By the way, regarding the Obama civilian army speech:
Reading the little bit highlighted on Beck's program in the context of the rest of the speech leads me to believe Obama was using military language as a figure of speech. His point, I believe, is that we have focused on threats to our country from the outside, but it is just as critical that we focus on what is damaging our country from the inside. The "civilian national security force" he talks about is the 250,000 AmeriCorps volunteers he wants to provide funding for. You can click here to find out more about AmeriCorps and what its volunteers do.
It is unfortunate that Obama chose to use this language as he did, because I can see how someone might read this to mean that establishing a civilian national security force is one among a list of things he is planning to do (expand AmeriCorps, send college graduates to mentor young people, establish an Energy Corps, etc.). But the civilian national security force is not one of the things, it is his figurative description of this army of volunteers he hopes to empower to make a difference in this country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am not sure of which part of this discussion in which to weigh in. Let me just add a simple thought. Government and "morality" have made strange bedfellows for the past few generations in the US. That is why I keep coming back to the questions 1) What is the role of government? and 2) What is the role of the Church? This whole idea of the "moral" imperative for universal healthcare (which I believe is at the heart of the article that started this dialogue) is an intriguing concept. In my opinion it begs many additional questions. For instance, what is the definition of this morality? And will the same people that define such morality be managing or regulating the said healthcare? Will the morality be founded in truth? The truth as defined by a standard? A Biblical standard founded upon a God who created and loves and redeems? Or will it be a more relative type of morality and truth...?
ReplyDeleteThe moral relativism that currently pervades the governance of the US society is concerning to me. It is the absence of a foundation for truth and morality that has led to the fact that in the US today a woman can walk into a clinic and have a fetus removed from her womb and it is perfectly legal under the crazy notion that a woman has the right to choose what she will do with her own body... and in the same country, a drunk driver that hits and kills a pregnant woman can be convicted of a double homicide. So which is it? Is it a life with value? Or isn't it? Will the same government (or any government for that matter) that refuses to deal with the significant question of when does life begin, do a good job of managing and legislating other healthcare issues dealing with life and death?
My point is that when we join the ideas of morality of healthcare and government's role in administering it, it gets very complicated. I am much more comfortable with the concept of a free people genuinely and voluntarily giving of their own time, talents and money (from a moral belief system) to a cause like helping the poor, or needy with whatever the need is. Be it food, shelter, medical care, etc. In other words- the role of the church. I am not a fan of forced redistribution of wealth generally from productive to non-productive members of a society to provide things defined somehow as a "right". It has far-reaching economic consequences that in the end reduces the very wealth and resources that are being used (confiscated) to fund such programs. In other words- I am not convinced that the government is the best answer to many of our social challenges.
This conversation has been good for me. It has caused me to look much harder at my beliefs. I have asked myself if I am doing enough with the abundance that I have been blessed with? Should I be doing more. It is one thing to say it is the Church's role to take care of the poor... it is another thing to give time, resources and money to really help others in need. I am challenged by this. I want to do more. I even think radical thoughts about helping full-time vs part time. Can't help but think that one day when I stand before my God, he may have a few questions about what I did with what He provided. I wonder if he will be less impressed by the really fancy buildings we built in the suburbs with coffee houses in them that we call Church today... and more interested in what we did for Him by the way we served "the least of them"? It is a good thing for me to wrestle with these ideas.
Keep the faith!
STL
Scott,
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your comments--and for taking the time earlier to respond to my original email. As much as this whole health care debate has caused all kinds of responses from the left and the right, I earnestly pray that the response of members of the Church at large, whether they be conservative or liberal in their politics, will be the same as yours--to ask ourselves and to ask God should we be, could we be, doing something more or something different to care for the poor.