Tapping into people’s different perspectives, abilities, experiences, insights and then crafting all that varied wisdom into approaches that help us attain our common goals is what this nation has done again and again. Our variety gives us a broader base of resources. If my husband and I are unified in our desire to buy something we want but really can’t afford, then that unity is no strength. On the other hand, if one of us says: “Wait. Let’s look at if from another perspective,” then it’s our differences that make us stronger.

Our disagreement here is slight. (I would not say our strength is “in spite of our diversity.” That’s too negative a phrase.) But we both make the point that our strength lies in coming together from our diversity into unity. (But not uniformity, as I say in my blog.)

Here is a moving essay from Parker Palmer, wise Quaker. He too celebrates the strength of our American diversity and understands its valuable contributions to our efforts for unity.

I’m arguing from my perspective on the Left and I asked an honest question about “Why does diversity cause such fear and anger in some people” from the Right. And I have to say that all my reading and pondering and conversing brings me to this conclusion: White Christian America is being displaced and diluted and I believe much of the anxiety we see has to do with that loss of power and privilege. When we look closely, it’s pretty obvious that the immigration debate is primarily about Brown people.

Back to the Peter Beinart article in The Atlantic. He says this:

Studies by the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam…suggest that greater diversity doesn’t reduce trust and cooperation just among people of different races or ethnicities—it also reduces trust and cooperation among people of the same race and ethnicity.

Trump appears to sense this. His implicit message during the campaign was that if the government kept out Mexicans and Muslims, white, Christian Americans would not only grow richer and safer, they would also regain the sense of community that they identified with a bygone age…

This echoes my own diagnosis. And it repeats my question: why does greater diversity reduce trust and cooperation? Are we doomed to such a small practice of our shared humanity? Or can Conservatives and Liberals find our common ground and widen it into a great space?

Janie: Okay, I’ve been thinking about this.  I do believe conservatives and liberals need to find common ground in order to make policy, but I’m afraid “shared humanity” is so broad as to be unworkable.  Let me offer two examples.

In 1867 Karl Marx published Das Kapital.  By the end of the decade hundreds of Eastern European immigrants to America were committed socialists.  The years between 1878 and 1898 saw bloodiest labor wars the USA has ever experienced.  There were lots of reasons for this, not just immigrants with bad ideas.  But in most of those riots and shootouts, eastern Europeans were prominent players.  There were some positive effects in focusing attention on severe labor abuses and gradually bringing change; I suppose you could say diversity helped bring about eventual unity.  But it was at a great cost over an issue that could have been handled other ways, and made socialism seem like a viable alternative for the US, at least for some.  I don’t want to debate the virtues of socialism just now (!), only to say that, in my opinion at least, socialism as a system is not compatible with the nation that was founded in 1776.

Another system incompatible with the US, and with the western tradition generally, is Sharia Law.  I have no idea how widespread the notion of imposing Sharia Law in this country might be.  In some areas of high Muslim concentration, such as Dearborn and Detroit, judges are trying to figure out how to balance practices connected with Sharia (such as female genital mutilation) against American civil law.  But the huge influx of Muslim immigrants is becoming a significant problem in Europe.  A couple of weeks ago I came across this article with a scary title:  “I’ve Worked  with Refugees for Decades.  Europe’s Afghan Crime Wave is Staggering.”  The point is not that Muslims should be barred from safe havens in Europe, but that certain Muslims who subscribe to a radical form of Islam (which includes imposing Sharia Law) are wreaking havoc by their utter contempt for Western standards.

Could that happen here?  The US is very different from Europe, culturally and geographically, so I don’t know.  But I think that is what some are afraid of, and an example of what I meant by certain  immigrants wanting to make this country into something else.  What are we willing to allow?  What are we prepared to defend?  What principles of this nation must be protected at all cost, and (this is crucial) what policies will help protect them?  “Liberty and justice for all” is not a policy; it’s an ideal.  As we encountered before in our debates about health care:  Nobody is arguing about the ideal, but how do we institute these noble goals without bankrupting ourselves or committing suicide?  More to the case, what policies do we need to continue as a welcoming nation committed to liberty, free speech, and opportunity?

Charlotte: A lot of my liberal friends and I wonder if the agenda of far right white Christians is our own homegrown version of a kind of “sharia law.” I have to say some of the proposed policies of my Texas legislators are “alarming” and “wreaking havoc” in our communities. Here’s an article for you to consider with a fair number of comments that voice some of our anxieties. https://www.facebook.com/coffeeparty/posts/10156438091398327

How bout I read your article and do some homework so I can respond to your concerns and you read my and tell me how you would help allay my fears? Sounds like another challenging topic for our next conversation. I’ll start.

Janie: You’re on!

Posted on

Let’s Talk: Can the Affordable Care Act be Improved? and Should It?

Here we go again: my college friend Charlotte and I, Ms. Blue and Ms. Red, discuss how to improve government-subsidized healthcare. Is anyone on Capitol Hill listening?  Charlotte goes first this time.

Charlotte: You and I wound our way through a couple of discussions that brought us to a shared conclusion that Americans should have access to affordable medical insurance and health care. Now we are considering our differences of opinion on the role of government; should federal and state funds be used to provide health care and subsidize insurance plans? Is that a proper function of government? I say yes.

You said in an earlier discussion that many governors resisted Medicaid expansion because they couldn’t figure out how to pay for it. A recent Vox article shows how Medicaid expansion has actually worked better than anyone expected it to. Even Republican governors were vocal in their protest against the failed Republican plan to decrease that program.

Jim Wallis of Sojourners reminds us that “a budget is a moral document.” How our government leaders propose to spend our pooled citizen resources demonstrates their core values. The current budget Blueprint and the proposals in the failed ACHA display efforts to increase the advantages of the already advantaged and compromise the lives of the already vulnerable. I say such inequitable use of our common funds is inherently immoral.

A recent op-ed by Paul Krugman says building on Obamacare and improving it doesn’t have to be that complicated. He gives several good suggestions, as do Sarah Kliff and Ezra Klein in the Vox article. I think you and your Republican friends can make a big difference here by speaking out for reform and insisting the Republican leadership collaborate with their Democrat colleagues. It’s high time for some bipartisan cooperation. Letting the current system implode when it can be tweaked and improved is ludicrous. And again – immoral.

State and Federal governments will be able to figure out how to pay for these kinds of crucial services when they take their responsibilities seriously to put people over profits. “Promoting the common welfare” is not only a Constitutional mandate; it is also the moral and ethical obligation of government.

One other thing on my mind: in an earlier conversation, you pondered why health costs in America are so high. I’m not smart enough to understand all the complex reasons, but my default response to problems like that is: “Follow the money.” The medical industrial machine in this country wields immense power. I found this quote in the Vox analysis:

“Regulating health care prices was never a serious part of the Affordable Care Act debate. The Obama administration made a conscientious decision, at the start of its health care effort, to get all major industry groups to stand behind the law — or at least not work against it. Regulating health care prices would have meant that hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies would all earn less. The idea was a nonstarter…”

It was a “non-starter” because of the out-of-proportion weight lobbyists hold in our political conversations.

Did you know that in America, 9 out of the top 10 highest paid professionals are doctors? American orthopedic surgeons earn three times what their counterparts in France will earn in a year. Of course this is complex as well: education and insurance are more expensive here than in other countries. But when we look at the costs involved with paying our doctors exorbitant salaries; the costs of our hospital services, especially in light of some of the over the top salaries of too many CEO’s; the costs of our medications, especially in light of some of the highly publicized price gouging by pharmaceutical companies (plus the bombardment of advertising. Why the heck should a pharmaceutical company be advertising anyway!?) … This is just a beginning. Reining in the medical industry is no small challenge. The money-is-power principle will continue to hold sway over our health care system until enough wise, courageous politicians finally step up and confront this problem.

But I don’t see this confrontation coming from the current Republican leadership in Congress. From what I can tell, Republicans are all about increasing the advantages of the already wealthy. If regulation of health care prices was too big a battle for the Democrats, then I’m thinking the Republicans – in their disdain for regulations in general – will not engage this fight either.

Here is an excellent example reminding us that “regulations” are actually “protections” against corporate abuses of their customers and the general public. I know you have taken issue with my position on this before. I would be interested to hear your critique of regulations and restrictions appropriate to the health care industry.

In our last discussion, you insisted that governments should be “impartial” – that is, “government should not favor either rich or poor, but protect both.” Isn’t it the purpose of regulations to work towards this goal?

Okay, your turn.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Janie: I appreciated the Vox article—it was reasonably balanced and somewhat fair, and a clear exposition of where folks on the center left stand, so that’s useful to know.  I’m sure the ACA can be improved, but can’t intelligently address how because a) the thing is over 2000 pages long, with ten times that many pages in regulations already, and 2) I’m not at all sure it’s the best option for the most people.  In fact I’m convinced it isn’t.  Here’s a quick summary of the main problems with it: http://www.dailywire.com/news/12146/11-biggest-problems-obamacare-aaron-bandler

Like you, I can’t track the ins and outs of why medical care is so expensive now.  I do know one thing: it was simpler and cheaper before the government got involved with Medicare and Medicaid and regulation of the insurance agency.  Don’t get me wrong: I’m not against regulation per se, and I’m not opposed to all government aid for the indigent and the elderly.  But remember how my family was able to pay for life-saving medical treatment for me, including an entire month in the hospital, on the income of a humble credit-union employee (my mother).  She got her insurance (Blue Cross) through her employer, which of course was a big help, but it was also cheap at the time. That’s mainly because it was market-based; insurance companies ran the actuarial tables and balanced the risks and figured out how much they could charge to cover expenses and make a profit, which is what business is all about.

That’s not to say insurers are the good guys.  When business gets involved with government, market factors go by the wayside.  The main reason why consumers can’t purchase insurance across state lines, which would force insurance companies to compete for their business, is because the insurance industry wants to maximize profits without competition.   The big players influenced laws in their favor, as they always have and always will.  They don’t just influence Republicans; they also influence Democrats.  No party is immune from this, and no law will eliminate it.  The rich and the powerful will always find a way around the law and regulations; that’s one reason why they got to rich and powerful.  The only real safeguard against undue influence is a free market (which I’ll admit is never really free, but nothing’s perfect).

The ACA attempts to blend private insurance with heavy government subsidies and mandates, and it wasn’t so great.  The AHCA tried to build on that platform, only by eliminating the mandates and a few free-market gestures, and it might have been even worse.  But since I don’t like the platform I can’t address how to improve the ACA in detail.  The healthcare reform I’d really like to see is very different.  I know I’ve mentioned elements of it, but here’s the capsule version, for future reference:

Most citizens responsible for their own basic care and maintenance.  This used to be taken for granted: you paid for your doctor visits and routine medications out-of-pocket.  Is that too expensive for most of us now?  No.  I realize that with medical advances come higher costs, more expensive equipment and drugs, etc.  Still, the market keeps those prices down better than price controls do—just think how cheap smartphones have become in a mere ten years!  Competition works for doctors, too: at this moment, in Springfield, Missouri, there are at least ten fee-for-service and medical concierge centers that charge anywhere from $50 to $150 per month for a menu of routine health services and 24-hour consultation.  Even surgeons are banding together to establish cash-only surgical centers.  With paperwork cut to a bare minimum and no time wasted on checkboxes, they cover their costs and make a profit.

Affordable catastrophic health insurance available in an open market, for emergencies, surgeries, and life-threatening illnesses like cancer.  That’s what Blue Cross was for my parents—my dad also spent weeks in the hospital due to back issues, but they could afford it.  Nobody was turned out on the street to die or to suffer without treatment, even before Medicaid!

Religious organizations encouraged to open and operate their own health ministries for the poor.  A lot of Christian, Jewish, and probably Muslim organizations are doing this already, and I’ll admit I don’t have a clear idea how governments could “encourage” more of it.  But this is the kind of personal, hands-on care that homeless, rootless, and hopeless people need most.

A government safety net, such as a scaled-down Medicaid, for the truly needy.

Health-savings accounts for each citizen, to which the federal government contributes a small amount during the citizen’s working years, to be increased after retirement age.  Perhaps Medicare could be incorporated with something like this.

Having said all that, I recognize that once we’ve started down the road of government control of health care, it’s very difficult to turn back.  That’s why Canadians and citizens of the UK and other countries with single-payer programs don’t want to give it up: they can’t see the alternatives and can only picture themselves adrift without any support at all.  Yet the single-payer model has its own problems, namely an expanding bureaucracy, rationing, and lowering standards as it’s less able to pay for itself.  Besides, single-payer plans always develop a two-tiered system with the best care going to those who can pay for it and everybody else getting the leftovers.  It can still work okay in a smallish country with a relatively stable population, but the U.S. is a big country with an extremely dynamic population, including legal and illegal immigrants.  For us, I believe the more options, the better.

A couple of postscripts: First, could we refrain from ascribing motives to people we disagree with, such as, “From what I can tell, the Republicans are all about increasing the advantages of the already wealthy”?  No doubt some of them are.  No doubt some Democrats are as well.  But Republicans are people too—even the politicians!—and are, like me, sincerely concerned about making health care affordable but have a different opinion about what works best.

Second, you say,  “Reining in the medical industry is no small challenge. The money-is-power principle will continue to hold sway over our health care system until enough wise, courageous politicians finally step up and confront this problem.”  I’d say the money-is-power principle will always hold sway in government, because government is about power, and something will always influence power.  In our system it’s money because we don’t have aristocracy.  This isn’t cynicism; it’s realism.  The genius of our founding fathers was in assigning legitimate powers to the federal government and leaving the rest to local (state) governments and individual citizens.  It’s not perfect, because people aren’t perfect, but it spreads the power around so no single entity has too much of it.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Charlotte: You’ve talked about your childhood illness before and the good care you got because of your family’s coverage by Blue Cross. I’m so glad! Above you claim that this employer-provided insurance was affordable mainly because it was market-based. Maybe that was a factor. But according to the history of Blue Cross, the primary reasons your coverage was inexpensive were because it was subsidized by non-profit hospitals and because it was offered as a community service.

For more than forty years, virtually all BCBS plans were organized under federal law as 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations which were “engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community. Such an organization is operated primarily for the purpose of bringing about “civil betterments and social improvements.”

501 (c) (4) corporations were non-profit and tax exempt.

I mention this because you seem to put quite a bit of faith in the free market. You say: “The only real safeguard against undue influence is a free market…” I strongly disagree. Governmental protections are safeguards put in place because businesses and corporations demonstrate repeatedly that they will take advantage of people every chance they get.

This one anecdotal experience with Blue Cross worked for your family in a simpler time. Much has changed in our society since then so that today charities and non-profit associations must find help and partnership with local, state and federal government. We cannot go back to a simpler time; it doesn’t exist. We must move forward.

For me, single payer is a very logical, tried and true approach for moving forward. In most every Western nation, single payer insurance and governmental health care has worked and worked very well.

Jerry and I spent several years in the Navy where all our medical care was provided by the federal government. It was excellent care offered by conscientious and competent people. In my opinion, Medicare insurance for all and public clinics would be a huge step forward.

To your request that I not ascribe motives to people I disagree with: I try very hard not to lump people into categories. I know full well Conservatives are not a monolithic group just as Liberals are not. In my opinion, you are the poster child for the classic Compassionate Conservative and I know there are many other good people like you out there.

I disagree that I was “ascribing motives” to the Republicans in the White House and Congress. Rather I will argue that I am judging them by their actions. Here’s my edited sentence. I can’t back down on my opinion any farther than this:

“… the current Republican leadership in Congress. From what I can tell, these Republicans are all about increasing the advantages of the already wealthy…”

So basically, you don’t trust government and I don’t trust the free market. You think the ACA is not worth fixing and I think it is. Looks like we are at an impasse in this discussion.

I asked Jerry to read this before I sent it to you. I think he makes an important point:

The problem for both of you, as I see it, is that you are thinking in either/or categories. And both of you are right: Janie doesn’t trust government because government too often is corrupt and inefficient, and you don’t trust markets because markets too often are corrupt and greedy. Both opinions are well-founded.

What is needed is democratic tension, not ideology. How can we work together to solve problems, realizing that any solutions necessarily are imperfect, provisional and in need of constant revision? The willingness to solve problems with creativity and compromise is what’s missing in the current political climate where everything is polarized by ideology. At some point, if our politicians want really to accomplish something, they have to say, to hell with ideology, let’s figure out something that might work. And let’s fix it when it doesn’t work the way we thought it would.

You and I disagree on several fundamental issues, Janie, but we do agree that there is too much polarization in our current public conversations. That’s what started us on this shared blog quest in the first place. I truly am good with “democratic tension.” Here is another brilliance of our Founders: united but independent states, three branches of government, numerous and various representatives. It’s our broad diversity that makes us stronger and wiser.

None of us has all the right answers; we need each other. But we need to listen to each other better, respect each other more and collaborate with each other in good faith. I feel helpless to influence our tone-deaf politicians and this outraged public. Maybe what you and I are trying to do doesn’t really matter. But then again, maybe it does.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Janie: That’s a good way to wrap this one up.  I appreciate Jerry’s point of view: both of us have good reasons to distrust both governments and free markets, since every human institution is prone to corruption.  That’s why I don’t totally trust any human institution, including the free market, and believe it’s a good idea to spread power around so nobody has too much of it.  I understand Jerry’s to hell with ideology, too, if what we mean by “ideology” is a certain set of core principles each side identifies with and won’t budge on.  Still, everyone is driven by ideology to a point; that is, we all ascribe to certain broad principles that we believe to be true, either from experience or prior commitment (or both).

To sum up my end, I’d like to quote from an article in National Review: Repeal and Piecemeal: a Better Obamacare Strategy.  It’s mostly about policy and process, but I’m in agreement with the writer’s general idea about what public health care should look like (emphasis in the original):

Modesty means recognizing that nobody in Washington is smart enough to design a better health-insurance system on his own.  The best system is one that is relatively simple, doesn’t try to do everything at once, and leaves the largest possible amount of power in the hands of individual consumers, and the power of experimentation in the hands of all 50 states.  A system that is designed to solve all today’s problems for all time—even if it succeeded—would cast in stone an inability to respond to tomorrow’s problems until they reach crisis proportions.

Whatever happens, I’ll live with it.  But it’s vitally important that we keep talking to each other, in websites and on debate stages and over cups of coffee.  We are not enemies, but friends.  Thanks for being my friend!

Charlotte: My pleasure, dear Janie. Our think our friendship has grown even deeper through these conversations.

So your Right leaning National Review and my Left leaning husband both agree: Let’s figure out what works and then keep improving as we go along. (By the way, my friends on the Left would benefit from reading this analysis by Dan McLaughlin. It’s calm and well reasoned and helps us understand our friends on the Right a little better.)

I think “we the people” need to lead the way and remind our so-called leaders how to sit down together, talk and listen to each other and actually solve some problems; our politicians seem to have forgotten how.

What’s next? I wonder if any of our readers have a topic they might want us to explore.

 

Posted on

Can We Talk? What is Government, and What’s It For?

Janie and Charlotte continue our discussions from opposite sides of the political spectrum–but we’re doing it politely!  In this one we get philosophical.

Janie: Some classic Christian traditions teach that from the beginning God ordained three organizational entities: the family, the civil government, and the church.  These three have their separate spheres of influence, which are distinct even though they overlap.  The family is not just a basic economic unit but a home (for raising responsible adults and providing companionship and care to individuals).  The church is not just a fellowship of believers but a prophet and moral conscience to society.  And the government is not just the enforcer of social order and law but guarantor of national security—if only it would!

When one sphere tries to take over the purview of the others, trouble always follows.  When a family becomes law unto itself, you get oppressive cults like David Koresh and Jim Jones (remember them)?  When a church takes over civil functions you get the Inquisition.  And when the civil government assumes family functions you get widespread dependency and a welfare state that looks like The Blob.  Or totalitarianism.

Those distinctions aren’t always cut and dried, and I’m not saying civil authority has no part whatsoever to play in helping people.  But the essential power of government is coercive.  That’s what Paul means in Romans 13:4: “He [the governor] does not bear the sword in vain.”  Government exists to stop corruption, police neighborhoods, throw crooks in jail, defend against attack; “to punish those who do evil and praise those who do good” (I Pet. 2:14).  Praising, encouraging, or rewarding good behavior is a legitimate function; enforcing good behavior is problematic.

Government by nature is impersonal and (at its best) impartial, and the larger it gets the more impersonal.  But we’ve come to think of the United States Government as a kind of extended family, which must take over family functions when necessary.  It’s also a kind of church, which must correct false doctrine when necessary. Your reference to the federal government as a “wise parent” in our last discussion implies something like this.  Thus it imposes on the responsibilities of the other two God-ordained spheres, one organic and the other moral and spiritual.  And we got trouble, my friends.

I think the federal government has actually done more to break down community than build it up.  Here’s how: when parents die or fail to meet their responsibilities, extended family members have traditionally stepped in to fill gaps.  When a house in the neighborhood burns down, neighbors have traditionally pitched in to help rebuild.  Churches have performed heroically in supporting widows, feeding orphans, building schools and hospitals, and voluntary organizations have formed to provide other needs like scholarship and benevolence funds.  All these functions build community because they are horizontal—people reaching out to people—with strings attached.  Local or church-based charity often comes with some sort of obligation to the receiver—that she take a life-skills class and get a job, for instance.

Those strings represent connectedness.  With the introduction of federal aid, those horizontal bonds break down; rather than reaching out, people are reaching up.  Rather than forming a network of mutual obligations the strings are all connected to a faceless bureaucracy that sends the checks.  You don’t have to sheepishly confess to Uncle Mike that you drank up that loan he extended on your next paycheck—you don’t even have to worry that much about the next paycheck, because that pittance from Uncle Sam will come regardless.  I’ve had personal experience with this attitude; it’s not something I read in National Review.

I think anyone would agree that there’s been a widespread breakdown of families and neighborhoods in the last fifty years.  I don’t blame government aid for all of this, and I don’t deny there should be a safety net.  But the safety net has become wider and wider as our meaningful personal connections get thinner.  The expansion of welfare from The Great Society has not produced a great society, and I don’t see any likelihood that it will.

Charlotte: I can agree with much of what you say. We share concerns about the breakdown of American families, the cycles of poverty and the effectiveness of welfare. We both see fracturing within too many personal relationships and the subsequent isolation away from healthy community. The reasons for our social ills are deeply complex and the burden of responsibility must be shared by all of us.

But I disagree with your fundamental understanding of church and government. Our topic today is government but we do want to get to a discussion about how religion and politics might appropriately intersect in America so I’ll wait to talk about my own understanding of what “church” is to be. Here are some of my thoughts about what “government” is to be within the American context.

You say: “..the federal government has actually done more to break down community than build it up…” I say community breaks down because of our human brokenness and government should act as a kind of check on our natural self-centeredness. Of course the idealistic Great Society did not produce an actual great society but that doesn’t mean the efforts failed. Lots of people had work and food and homes because of that critical safety net during those hard years. And we made a national shift in some of our understandings about how government can properly function to “promote the common welfare.” But no human institution or program will ever produce perfection. We can only work towards it and try to keep making things better.

I used the metaphor of government as a “strong wise parent” in an earlier discussion because I am arguing that our society functions as a kind of far-flung, eclectic family. This metaphor is not my own creation; the mythology is deeply embedded within our story. We speak of George Washington as the “father” of our country. We send our “sons” off to war. We still celebrate the “Daughters of the American Revolution.” This is our “homeland” and “Uncle Sam” models for us what we are about as a people together.

I don’t think of government as the extended family as you imply. Rather We the People are the family, and government – in its appropriate role – ensures that the “family” values we claim in our founding documents are actual practices that we all share. And not just in our Constitution; but also in the traditions we have come to cherish. For example, hospitality to others seeking refuge, asylum and opportunity. Immigrants are people who become part of our family and government (as a strong wise parent) makes sure the table is big enough and we all make room for one another.

Have you read George Lakoff at all? He’s a cognitive scientist who has been offering insights for years now on how we relate to one another in our political system, and he is one who has been informing and expanding my understandings lately. Lakoff looks at the ways Conservatives and Progressives see the role of government and uses parental images to help us recognize how we make meaning of our relationship to government and to one another. Conservatives, he says, see government as a “strict father” while Progressives see it as a “nurturing parent.”

Much of what I hear Conservatives say makes sense within this “strict father” frame: actions have consequences; strength is better than vulnerability; traditional morality and national patriotism are high values; obedience is moral and disobedience is immoral. Don’t hear me knocking these values; I agree up to a point but as a Progressive, I find myself valuing other things more. Like equal opportunity, compassion and second chances. I hear Conservatives say government should leave them alone and let them tend to their own business without interference. I hear Progressives say government should leave them alone and stay out of our bedrooms and doctors’ offices. Both are right, in my view. A strong wise parent launches strong wise children who can make their own decisions. But since we humans (children and citizens) don’t always make wise decisions, there still must be some protections and safe guards that government should have in place.

So I do see America as a community, a family forced into relationship by virtue of our shared society and geography. And I think the various governments of America are responsible for nurturing our civic relationships in ways that are compassionate and equitable. That means honoring those who are strong and successful; celebrating their gifts and advantages. But also, at the same time, in appropriate balance, honoring and protecting those who are weak and disadvantaged; celebrating their inherent human dignity and finding ways to level the American playing field so they too have a shot at the American Dream.

Two things going on in this discussion: 1) who are we together as Americans? And 2) what is government and what is the people’s relationship to government?

A caveat, however; since America is a representative democracy, “We the People” choose people to represent us and govern in our stead with our approval. So in a very real way, WE are the government. Bureaucracies may be impersonal but governments and public servants should be lively and responsive to real people and real needs.

You say: The church is not just a fellowship of believers but a prophet and moral conscience to society. Please talk more about this. Is this how you understand the proper relationship between faith and politics, between church and state, between the religious and the secular? Thanks for this conversation; this is helpful for me.

Janie: A few responses before I answer that question:

  • Of course civil government has a role as moral arbiter.  Its function is making and upholding the law, after all, and law should have a moral base (even if it doesn’t always).  I don’t disagree that government can act as a check on our natural self-centeredness, but governments are made up of broken individuals with their own self-centeredness.  We agree that society and government are not the same, but I notice that progressives sometimes speak of them interchangeably.  What does government have that society doesn’t?  Authority.  Sometimes governments have to force people to behave better, if they’re stealing or mugging or neglecting their kids or otherwise behaving badly.
  • But you cannot force people to be compassionate.  I believe Americans are basically generous and don’t mind contributing tax money to provide a safety net for those who truly can’t take care of themselves.  However, the more government sets itself up as a social cop, determining who gets what and who has to pay for it, the more resentment will be created on one side and a sense of entitlement on the other.
  • Governments can’t nurture; only people can do that.  To the extent that there are compassionate individuals within an agency who can make a personal commitment to those they serve (and I know there are some of those), well and good.  But that’s not primarily how an agency operates, nor can it.  Government agencies are not primarily about people, they are about money: getting it, appropriating it, allocating it, doling it out, and keeping track of it with endless paperwork.  Even if that wasn’t the intention going in, that’s what it becomes.
  • Yes, we elect our representatives.  What’s happened in the last 50 years or so, however, is the growth of a vast, overlapping array of agencies and initiatives and programs and staffers, none of whom are elected and all of whom tend to be permanent.  They are accountable to no one and, as time goes on, many of these agencies become more about perpetuating themselves than meeting the needs they were originally created to serve.  Many, if not most, of these employees have good intentions, but ask them how much time they have to get personally involved with their clients.
  • You’re talking about admirable principles; I’m saying they don’t work so well in practice.  Government solutions should be evaluated like any other solution, and they almost never are.  No program is ever eliminated, regardless of how lousy it turns out (and yeah, they all do some good, but at tremendous cost and often with unintended consequences).  Some programs, I believe, have done actual harm, and they all tend to become politicized.
  • Finally, government is necessary, but it’s made of broken people.  Government must “bear the sword,” as I mentioned before, but the bigger the sword, the greater the potential for abuse.

That’s where the church comes in.  Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” meaning he didn’t come to set up a theocracy.  Still, the church has a voice, and she is supposed to use it. “You are the salt of the earth.”  I believe every Christian is called to be the not only the hands of Christ (serving others) but also the voice of Christ (speaking truth in love).

If a Christian is elected president, he or she must operate within the law, while at the same time using the bully pulpit to do good wherever possible.  This may mean operating within constitutional limits to withdraw federal funds from Planned Parenthood, or working diplomatically to relieve persecuted Christians in other countries, or lobbying for laws that encourage marriage, or sometimes, in rare cases, even going to war.

Individual Christians in government can do these things; the church as a body can’t do any of these things, because they are the prerogative of government.  Still, the church can and should be visible “salt and light” within a society.  Individual Christians are not called to violently protest, but to live peaceful lives and do good.  They are not called to stage political revolutions, but to work within the system to push back on government actions they consider unjust or ungodly.  They are not called to disobey the law, except in extraordinary situations where “We must obey God rather than men.”  The church as a whole is called to reach out, help meet needs, set a godly example, and speak out when necessary.  I’m thankful we live under a government that allows us the freedom to do this, at least so far.

Charlotte: Oh my, Janie! I hardly know where to begin. In some ways we see many things similarly but in many other ways, we have fundamentally different visions.

You seem to be using the words “government” and “bureaucracy” as synonyms. You say: “government by nature is impersonal and (at its best) impartial…” I can see why you say that, given your paradigm.

But in contrast, when I speak of “government” I am talking about the people who do the work of governing within the framework of our guiding documents. In this understanding, the persons who govern should not be impersonal but must act with wisdom and compassion on behalf of the persons within their area of responsibility. In this understanding, the “government” should not be impartial but rather must work to protect the poor and the vulnerable from the rich and the powerful.

You argue that government per se is “God ordained.” I will agree with that but I can only understand what it means based on theological reflection of God’s own way of governing creation. What do the ancient stories and psalms say about God’s stewardship of the earth: its people, its creatures, its water and lands? What do the ancient rules within Israel’s national life say about equity, caring for the poor, and welcoming the stranger? What do the prophets say about governmental leaders, “Shepherds,” who plunder the flock, who abuse the widows and orphans, who make themselves rich at the expense of the poor? I think these are the biblical insights into “God-ordained government” that should best inform a Christian’s understanding even in our own day.

I confess your description of a “Christian president doing good wherever possible” startled me. You will actually claim that defunding health care for poor women is “doing good?” I think you are probably talking about abortion, but Planned Parenthood has played an active role in increasing contraception and family planning so that the abortion rates have dropped dramatically in the past few years. (Federal monies are not used to fund abortions.) How on earth can a pro-life, “Christian” lawmaker justify defunding an organization that promotes life and health in such a variety of ways?

And as I recall, our last Christian president did lobby for laws that encourage marriage; marriage equality – and the Conservative community was up in arms. You speak as if there is only one way to be “Christian.”

“The Church” in America has a long proud history of challenging government prophetically. The Christian community (across several denominations) worked to abolish slavery, to ensure civil rights for people of color, to protect children who were basically enslaved in factories and warehouses. Today many churches and congregations offer sanctuary for immigrants, protecting families from harsh and unforgiving governmental policies. In my understanding, these are appropriate ways Christians can be “the hands and the voice” of the Christ for our world.

We promised to engage in this dialogue with an honest effort to hear each other out, not to try to change each other’s minds. I’m glad for that commitment because we sure do see some things differently, don’t we? How do you think we need to continue this conversation next time? Is it time to get back to a discussion on health care in America?

Janie: Thanks for hearing me out.  By “impartial,” I mean that government should not favor either rich or poor, but protect both.  It’s not a crime to grow rich and spend your money as you see fit in this country, but there have been times in our history when our government aided and abetted the rich.  That had to be corrected, and I’m sure it will still need to be corrected, because the rich tend to be the powerful.  And the powerful will always, always, always have an outsized place in government, whether Democratic or Republican.  In fact, the bigger the government, the more clout they will have.  My point is that that the apparatus is too big, too costly, too awkward, too impersonal—and yes, governments are always bureaucratic.  How could they not be?  I still think I’m talking about things as they are, and you’re talking about things as they should be.

Speaking of things as they are (sigh), it looks like the ACA is here to stay, until we get a single-payer system.  Pros and cons?

 

Posted on

Can We Talk? What to do about health care, part two

Charlotte and Janie Talk about Health Care, Education and NASA

.Janie and Charlotte are best friends from college who have diverged spiritually and politically until we don’t agree about anything (almost).  But as friends, we occasionally get together to talk over some of the issues of our time.  Our first discussion was about religious liberty, beginning here.  Today we wrap up a debate about a hot topic soon to get much hotter.  The first part of this particular debate can be found here.  

(I’m the one on the right!)

 

Charlotte: I’m pleasantly surprised and grateful to see that you and I agree that there should be a basic right to health care in America. I think this is a growing belief for more and more people and probably the Affordable Care Act contributed to that expectation. We are seeing reports from town hall meetings in numerous states where Republicans as well as Democrats are loudly challenging their representatives not to disrupt their access to affordable insurance and health care. With all its problems, the ACA has helped millions of people and saved numerous lives. I agree with you that it would be political suicide for the Republican Congress to repeal Obamacare without a solid replacement. If they mess this up, Town Hall meetings will only get noisier and rowdier.

I’ve been thinking about the similarities between this current process and the process America went through to provide free public education for all our children. I think there are numerous comparisons and we might be able to learn how to do this better if we will look back at our recent history.

For many years, there was no expectation that all children should be educated. Education was a privilege not a right. Before the Civil War, some states made it illegal to even teach slaves to read and write. Countless children worked the land and toiled in factories instead of going to school. I wonder how many men proclaimed that girls should tend the home and not fill their pretty heads with too much learning.

So how did America move to the place where we are now? Where our society as a whole assumes every child should go to school? And where there are often legal consequences for parents and children when they are not in school.

One reason public schools developed is that we figured out that our society as a whole is better when we have an educated population. All of us benefit when all of us function together in this community with basic knowledge and skills. All of us benefit when each of us is allowed to grow to our potential. All of us benefit when the geniuses among us are discovered and nurtured.

So it makes perfect sense to me that all of us will benefit if we will assume that everyone among us should have access to basic health care. If we will see health care as a right and not a privilege. I believe our entire nation will be healthier and more productive if we can make that societal shift in our expectations.

 

Janie: I disagree that there was little or no expectation in the U.S. that children should be educated.  It was not something we figured out along the way–education has always been important in American public life, but it was local-community-based rather than government-based.  The Northwest Ordinance, which opened US territories up for settlement after the War for Independence, divided the land into townships, with one section of each township dedicated to the support of the school.  The New England puritans and others were extremely zealous for education.  The only ethnic group that demonstrated a more casual attitude were the Scotch-Irish who settled in the Appalachians and southern foothills.  But then, the South was a much more stratified society (big divide between the landed gentry and poor whites) in colonial days, and for a long time after.  That’s one reason slavery was able to dig such a foothold there.  And yes, it was illegal in many southern states (as slavery became more entrenched in the early 19th centuries) to teach blacks to read.

The first big step toward public education as we know it today occurred in the second half of the 19th century, when (mostly) northern intellectuals became enamored with the Prussian model and decided that was the way to go: strict age-level divisions, certified teachers, pre-determined curriculum.  Lots of school districts adopted the model, but it was still local control.

 

Charlotte: I really like talking with smart people! Obviously you know quite a bit about American education and I appreciate your passion. I think you and I definitely need to talk more about school choice, vouchers and Secretary DeVos. (I’m holding my nose here but I’m willing to listen.)

But for now, I want to go back to my original point in this conversation: America as a whole did not have an expectation that all children should be provided with a basic, free education until about 150 years into its national life. I believe the process by which America came to this expectation that all children should have a right to education is similar to the process in which we are currently engaged: America is slowly but surely coming to understand that all citizens should have a basic right to health care.

Notice in my first foray, I did not say people did not value education. Of course, throughout human history many people have valued education; but for many societies – as for our own – the education of all children was not the common expectation. Horace Mann moved the needle on this issue in America; his advocacy for Common Schools was controversial but his ideas finally took hold. By 1918, every one of the 48 states provided public schools and had compulsory attendance laws on their books.

So my question to you: should affordable, accessible health care be a right for all our citizens much as a free, public education is now considered to be a right for all our children? Do you accept my comparison?

And secondly, since you take issue with “Obamacare” but you agree with me that there should be a basic right to health care in America, do you have any ideas for an equitable system to replace the Affordable Care Act?

 

Janie: Okay.  I was a little confused about where you were going.  I don’t think it’s entirely an accurate comparison, because education was considered more an obligation and necessity for free citizens than a “right.”  I still disagree with your statement that “America as a whole did not have an expectation that all children should be provided with a basic, free education until about 150 years into its national life”—I think that was the expectation from the beginning (in most of the country, anyway), but the disagreement was in how to provide it and who should be responsible for it. Before the late 19th century, communities generally took responsibility for it themselves.  As the population became more diverse over successive waves of immigration and as governments, both federal and state, grew more centralized, the idea of free public schools grew along with it.  For a lot of reasons, though, not entirely as a matter of individual rights.  Education was seen—and is still seen—as a way of molding the populace, assimilating immigrants, and preparing future citizens to participate in public life (e.g., by reading newspapers and following political debates).  I don’t mean to quibble, but I think there is a difference education as a right and education as a necessity.

That said, we can certainly agree that by this time in our history a free basic education is a right as well as a necessity.  The controversy over Betsy DeVos is mostly about how much control the federal government should have, and there’s a comparison I can get behind: how much control should the federal government likewise have over health care?  The argument over Obamacare is not about right.  Over time, as I tried to demonstrate in our earlier conversation, most Americans, including Republicans, have accepted that there is a right to some kind of health coverage.  The argument is now over control.  To what extent should the federal government step in and regulate insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, treatments, etc., etc.?

The basic idea behind Republican reform—and I sure hope they hurry up and get to it—is less top-down control and more individual choice.  This would involve several elements, including 1) individual Health Saving Accounts, or HSAs, to which the government contributes (and which go with the person, not the job); 2) shopping for insurance across state lines, which we currently can’t do, 3) high-risk pools for chronic conditions, 4) safety nets for those who are unable to make decisions for themselves, 5) incentives for healthy choices, and more.  I expect any reforms will include all of these, and I think we’ll have some concrete proposals within a couple of months.  That will give us something to talk about.

 

Charlotte: I’m remembering something you said in our first published discussion on this topic. Something about it bothered me and I couldn’t put my finger on it until now.

I wonder why Obamacare prescribes a one-size-fits-all solution by requiring all insurance to cover a wide-ranging “essential benefits package” for everyone, whether they need it or not: maternity care for retirees, for instance.  I assume the purpose of that is to spread the burden equally, but I think there are other ways to do it besides making the young and healthy shoulder some of the costs for the old and sick—especially if we bankrupt ourselves to the point where the funds won’t even be there when today’s young people need it. 

I think it’s your phrase “making the young and healthy shoulder some of the costs for the old and sick” that jumped out at me.

First, I believe that shouldering the costs of living together within a society certainly ought to be part of what it means to function as a connected community. Our federal government was tasked from its inception to “promote the general welfare.” Our public schools are expected to educate every student who walks through their doors. Our interstate highway system lies ready for any vehicle to travel with convenience and comfort. Likewise, our health care system ought to be accessible and affordable to everyone who needs care.

So who pays for all of this? We all do. Our tax dollars are our contribution to this broad, complex society we live in – not just to our own advantage, but for the common welfare. Retired Americans who don’t have children or grandchildren in the public school system still pay for the education of our young people through their tax dollars. I’ve never been to Wisconsin but I’m happy to contribute to the highways that allow the dairy farmers there to transport their wonderful cheeses. I’m also quite happy to help pay the costs for contraception for American’s women as well as pre-natal care and safe deliveries for America’s children.

Before the ACA, people who were not able to afford insurance coverage went to emergency rooms whenever they got sick. Who paid for that care? We did. Those of us whose insurance covered our hospital stays paid higher premiums in order to cover unreimbursed hospital expenses. And/Or our tax dollars went to reimburse hospitals for some of that medical care. I would much rather help pay for people to stay well or to get more efficient, affordable care when they are sick.

Insurance companies have always based their business on the concept of insurance pools. Lots of people pay into the system but only a few people have exorbitant medical expenses. Those who stay well help support those who are sick. It’s a gamble companies make, and based on the way they have been jacking up the cost of coverage in the past few years, their gambles are paying off. We regular people are paying more and insurance companies are raking in outrageous profits.

But here’s another thing, Janie. You and I both operate out of our Christian faith with Christian values. Isn’t “carrying one another’s burdens” part of our spiritual ethic? The old support the young and the young serve the old. The strong care for the weak and the weak offer whatever they are able. The privileged stand up for the oppressed and we who have a voice speak out for the silenced.

I don’t think secular governments ought to function as religious societies, but I do believe in the prayer I pray every Sunday: that God’s kingdom may come on earth as it is in heaven. The more human societies live into kingdom values of grace and compassion and equity and inclusion the better off we will be. My own journey away from fundamentalism into progressive Christianity changed not only my theology; it also shifted my politics. The answer to the question: Who is my neighbor? is much larger and wider than it ever was before.

 

Janie: You’re bringing up an important point, and a very basic disagreement between the groups we label “conservative” and “progressive.”

I remember a slogan from the 2012 Democratic convention: Government is another name for what we do together.  Hillary Clinton capitalized on that idea in one of her campaign slogans: Better together.  Look, I understand that sentiment.  But a government is not a community.  As a nation, Americans can feel a sense of community when we are attacked, as at Pearl Harbor or 9/11.  We can come together when a president is assassinated or a city experiences a natural disaster.  To ask a nation to “come together” to provide for each other’s personal needs is a stretch.  The preamble to the constitution mentions providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare.  Those verbs are not the same and I believe they were carefully chosen.

An army “for the common defense” is something the government has to provide, first because only the government should have that kind of power and second because private armies would be too prone to run amuck.  Other big projects, such as an interstate highway system, could be considered a legitimate federal expense, since no one else could finance it.  The space program was also thought to be something only the feds could do.  (But something very interesting is happening with the space program, as I’ll get to in a minute.)

When it comes to people’s personal choices and commitments, the picture gets cloudier. The ACA was built around the individual mandate, and that’s where it has run into trouble.  Younger people don’t want to pay for something they see no immediate need for.  Of course I understand your reasoning: young people pay now for something they’ll use later, like social security, and in the meantime they’re contributing to the common good.  But they are already burdened more than we were at their age: huge college loans, high mortgages (if they even take out a mortgage), fewer jobs appropriate to their college degrees, an increasing federal debt and deficit that will mean trouble down the road.  Why aren’t we more concerned about them?

Of course taxpayers have been supporting Medicare and Medicaid for two generations, but this is different: the ACA is an obvious hand reaching into your pocketbook and pulling out money to pay for people who don’t take care of themselves, or to pay for people who are here illegally, or to pay for older folks who have 401(k)s.  I know that’s not an entirely fair judgment; but that’s the way it looks to families whose insurance premiums have doubled over the last year.  This kind of “bearing each other’s burdens” does not build community.  Instead, it drives people apart by pitting them against each other.

What builds community is freedom and personal relationship.  It’s people, organizations, families, even businesses pitching in where they see a need.  It’s doctors foregoing insurance and charging a flat rate for basic care.   It’s surgeons forming their own insurance-free surgical centers where you can get a knee replacement for $10,000.  It’s Christian cooperatives like Medi-share where each family pays a monthly premium directly to another family who needs help.  It’s urgent-care clinics and private arrangements between doctors and patients with no third party in the way.  It’s being able to purchase insurance across state lines so you can get exactly what you want or need: low-cost catastrophic coverage, for instance, instead of full-range coverage for stuff you don’t need.

I’m not saying that the federal government has no role to play: Individual HSA’s that are not tied to an employer can “promote the general welfare” while allowing families and individuals to make their own decisions about which doctor to see or what treatment to pursue.  Government-supported free clinics can help provide basic care for the truly needy.  But a top-down, one-size solution is no long-term solution at all: expensive, inefficient, and more so as time goes on.   We won’t bear the burden; our kids will, and they won’t thank us for it.

(One quick word about the space program, because I think it’s relevant.  Since NASA gave up the shuttle program—and I’m really not sure what they’re doing now—entrepreneurs are stepping into that gap.  There’s a plan in the works to go back to the moon on the backs of private companies like Space X (headed by Elon Musk) and Blue Origin (Jeff Bezos).  That’s what is still so great about America: the space to dream and opportunity to make it happen.  I used to hear this a lot about 15 years ago: “If we can send a man to the moon then surely we can . .  .” create a world-class education system, eliminate poverty, provide affordable health care for everybody, etc.  What strikes me about companies like SpaceX is that they are free to employ the best people and aim straight for a goal without politics and bureaucracy getting in the way.  If we can send a man back to the moon without NASA, maybe we could be making better use of the private sector more for health care—and I DON’T mean insurance companies.)

Charlotte: Oh my! This dialog has gotten long and complex. It’s like we’re sitting together in comfortable space with a good cup of coffee letting ourselves go wherever the conversation takes us. I like this. But let’s wrap this one up and start our third effort soon.

So here’s my wrap up: I appreciate you pointing out that we are talking about a very basic disagreement between the groups we label “conservative” and “progressive,” that is, our understanding of the character of America. You say conservatives understand that what builds community is freedom and personal relationship. While I don’t disagree with your premise, I will say progressives understand it is our shared humanity that creates community and thus our governmental policies should foster that sense of care for one another.

You say: This kind of “bearing each other’s burdens” does not build community. Instead, it drives people apart by pitting them against each other. I say it is our human brokenness that pits us one against the other and creates within us a fundamental self-centeredness. I say sometimes the government, like a strong wise parent, must intervene to ensure the weak are not oppressed, the poor are not forgotten and the silenced are able to find a voice.

I have mentioned my own journey from conservative to progressive Christianity and how that has influenced my politics. I would love to hear your understanding of how religious faith ought to intersect politics. Your own personal way of doing that and your take on how public Christians should (and should not) allow religious views to influence public policy. Can that be our next conversation?

Janie:  Sure—but I’d lay some groundwork first.  You compared government (at its best) as a “wise parent.”  How else do you understand the role and function of government, and how does your faith inform your view?  Does that seem like a good place to start?  If so, I can share my ideas first.  I’ll bring the coffee!

Posted on

Can We Talk? State-Supported Healthcare, Round One

Janie and Charlotte are best friends from college who have diverged spiritually and politically until we don’t agree about anything (almost).  But as friends, we occasionally get together to talk over some of the issues of our time.  Our first discussion was about religious liberty, beginning here.  Today we begin a debate about a very hot topic soon to get much hotter.

Introduction

One of President Obama’s most significant achievements was the Affordable Care Act, which expands medical coverage to several million previously-uninsured Americans.  But it’s also one of his most controversial acts, and soon to be much more so when the Republican congress, with the backing of a Republican president, tries to make good on their long-standing promise (or threat!) to “Repeal and Replace.”

Rather than try to parse out the pros and cons of every detail of the ACA and the proposed replacement (whenever we get to see it), we’re going to start with the basics:

Do we agree there is, or should be, a basic right to healthcare?

Janie: I’ll go first, and my answer to that question may surprise you.  From the heights of conservative ideology, I would say no.  Health care (actually it’s mostly sickness care, but I guess we’ll agree on the accepted shorthand) is what political theorists would call a “positive” right, meaning that if you don’t have it someone has to provide it for you.  America was founded mostly on “negative” rights, meaning government should not interfere with a citizen’s individual choices as long as the person isn’t breaking any laws or interfering with another citizen’s rights.

But as time goes on it’s not that simple.  First, advances in medical knowledge and technology mean that specific treatments can mean the difference between life and death.  This sharpens the distinction between income levels.  (In the past, the rich could afford medical care, but the state of medicine was such it was often healthier to go without!)

Second, a general breakdown in family and community cohesion means we’re not as available to care for each other, and the care we can offer is limited.  When our country was founded, towns and neighborhoods tended to be more tight-knit and basic needs for the sick could be supplied by people who knew them.  Most if not all hospitals were founded and maintained by churches or other charitable organizations.

Now, of course, the situation is very different.  Ideology bows to practicality, not to mention basic human decency.  So I would say, yes, there is justification for claiming a basic right to healthcare.  The question is how to provide it.

 

Charlotte: In America, citizen “rights” first were claimed in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

I love these words! I love that the DNA of our nation imprinted the ideal of human rights within our body politic from our very inception. But all of us who know American history, know our society has lagged behind our ideals over and over again.

Even as our Founders signed their names to this bold document, we know their wives and daughters did not (and would not) have those same rights and their slaves were not even considered to be fully human. Even though the Founders amended the original Constitution with the Bill of Rights (another brilliant document), we know it has taken years for the people of this nation to come to any kind of agreement about what some of those rights ought to look like in the lives of real people.

The Constitution and the law of the land did not assume slaves should have the right to freedom; America came to that conclusion slowly and violently.

The Constitution and the law of the land did not assume women should be free to vote and own property; American came to that conclusion slowly and reluctantly.

The Constitution and the law of the land did not assume Black citizens should have rights equal to White citizens; American came to that conclusion slowly and with much activism.

The Constitution and the law of the land did not assume all children should have free access to a basic education; America came to that conclusion slowly and awkwardly.

So I have to agree with you that health care was not one of the “positive rights” listed in the founding principles. But I will argue that affordable access to health care surely fits appropriately within the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” paradigm. I also argue that much of America is finally coming to the conclusion that basic health care ought to be part of the “general welfare” promoted by government – one more step in our evolutionary process of “forming a more perfect union.” I say it’s high time.

 

Janie: Well said!  And don’t look now, but I think we agree so far!

As I mentioned above, because of 1) medical advances that sharply delineate the difference between rich and poor and 2) a breakdown of family and community cohesion that leaves many people without care support, governments have “grown” an obligation to provide some sort of care.  The vast majority of Republicans, both citizens and politicians, agree with this too.

I’m glad you mentioned the preamble to the Declaration, because among those inalienable rights is liberty.  Opponents of the ACA oppose it not because they want to see sick people die but because it interferes with liberty.  For every one of the ACA’s 2100 pages (actually, I never heard what the final count was) the health care system and its patients (or victims, some would say) are saddled with another ten pages (more or  . . . more) of regulations that interfere with the physician’s liberty to practice and the patient’s liberty to choose.  And you remember the promise “If you like your plan you can keep it”—there was no way that could be true with the law as conceived.  It forces a large, diverse, dynamic population into a narrow channel and presumes to make vital decisions for them.

So that may be the real issue—not a right to life, which is a claim on the government we agree citizens have.  But what about the right to liberty?  That’s where the rub comes in.  Are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” listed in order of priority?  (Does “life” trump “liberty”?)

What do you think?  That’s my first question back to you.

And also, if I may, one more.  Health coverage did not used to be beyond the average American’s reach.  When I was 12, I became dangerously ill with myocarditis and spent a whole month in Dallas Children’s Hospital.  We were a low-income family: my mother was the only wage earner at the time and women didn’t make much, especially for general office work.  But she had Blue Cross through the Dallas Teachers Credit Union where she worked, and though I’m sure the family was pinched, we didn’t suffer.

That was in 1962.  Since then, costs have escalated far above the rate of inflation.  Why do you think that is?

 

Charlotte: “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…” You are wondering if these were listed by the Founders in order of priority? No, I don’t think so. You and I are both writers and what I see is poetic rhetoric. The Declaration of Independence gives us stirring language that lifts up our lofty ideals as a people. It’s also interesting that the Preamble says these three are just some of the “inalienable rights” endowed by the Creator. The Founders left the door open for America to continue to name and ensure basic rights for its citizens.

In this debate, in my opinion, it comes down to the difference between two visions: a capitalist individualist society or a connected community. Are we to give the market place unfettered freedom to operate our health care industry as a for-profit business? Or are we going to craft a society that requires the health care industry to put people over profit? Are insurance companies and corporations really “people” with rights that are more important than the rights of regular people to access basic health care?

I didn’t know this story about your myocarditis. Wow. Scary. I’m so grateful you were able to get the treatment you needed and have lived such a valuable productive life. I’m so glad we’ve been able to be friends all these years since.

Children’s Medical Center and Parkland Hospital are great examples of non-profit hospitals that put people over profit. I did my chaplaincy internship at Parkland and was very impressed with the work they do. These hospitals and their associated clinic systems serve anyone who has a need – no matter their financial situation. I don’t really understand all the funding and how that works but these are critically important services for Texas residents and countless people are still alive because of this access to affordable health care.

Janie: Absolutely!  And I’m glad I was living in 1962 rather than 50 years earlier when treatment might not have even existed.  The point is, insurance was affordable when we needed it back in 1962, even though we were a low-income family.  Things have gone off-track since then, for various reasons I’ll mention.

But here’s a little-known, or at least not much-discussed, problem: non-profit and rural hospitals are actually closing because of the ACA.  In Springfield, MO, Ozarks Community Hospital closed its Emergency and Surgical facility because the administration put too many requirements on it.  Not reasonable requirements—a friend who worked as an emergency nurse there said that as soon as OCH met one list of demands it was slapped with another.  OCH was built specifically to serve lower-income, lower-educated people of the Ozarks that larger hospitals didn’t want.  He believes this was a strong-arm tactic to force those patients into larger hospitals with more money.

In rural communities, at least 80 hospitals have closed since 2010, one of them not far from me.  As I understand it, the reason for rural closures is that these hospitals accepted a $155 billion cut in Medicare/ Medicaid payments with the expectation that all the new Obamacare enrollees would make up the difference.  That didn’t happen, and when the ACA didn’t meet its funding goals it shuffled thousands of Obamacare patients back on Medicaid, which pays hospitals far below their costs.  Unable to meet operating expenses, they simply closed.  Obviously this was an unintended consequence, but a very real one to thousands of rural residents living 100 miles or more from a hospital.

 

Charlotte: You claim the ACA is hindered by “…regulations that interfere with the physician’s liberty to practice and the patient’s liberty to choose.” I say this problem is much greater when insurance companies operate without proper regulation. “Regulations” in fact are “protections” for the people against the abuses of corporate interests. This problem in the ACA can be addressed and improved.

Janie: Maybe so.  But did you happen to catch the debate between Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz on CNN last Tuesday (Feb. 7)?  Cruz brought up an important point: the Big-player insurance companies like regulations because they can absorb them, even negotiate for exemptions if they need to, while the smaller companies are sunk.  As competition declines, costs go up.  And regulations are not always protections.

 

Charlotte: You say the ACA: “…forces a large, diverse, dynamic population into a narrow channel and presumes to make vital decisions for them.” What was happening before the ACA disallowed insurance companies from imposing lifetime limits and refusing pre-existing conditions? Who was making vital decisions then?

But I love your phrase; yes we are a “large, diverse, dynamic population…” One of America’s greatest strengths. I don’t see the problem the way you do; I see the ACA as forcing insurance companies to provide a wider kind of coverage that attempts to address some of this diversity.

Janie:  I don’t see diversity as a problem.  So I wonder why Obamacare prescribes a one-size-fits-all solution by requiring all insurance to cover a wide-ranging “essential benefits package” for everyone, whether they need it or not: maternity care for retirees, for instance.  I assume the purpose of that is to spread the burden equally, but I think there are other ways to do it besides making the young and healthy shoulder some of the costs for the old and sick—especially if we bankrupt ourselves to the point where the funds won’t even be there when today’s young people need it.

 

Charlotte: You ask why health care costs have escalated. That is way out of my field of expertise but I suspect there are quite a few people in the system getting filthy rich from the suffering and ills of Americans. (Follow the money!) As I understand it, medical procedures and medications are far less expensive in many other countries, nations that have made the choice to count health care as a basic right and have figured out how to offer it to all their citizens.

Janie: I did a little research through several (not all conservative) sources and came up with these reasons.  There may be more:

  • The upside to R&D is the development of new drugs and treatments with the potential to relieve suffering for millions.  The downside is that it costs money (including obscene profits).
  • Hospital costs. Related to technology, but also to administrative costs.  Every hospital hires a battalion of staffers just to deal with insurance companies, another to deal with government paperwork.
  • Administrative costs to private physicians. Ditto, on a smaller scale.
  • More people living longer with chronic conditions.
  • Lifestyle choices. Ours is a self-indulgent society that (at least over the last 30 years or so) tends to slough off responsibility.  At the risk of sounding like I’m blaming the victim, here’s a story.  My friend who used to work at the nonprofit hospital kept seeing this same woman over and over.  Her issues were legion, and I’m sure some of them were unavoidable.  She was also terribly obese and smoked like a chimney.  When he asked why she wouldn’t take care of herself a little better, she told him, “Because I can come in here whenever I want and you people have to take care of me.”  I have no idea how widespread this attitude is, but I know it’s out there.

I’m just saying, we won’t know how to fix the problem unless we understand where the problem is.

 

Charlotte: Wouldn’t it be nice if America could stop waging war all over the globe and spend that money providing affordable health care, excellent public education and clean water to everyone?

You say: “…governments have ‘grown’ an obligation to provide some sort of care. The vast majority of Republicans, both citizens and politicians, agree with this too.  The question is how best to meet that obligation.” This statement intrigues me. Many of my progressive friends will doubt your claim that “the vast majority of Republicans” recognize some governmental obligation to provide some sort of care. How can you help us believe that?

Janie: Of course they doubt it.  Haven’t they always heard that Republicans only care about rich people?  Republicans are a mixed bag, just like Democrats, but let’s assume they aren’t totally stupid or suicidal.  Pulling the insurance coverage from under millions of people would be political suicide.  The hope is to replace the ACA with something more affordable and more efficient–and some Republicans may even have human reasons for doing so!

 

Charlotte: And when we talk about “how best to meet that obligation,” will you claim that private insurance companies and their corporate interests is a better approach than governmental insurance plans? I sure do like my Medicare insurance. It is efficient and affordable. Why can’t everyone buy in to this kind of program?

Janie: That’s a good question.  In the Cruz-Sanders debate, Bernie Sanders said repeatedly, “We’re the richest country on earth, yet our health-care costs are twice as high as any other developed nation.”  He seemed to think that statement was an argument, and elsewhere he implied (or explicitly stated) that the wealthiest Americans should make less money.  Even if the wealthiest Americans made less money, even if all their money were confiscated to provide healthcare for Americans, it would only supply the need for a limited time, and then what?  There are more options than “private insurance companies and their corporate interests.”  I’m hoping we can talk about that next.

In the meantime, I think we basically agree on the original question: Should there be a basic right to healthcare for Americans?  My ‘yes’ is a little more cautious and qualified than yours, but it’s still a Yes.

Posted on

Can We Talk? Religious Liberty, part three

Janie and Charlotte, college friends who grew up to occupy opposite sides of the political spectrum, continue their quest to make public discourse less ugly and stupid:

In our last exciting installment, we went back and forth on some of the specific cases that brought this issue to everyone’s mind.  Charlotte ended with a question that gets to the heart of the issue–

charlotteCharlotte

OK Janie, now I have a question for you: Why is it that some Evangelical Christians insist that homosexuality is only behavior and not part of the innate essence of some human beings? Why can’t they allow room for other people to be who they are and do what they do and live their lives in peace?

Janie

That’s two questions, and though they’re related, the first is theological and the second political/social.  The first takes us deeper into the reasons conservative Christians have for rejecting same-sex marriage (for example) while the second brings us back to the original issue of religious freedom.  The first requires we have certain inward convictions but the second requires only a modicum of good will and mutual respect.

So, in regard to your first question, I’m not aware that some Evangelical Christians insist that homosexuality is “only behavior”—though I guess “some” people will believe anything! I can only speak with authority about me, and my own thought is that of course homosexual behavior stems from the innate essence of certain humans beings, since people generally act out of what we might call their essences.  Out of the heart the mouth speaks, Jesus said, and the person acts.

But that’s exactly the problem.  My own “innate essence,” if unredeemed by the blood of Christ, is sin.  You may think I say this because I’m a Calvinist (total depravity, and all that), but I knew it long before I could put a label on it.  “There is none righteous; no not one,” and that includes me.  I’m not a homosexual, but I’m a casual liar and a subtle manipulator, and I have to keep a chain on these and other manifestations of me as I fight against them.

I understand that many readers will be shocked at the idea of homosexual practice in the same category as lying and manipulating (and a host of other sins).  Well, I wouldn’t if I had a choice, but I believe God puts them there, and so must I.  That doesn’t mean that LGBT people can’t be redeemed; of course they can.  But I do believe they need to accept that their sexual desires are part of the sin nature Christ longs to redeem, rather than a special gift that should be celebrated, any more than idolatry, adultery, stealing, greed, intemperance, blasphemy and cheating should be celebrated.  “And such were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6:11).  Such, in fact, were all of us, but we may be “washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

I come to these conclusions not because I hate gays or don’t know anyone who’s gay, or despise anyone who’s different, but because the Bible is not squishy about this.  I’ve read rationalizations to the contrary, and they strike me as just that: rationalization and wishful thinking.  I know Christians who struggle against same-sex attraction, and for them the fight is worth the prize.  “To live is Christ, and to die is gain.”

As for Christians who are also practicing gays and lesbians, they will answer to God, not me.  I can only tell them the truth to the best of my ability and knowledge.

Beyond that (touching on your second question), of course they should be allowed to live their lives in peace.  Shouldn’t I be allowed the same courtesy?  What about Baronelle Stutzman?  Ruth Neely?  Dr. Eric Walsh?

I could go on…

Charlotte

So let me get this straight: you do accept that homosexuality can be part of the innate essence/ being of some people but you believe when these people behave according to that nature (especially sexually) and “practice” homosexuality, then they are living in their “sin nature.”

Is that fair?

We agree that you and I are not trying to change each other’s minds in this conversation; rather we are trying to understand each other. So I’ll just respond with a part of my own journey from biblical fundamentalism into progressive Christianity. And no – this is not “justification and wishful thinking;” this is sound theology held by countless Christians.

I would say that indeed the Bible is “squishy” about homosexuality. The few texts people regularly quote can be interpreted in a variety of ways, especially given the completely different cultural context of ancient Israel and the Roman Empire. Applying expectations from the First Century to the very different context of the Twenty-first Century is not neat or simple. You don’t accept the Bible’s assumptions on women’s submission and slaves’ subservience, I will guess.

As Christians, for us the life of the Christ is the key to explain, amplify, demonstrate, interpret any of the other biblical texts. For me, Jesus’ example of welcoming and including those who were judged by the religious people of their own day gives me all the motivation I need to welcome wholeheartedly. Jesus’ example of chastising the religious leaders who drew bright lines and excluded some people from the fullness of God’s grace gives me pause as a religious leader myself. As I have said before, if God is my judge then I would rather be judged for including than judged for excluding.

When I stand with couples as their minister for their wedding vows, I always cite the love passage from First Corinthians 13: Love is patient, kind. It is not arrogant, rude, irritable or resentful. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.

Whenever any couple makes their commitment to live in this kind of love, then I boldly say God-Who-is-Love is honored. Whenever any couple keeps their vows “for better or for worse, in sickness and in health until death do us part…” then I say God-Who-is-Faithful is honored.

Janieprofile2

My position is also “sound theology held by countless Christians,” not mindless bigotry as is sometimes portrayed (not by you!).  It’s not based on a few texts, but on the entire sweep of biblical history and what we can discern about God’s purpose and design from within scripture and outside of it.  Such as

  • The biological fact that the sexes were literally made for each other; confirmed by scripture (“This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh . . .”);
  • The creation mandate to “be fruitful and multiply,” which could have an additional spiritual meaning but in the context clearly means making babies;
  • The lack of any favorable or remotely positive mention of homosexuality in scripture;
  • Jesus’ own definition of marriage as between a man and a woman;
  • God’s clear and strict limits on sexual behavior, which most heteros have a problem with.

Charlotte

My progressive Christian friends and my liberal secular friends see a lot of “mindless bigotry” on the Right. Unfortunately that is the public face of Christianity for a lot of non-Christians these days. One of the reasons I’m glad you and I are having this conversation (out of the several reasons I am glad) is that I would like more non-religious people to hear the rationale of a kind-hearted, thoughtful Christian like you. Most of them won’t agree with your theological argument (I don’t even agree with it) but your thought process and conclusions are anything but “mindless.” Your humility and compassion shine through.

Progressive Christian theology also considers “the entire sweep of biblical history and what we can discern about God’s purpose and design…” So look how we begin with similar intent and end up in such different places! I keep saying First Amendment = Messy. This reminds me that our sincere differences also demonstrate that biblical interpretation is messy.

Janie

I agree that Christ is the key to interpreting all other biblical texts, so we need to pay close attention to what he said and did.  He invited all sinners to come to him, but drew one bright line, and that was himself: “No one comes to the Father but by me.”  He upheld the Law—“I have not come to abolish it but to fulfill it”—lived a life of perfect obedience and died with all my sins on his head.  That’s how seriously God takes sin: someone has to pay for it.  One sinless man paid so that I don’t have to.  I still sin, but am obliged to struggle against my “innate essence,” my natural bent toward selfishness and dishonesty.  As a new creature in Christ I can’t cling to my old ways, and can’t encourage others to remain in what I see as sin.

The God-who-is-love demands that we love him first and best—not because he’s a self-centered tyrant but because he’s the source of everything good, and by loving him we find our best and truest selves.  If I were talking to an unbeliever who is gay, sexuality wouldn’t even be part of the conversation at first, because it’s not the real problem.  The real problem, as it is with all of us, is loving something more than God, and putting our own thoughts, desires, and ambitions in place of God, as it has been since the Fall.

A brief point about being judged: if, you say, God is your judge then you would rather be judged for including than for excluding.  Okay, but it seems to me this is not a matter of if but when.  God will judge everyone, including me and you.  If we are “in Christ,” i.e., standing under Christ’s imputed righteousness, we will be judged righteous for his sake, not for anything we did or didn’t do.

Charlotte

So we will agree to disagree on the theological and biblical arguments here. And I will say (as you suggested in our last conversation): “Okay Janie, times are changing—hope you catch up someday!”  🙂

Janie

To which I would say, if I had the presence of mind for a quick comeback, “Yeah, well, in my book, eternity trumps time.”  🙂

Charlotte

Back to our conversation about religious freedom. The examples you offer remind us how very complex it is to apply Constitutional freedoms fairly. (First Amendment = Messy.) I respect each of the people who have found themselves mired in this current confusion as we figure out how to respect their rights at the same time we respect the rights of those who disagree. I am sorry for this challenging time. I believe we will get through this and be stronger and wiser and more compassionate on the other side.

Janie

It’s a real issue, and will only be solved by accepting each other in good faith. Regarding same-sex marriage, to put it bluntly: you won.  But some factions seem unwilling to rest until everybody agrees, or keeps their disagreement entirely under wraps.  When schools and colleges are threatened if they continue to teach their dissenting views (as recently happened in California), we are approaching something like thought control. Will you at least concede that Ted Cruz has a point, even if you don’t agree with his prescriptions?  Do you understand why I’m worried about this?

Charlotte

No, I don’t concede that Ted Cruz has a point. I still argue that he (and you) are focused on one side of the issue while the Courts are trying to balance all sides in as fair a way as possible in all this messiness. One of our commenters on one of our recent conversations noted that single individuals choosing to discriminate because of a religious belief is one thing while entire communities of people refusing services to another entire population of people is something else entirely. She said: “The fact is, the past is riddled with the consequences of communities having the right to do just this…” That’s why our Court system is so important – balancing the rights of some against the rights of others.

Throughout American history, our Courts have bent over backwards to try to accommodate the sincere religious perspective in the application of our civil laws: Jehovah’s Witness Americans refusing oaths or the pledge of allegiance; pro-life Americans opting out of abortion procedures; Muslim Americans and the length of their beards or the wearing of their hijabs; Native American understandings of the sacred (definitely a mixed bag of rulings here). Anyway, I could go on… Conscientiously objecting and opting out is a religious liberty that has been protected again and again by our Courts. However, the practice of discriminating against other people has been struck down repeatedly by those same Courts.

I wrote an open “Letter to My Christian Friends who are Anxious about Your Religious Liberty” some time ago. It’s my best argument for trying to see and respect all sides of this important issue. And yes – it would be nice if regular people could solve more of these problems face to face by giving each other space and “accepting each other in good faith.”

Janie

It’s not just “nice,” it’s vital for living together in a democracy when cultural seams begin to stretch apart.  The court system is overburdened as it is, not to mention prohibitively expensive and time-consuming; “taking it to the judge” is not an option for many people.  If you and your partner can get the flowers or the cake from another vendor, why not just do that?

To conclude, here’s a paragraph from Justice Kennedy’s Obergefell opinion.  I took issue with some of his other statements in that opinion, but appreciate that he added this:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.

Charlotte

Good quote. Justice Kennedy notes an important American reality here. Too many of my non-religious friends on the Left completely misunderstand this in their flippant application of “separation of church and state.” If the First Amendment means anything, it means we all have equal access to the public conversation.

 

Posted on

Can We Talk? – Religious Liberty, part two

Janie and Charlotte, college friends who grew up to occupy opposite sides of the political spectrum, continue their quest to make public discourse less ugly and stupid:

In our last conversation, we agreed that the First Amendment to the US Constitution establishes religious liberty, but then went back and forth on how to apply the multifaceted meaning of the Amendment: how to limit government from restricting people’s practice of religion (“free expression”) while disallowing government from establishing religion.

Charlotte argued that Christianity has been privileged in America since our country’s origins and that religious understandings have indeed been incorporated into our civil laws numerous times. Janie argued that Christianity has been a motivation for law, sometimes for the worse and more often for the better, but seldom the entire motivation.

Here is our continued conversation. Charlotte begins with Janie’s second question:

Does the right of religious people to advocate for our position extend to people in public office, exercising the duties of their office?  Three examples: a) Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and others like them, who are granted legislative power by their constituents; b) Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses in Kentucky; c) Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran, who lost his job because of a self-published book intended for a Christian audience, one small part of which argued against the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.  I realize each of these cases is different and may require some fine needle-threading, but what’s your view of the general principle?

charlotteYes indeed each of these cases is different. Very different. I’ll do my best.

a) It is no secret that I am no fan of Senator Cruz. I’ve written numerous letters to him disagreeing with the way he represents Christian faith in the public sphere. I think he is guilty of operating from his own small, black and white understanding of Christianity instead of representing and respecting the wide range of perspectives held by his rainbow constituency.

That said – Mr. Cruz enjoys the same constitutional freedom you and I do to express his beliefs in the public conversation. My effort is to rally voters who disagree with him to vote him out of office and to encourage citizens to keep him under a microscope so that his theocratic tendencies will be exposed and thwarted. This is one way I use my freedom.

Janie

Agreed, and I respect that.  I don’t believe the Senator’s tendencies are necessarily theocratic, but there’s a conversation for another time.

Charlotte

b) Kim Davis’ error is open and shut in my opinion. She was an elected official who took an oath to uphold the law. The moment she realized she could not in good conscience issue marriage licenses to same sex couples she should have stepped down.

Janie

I understand this view, and Evangelical Christians have actually disagreed on it: some Christians who profile2share Ms. Davis’s basic view of biblical sexuality argue that she was nonetheless duty-bound to perform her office.  If I remember correctly, though, there were other clerks in the same courthouse who could have issued a license without any conscience qualms.  The same-sex couple’s rights were not being infringed by one clerk’s refusal.

I have to wonder what I would have done in the same situation.  I would have felt duty-bound to refuse; to say something like, “I’m truly sorry [and I would be!], but because of my convictions about what the Bible says about marriage, I can’t in good conscience issue this license to you folks.  I apologize for the inconvenience, but Mrs. Jones over there would be happy to take care of you.”

Would I have the courage to do that, knowing it could cost me my job?  I’d like to think so.  But I would also like to think that, were I half of that same-sex couple, I could smile and say, “Okay, but times are changing—hope you catch up someday!”  In other words, I wish we could bear with each other as fellow citizens, without continually resorting to the courts.

Charlotte

I have no doubt you would have handled this situation much more graciously, with much more integrity than Ms. Davis.

As I understand it, yes, there were other clerks in the office who would have been willing to issue marriage licenses, however Ms. Davis refused to let them. She forced her particular religious understanding upon the rest of the clerks and upon the citizens of her county. She put her religion above the law.

(J: Hmmm.  I’ll have to look into this.)

What is also sad to me about that whole Kim Davis rigmarole is the way her actions reflected so badly on each of us as Christians and on our shared Christian faith. Taking up the victim’s mantle, she missed an excellent opportunity to demonstrate Christian principles of humility and grace. Now, because of her example, countless secular people feel confirmed in their dislike and distrust of us religious people.

c) I had to look up Kelvin Cochran’s situation and I admit this one is messy. (Here is an article from the Wall Street Journal.)

As we agreed in our first conversation, application of the First Amendment “is always the rub.” If I were the mayor of Atlanta, would I have fired such an exemplary city officer for his opinions published in a book designed for Bible study within a conservative Christian context? With only the information I have here, probably not. It looks to me like Atlanta’s move was more politically clumsy than unconstitutional.

One problem I see with the Cochran case is that, as an officer and core leader within the administration of the Mayor of Atlanta, he “serves at the pleasure…” This is a longstanding tradition that allows a mayor, governor, president to assemble a compatible team with shared perspectives and goals. If one of the mayor’s key leaders seems to have a significant difference of opinion about the equality and value of some of their citizens, then I can see the mayor’s concern. But then you and I don’t know the backstory (as is so often the case.)

Janie

True; no one ever knows the full backstory except those immediately involved.  I’m going to try to argue from a principle, not a personality; just let me address what I see as a mistaken assumption.  If you’re assuming Mr. Cochran “seems to have a significant difference of opinion about the equality and value” of gays and lesbians, I’m almost certain he would vehemently disagree.  I’ve read summaries of extracts from his book and his theme is basic Christian doctrine, not sexual behavior.  The offending chapter takes up six pages and three sentences mention homosexuality, among many sins that will separate men and women from God.  It’s not the prevailing view right now that homosexual practice is a sin.  I get that—but Mr. Cochran is arguing a theological perspective, not a social or political one.  It’s not a question of equal or unequal, but saved or unsaved.  If there were gay men on the squad I doubt he would have treated them differently, or even thought of them differently, except as sinners separated from God.  As are we all, without Christ.  I realize I’m putting thoughts in his head, but this view is pretty standard among the Evangelicals I know.

Charlotte

I see where you are coming from. After all, I too was raised with similar theological understandings. But as we have discussed before, I have changed my mind about sexuality. It’s been a long – but satisfying – journey for me. Let’s get back to that in another conversation.

Back to Mr. Cochran’s case:

Our nation established a court system in order to sort out this very kind of disagreement. The very fact that this case was filed in 2014 and is still in process supports my argument that the First Amendment is both profoundly brilliant and immensely complicated. Mr. Cochran has the freedom to argue his case and the City of Atlanta has the freedom to argue theirs. Then the Court decides. That’s how our system works.

Janie

I’m grateful for the freedom Mr. Cochran has to argue his case.  The system as originally established is admirable; problem is, over time the system has become slow, cumbersome and cranky, not to mention expensive.  It’s because we’re using the court to solve our ethical dilemmas for us, instead of working them out among ourselves.  It seems Mr. Cochran had two options when he was fired: 1) shut up and find another job, or 2) fight it, not so much to be reinstated (because that wouldn’t happen anytime soon) as to establish a precedent for future cases.

There are probably other Americans—who knows how many—in a similar situation whose cases never came to public attention because they didn’t have the wherewithal to fight.  It takes time, and money, and more time and money, and all the man wanted was to do his job.  And teach a men’s Sunday school class at church with the aid of a book he wrote, which should, it seems to me, find protection under the First Amendment. Let’s imagine he were an atheist writing a blog on his own time, whose opinions offended some members of the city council.  Should he be fired?  As long as those views didn’t interfere with his job, or his relationship with coworkers, of course not.

Charlotte

Some time ago, I wrote a blog about Pastors and Politics. I confess that if I argue for the right of progressive Christians such as Martin Luther King Jr. and William Barber to advocate for positions using the mantle of their religious beliefs, then I have to concede the right of conservative religious folks to advocate for their positions in the public conversation. Sometimes the Courts decide where the line is. Sometimes the American people decide at the ballot box. That’s how our system works. First Amendment = Messy.

Janie

And it will get messier.  I’m just wondering—is that the kind of society we really want?  Always at each other’s throats because of our religious beliefs?

Charlotte

I don’t know. Our society has been pretty messy from the get-go. It’s really quite remarkable that the Founders were able to agree enough to produce the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the first place. That was a messy time indeed.

The Constitution of this infant nation was a brilliant creation, in part because it was written with room for this nation to grow. So now, all these years later, through adolescence and on to maturity, the people of the United States continue to deepen our understanding what it means to be “we the people … forming a more perfect union…” At the time these words were written, slaves were property and legally less than human, women could not vote or hold office and the Native Peoples were “savages” methodically driven from their ancient homes. America has been growing into its dream and attempting to live up to its ideals ever since our beginnings.

We humans have a long sad history of being at each other’s throats because of something or another. Besides the obvious human differences like color and gender, there are all these other cultural constructs like religion, nationality, ethnicity and class that give us excuse to keep each other at arm’s length instead of embracing our shared humanity. Our many differences don’t have to divide us; surely we can figure out how to tap into the strength of our diversity in order finally to become a “more perfect union.”

OK Janie, now I have a question for you: Why is it that some Evangelical Christians insist that homosexuality is only behavior and not part of the innate essence of some human beings? Why can’t they allow room for other people to be who they are and do what they do and live their lives in peace?

Janie

That’s really a theological question, and will take a few paragraphs (though, I promise, as few as possible!).  I’ll get back to you on that . . . .

Posted on

Can We Talk? Religious Liberty, Part 1

Charlotte and I met as teenagers, when her father was hired to be the new Christian education director at our church.  We became close friends in college, married within a year of each other, and went our separate ways.  Separater and  and separater, in fact: from Texas-based fundamentalism to ordained Disciples of Christ minister and progressive blogger (Charlotte) and Reformed Presbyterian conservative author (me).  Through it all we stayed in touch, even though, politically at least, we agree on almost nothing.  Is it possible to talk respectfully from opposite ends of the religious and political spectrum?  We decided to try it: pick a topic, raise a question, and explain ourselves in a way the other can understand.  This isn’t a tug-of-war, where we try to pull each other over to our side by force of argument.  In our own modest way we’re trying to beam a ray of sunshine on this political season and make it a little less ugly and stupid.

Janie

Whenever a public controversy flares up, certain buzz words and catchphrases form like lint and attach profile2themselves to the debate.  After too many twirls through the drier (to stick with the metaphor), some of the meaning rubs off.  That’s why it’s a good idea when beginning a discussion to clarify just what we mean by the words we use.

Religious Liberty became a hot topic after the 2014 Obergefell decision, when the Supreme Court

  • struck down the right of states and their constituencies to define marriage (as the right saw it), or,
  • barred states from discriminating against same-sex couples (from the left).

Almost immediately, we started getting news about private business owners refusing to provide services for gay weddings, and the consequences thereof.  A number of state legislatures began debating religiously liberty/conscience laws to protect individuals in this situation.  Opponents began putting “religious liberty” in scare quotes, implying that these concerns were trivial or hypocritical.   I disagree that these concerns are either, and here’s my definition:

Religious Liberty refers to the freedom of an individual to practice his or her religion, not only within the confines of a church but also outside in day-to-day life, so long as it causes no obvious harm or places no undue burden on a fellow citizen.  Religious liberty is guaranteed by the “free exercise” clause of Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution, wherein “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .  . .”

So, what’s your definition?  And of course, you may feel free to critique mine, so long as you give yours first!

Charlotte

charlotteBusted! “…putting ‘religious liberty’ in scare quotes…” is exactly what I did in our recent conversation when we were talking about how Ted Cruz approaches this issue. Mr. Cruz’s way of applying the Constitution to religious freedom does scare me. The way religious freedom legislation has mushroomed since Obergefell disturbs me deeply. This approach is a much smaller understanding of religious freedom in my mind. That’s why it’s in quotation marks. (Let’s talk more about that later.)

But otherwise – no – I do not mean to imply that “these concerns are trivial or hypocritical” as a rule. I believe wholeheartedly in religious liberty and I agree completely with your definition. No problem with our foundation here.

It’s the application of these constitutional guarantees that causes our dilemma.

As clear as the words of the First Amendment sound on the surface, the interpretation of what those words mean in any particular context and how those principles play out in our common life together is quite complex. Highly educated and well-intentioned lawmakers and judges have always had a variety of opinions about how to craft laws that appropriately apply these standards to our diverse American community.

I agree with your definition that the freedom to practice religion extends beyond the church doors. In the United States of America, all religious people enjoy the right to argue for our beliefs in the public conversation, to advocate for our positions, to write our letters and lobby our representatives, to vote…

(Interestingly the phrase “separation of church and state” is used by some of my liberal, secular friends to try to restrict the freedom of religious people to participate fully in the political process. That is a misunderstanding from the left that is just as troubling to me as the hints of theocracy I hear from the right.)

The problem comes when institutions of government attempt to enshrine particular religious understandings into civil law. Our nation has done this over and over again in our history and it always turns out badly. We religious people are right to expect equal protection under the law. But we do not have the right to expect legal privilege. The laws and policies of our government institutions must be fair and just for everyone.

Your turn…

Janie

Application is always the rub.  The devil is in the details, and that’s what worries both of us.  I have two questions:

  • You say that through history our nation has enshrined particular religious understandings into civil law, and it always turns out badly. What particular religious understandings do you have in mind?  I don’t need a whole list, just two or three examples to illustrate what you mean.
  • Does the right of religious people to advocate for our position extend to people in public office, exercising the duties of their office? Three examples: a) Ted  Cruz, Mike Lee and others like them, who are granted legislative power by their constituents; b) Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses in Kentucky; c) Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran, who lost his job because of a self-published book intended for a Christian audience, one small part of which argued against the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.  I realize each of these cases is different and may require some fine needle-threading, but what’s your view of the general principle?

Charlotte

Yes, I believe that throughout our history our nation has enshrined particular religious understandings into civil law. I will argue that the institution of slavery, the limitation of rights and opportunities for women and the exclusion of gay people from the marriage contract are three really big examples.

I’m aware it’s a bit of a tricky argument because one can also argue that those circumstances grew from the soil of long held cultural assumptions, not religious practice. But since I believe all our various religions are cultural constructs, I cannot help but see religious underpinnings.

The anecdotal evidence I offer is the countless sermons that have been preached arguing that slavery was God’s will, that women should stay in the place God assigned them and that marriage is between a man and a woman because … you know … Adam and Eve. I offer the evidence that masters used the Bible to intimidate their slaves, that husbands have used the Bible to suppress their wives, that parents have used the Bible to ostracize their gay children. I offer the evidence that it has been church folks who have been some of the most proactive and reactive to lobby for these widely held religious understandings to be incorporated into local, state and federal laws. I could also mention prohibition, abortion and the Sunday Blue Laws that you and I were so familiar with growing up in Dallas.

“Law is always contingent,” my attorney husband reminds me. Rules and regulations come from a people’s time and place that are inevitably bound up with our particular understandings within our culture in any given era. (That’s why arguments from natural law stand on shaky ground.) The brilliance of the First Amendment is that it was written (intentionally, I believe) with both stability and elasticity. As our nation grows and matures, we can stand firmly in our proclaimed individual rights while, at the same time, evolve in ways that increasingly make room for the rights of others.

I need to take a break. You stretch me, Janie! I’ll let you respond to question #1 and we can tackle question #2 in our next discussion.

Janie

The stretching goes both ways.  Thanks for those examples.  Of course you are correct that religion (let’s just say the Bible) has been used to support American slave law and legislation limiting the rights of women.  But does that mean the Bible was the impetus for those laws?  I don’t believe so.  American slave law was driven by economics and false science (the “scientific fact” that blacks were inferior), not primarily religion.  The Bible was used to beat slaves into submission, but it also lifted them up, created a community (the black church) and shaped the heart of the abolitionist movement.  Women have likewise been subjected throughout all times and places, partly because of biology and because of the sinful tendency of the physically strong to oppress the weak.  The Bible affirms that men and women are equal in worth, and does not bar women from the marketplace or the public square.  I’ll admit that some passages in the Bible are problematic for women (some women, anyway!), but if scripture has been used as the central prop for legally limiting their rights, it’s been misused.

Same-sex marriage legislation is a bit more complicated.  Since most of the religious liberty cases that have popped up recently concern SSM and other issues of sexuality, we’ll definitely be taking it up later.

All this is to say that the record of religion in law is murky:  Christianity has been a motivation for law, for the worse and more often for the better, but seldom the entire motivation.

It’s interesting, though: the basic principle of non-discrimination is religious in origin.  It’s an outworking of the Judaeo-Christian doctrine that humanity is created in the image of God their Creator, and all men and women are of equal worth to him.  I doubt that the principle would even exist without that basic truth.  Can American law be uncoupled entirely from Christianity, or perfectly neutral toward it?  I’m not sure it’s possible, or even desirable.

Charlotte

Yes, you and I agree that the Bible and religion have been misused in these and many more social circumstances throughout history. Has religion been origin or justification for abuses of humans one against the other? Probably both-and.

I’ll work on my response to your question #2 and get back to you soon. Thanks for the stimulating conversation, my friend.

Charlotte Vaughan Coyle