Heading to the final vote today on the health care bill I have examined the arguments of the pro-bill side of the debate, especially from those of the progressive Catholic wing. I have wondered if they realize how many bridges they have burned in their attempt to get this bill passed. To date, I count the following:
*Thrown the USCCB under the bus for its opposition to the bill
*Called into question the USCCB's legal dept. on its ability to analyze this bill (re abortion).
*Imputed ulterior motives on the part of the pro-life movement in general (ie. it's not about abortion, it's about killing health care)
*Become so single issue minded to denigrate the concerns of a wide sector of the population's views on the bill (constitutional, moral, fiscal, etc.)
It amazes me in a sense because the bill itself falls way short of the vaunted goals of those who believe in state financed care. The public option doesn't exist, for example. Nor is the system streamlined to achieve any real benefit from getting the government involved.
More importantly, they have made it much more difficult for those on the other side to cooperate in the future. By undermining the USCCB as well as fellow Catholics in the pro-life movement they have further widened the rift between Catholics on this issue.
I do hope some good comes out of this bill if it passes. But I can't imagine what good could possibly offset the damage this bill has caused to the Catholic community, as well as the general U.S. population.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Health care bill is litigation city
Another issue that the health care bill causes: A huge spike in litigation:
I didn't sign up for this!
I can't help but be amused by the occasional outburst of righteous anger from well meaning Catholics who get worked up over attacks against the Faith (author included). From the Da Vinci Code, to Piss Christ, to TV in general, it is true that attacks come from all sides. And indeed at a certain level the anger is legitimate.
But friends kindly remember three things. First that it has always been this way, if not worse. Second, as Christians we signed up for this. Finally, we have already won the fight.
As for the first thing whenever I see such attacks I try to remind myself what it must have been like for the first Christians whenever a new Emperor mounted the throne. Odds are it went something like this:
Christian 1: "We have a new emperor."
Christian 2: "Wonder if he will continue the current policy of feeding us to the lions?"
1: "Maybe he's a progressive and will simply behead us?"
Etc. It could be a lot worse than it is now. It WAS a lot worse for those who came before us.
Second, our King warned us about this. He didn't promise life would be a cakewalk after we chose to follow Him. Jesus died on the cross, and before then told us we must do the same. We should be thankful that our burden is so light.
Finally, We need to remember that we have already won. Christ conquered death, folks! Who is Dan Brown compared to the King of the Universe? Instead of being "OUTRAGED!!1!11!", we should be saying to folks like Dan Brown, "That's really the best you can do, huh." The victory of God is inevitable. Our job, first and foremost, is to preach that Good News.
But friends kindly remember three things. First that it has always been this way, if not worse. Second, as Christians we signed up for this. Finally, we have already won the fight.
As for the first thing whenever I see such attacks I try to remind myself what it must have been like for the first Christians whenever a new Emperor mounted the throne. Odds are it went something like this:
Christian 1: "We have a new emperor."
Christian 2: "Wonder if he will continue the current policy of feeding us to the lions?"
1: "Maybe he's a progressive and will simply behead us?"
Etc. It could be a lot worse than it is now. It WAS a lot worse for those who came before us.
Second, our King warned us about this. He didn't promise life would be a cakewalk after we chose to follow Him. Jesus died on the cross, and before then told us we must do the same. We should be thankful that our burden is so light.
Finally, We need to remember that we have already won. Christ conquered death, folks! Who is Dan Brown compared to the King of the Universe? Instead of being "OUTRAGED!!1!11!", we should be saying to folks like Dan Brown, "That's really the best you can do, huh." The victory of God is inevitable. Our job, first and foremost, is to preach that Good News.
USCCB and fair weather fans
One of the more interesting things about the current health care debate is the sudden realignment of the loyalties to the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops). Old friends are now enemies, and vice versa.
The progressive held that since the USCCB was against the Iraq war this was the official Catholic position on the war in Iraq. Multiple appeals to documents released during the run up and initial phase of the war lent credibility to the idea the correct moral position was one of opposition.
However, since the bishops have come out against the current Senate bill the progressive Catholics have all but ignored the USCCB. Indeed some have insinuated that they are misled on abortion, they are in too deep with the NRLC (National Right to Life Coallition). Indeed, we are suddenly reminded of the fact that from a "required submission" standpoint that fidelity to the USCCB is only mandatory insofar as your local bishop agrees with it. Note: This is the correct view, it is simply the timing that bothers me.
Conversley, we have those on the right who have in the past and present criticized the USCCB for being too far to the left on political issues. From the Iraq War to immigration, these folks have referred to the USCCB as a left wing organization. Arguments abound about the right to differ with prudential matters with the USCCB. Again, the arguments are correct so far as the moral teaching of the Church is concerned, but the motivation is somewhat dubious.
Now with the USCCB coming out against the health care bill conservative Catholics now view the council as the vanguard of the Faith. Suddenly it is popular to agree with the USCCB among conservative Catholics.
It is enough to make one's head spin. One can only wonder what will happen when immigration is a hot topic again. The political shift might tilt the Earth's axis.
The progressive held that since the USCCB was against the Iraq war this was the official Catholic position on the war in Iraq. Multiple appeals to documents released during the run up and initial phase of the war lent credibility to the idea the correct moral position was one of opposition.
However, since the bishops have come out against the current Senate bill the progressive Catholics have all but ignored the USCCB. Indeed some have insinuated that they are misled on abortion, they are in too deep with the NRLC (National Right to Life Coallition). Indeed, we are suddenly reminded of the fact that from a "required submission" standpoint that fidelity to the USCCB is only mandatory insofar as your local bishop agrees with it. Note: This is the correct view, it is simply the timing that bothers me.
Conversley, we have those on the right who have in the past and present criticized the USCCB for being too far to the left on political issues. From the Iraq War to immigration, these folks have referred to the USCCB as a left wing organization. Arguments abound about the right to differ with prudential matters with the USCCB. Again, the arguments are correct so far as the moral teaching of the Church is concerned, but the motivation is somewhat dubious.
Now with the USCCB coming out against the health care bill conservative Catholics now view the council as the vanguard of the Faith. Suddenly it is popular to agree with the USCCB among conservative Catholics.
It is enough to make one's head spin. One can only wonder what will happen when immigration is a hot topic again. The political shift might tilt the Earth's axis.
Single issue voters
For those of us who stand up for the rights of the unborn, we are often accused of being "single issue voters." This term is used in a derogatory fashion. It basically means that prolife folks are so focused on abortion to the exclusion of other social justice concerns.
I am therefore enamored by the extent to which the current health care bill proponents support and defend it with almost single-minded focus. Objections to the bill are dismissed as being tangential.
*Inadequate conscience rights - not important
*Funding of abortion through CHCs - irrelevant
*Constitutional concerns - pfft!
*Budget issues - poor people are dying!1!!1
*Rationing of care - "death panels.....sure"
Indeed the concerns that a variety of people have concerning the the current bill from a number of perspectives are dismissed if not denigrated as being uncaring about the poor.
As this is written proponents are undermining the validity of the "single issue voter problem" by promoting a bill that has a variety of problems, under the guise of being "too important" to be hampered by such trivialities as funding the murder of unborn children.
I guess it depends on which issue you "single out."
I am therefore enamored by the extent to which the current health care bill proponents support and defend it with almost single-minded focus. Objections to the bill are dismissed as being tangential.
*Inadequate conscience rights - not important
*Funding of abortion through CHCs - irrelevant
*Constitutional concerns - pfft!
*Budget issues - poor people are dying!1!!1
*Rationing of care - "death panels.....sure"
Indeed the concerns that a variety of people have concerning the the current bill from a number of perspectives are dismissed if not denigrated as being uncaring about the poor.
As this is written proponents are undermining the validity of the "single issue voter problem" by promoting a bill that has a variety of problems, under the guise of being "too important" to be hampered by such trivialities as funding the murder of unborn children.
I guess it depends on which issue you "single out."
Monday, March 15, 2010
Suspicion for me but not for thee
As if to continue my last post it seems that taking your advice is a very difficult thing to do. Over at Vox Nova one of the regular posters writes about the Hermeneutic of Suspicion. I could not help but notice the following:
What I kept thinking about was what came toward the end of this post:
Now in all fairness the author is correct in that there are those who want to use the abortion issue as a wedge to stall the passage of the current health care bill. Just as there are those who would use the current health care bill as a vehicle as a means for more government control over the health industry (Obama himself stated that the public option is a gateway to a single payer).
But to plead for those of us who are "suspicious" to drop our suspicion, not in order for people to approach all sides in charity, but simply to transfer the distrust from the author's view to the author's ideological opponents is a bit suspicious in and of itself.
This is not to say that the NRLC may deserve some criticism for inconsistency(the "evidence" provided for Medicare Advantage is from 2009, not sure what was passed since Medicare Advantage was first passed), or that the Democrats are trying to sneak in abortion funding. It's just that I don't think it is entirely convincing to plead for insinuation of motives to end and then to accuse your opponents of falsehood in the same post. Apparently only those of us who disagree need to "get with it."
Today, the pro-life movement is automatically inclined to view any Democratic initiative in this area through the “hermeneutic of suspicion”, always assuming bad motives, and always seeking hidden traps and pitfalls.Given that the Democratic Party platform is dedicated to the expansion of abortion "rights" as they define it I think a little suspicion is healthy. Although suspicion of politicians in general is a good idea, regardless of your fav government ideology.
What I kept thinking about was what came toward the end of this post:
It would be a grave mistake to prevent passage of such a momentous bill based on a prudential preference for the language of one bill when the differences are second order. It would be a grave mistake for the USCCB to be influenced by the likes of the NRLC in this matter – they are not trustworthy[emphasis mine].Apparently it is okay to distrust groups that the author disagrees with.
Now in all fairness the author is correct in that there are those who want to use the abortion issue as a wedge to stall the passage of the current health care bill. Just as there are those who would use the current health care bill as a vehicle as a means for more government control over the health industry (Obama himself stated that the public option is a gateway to a single payer).
But to plead for those of us who are "suspicious" to drop our suspicion, not in order for people to approach all sides in charity, but simply to transfer the distrust from the author's view to the author's ideological opponents is a bit suspicious in and of itself.
This is not to say that the NRLC may deserve some criticism for inconsistency(the "evidence" provided for Medicare Advantage is from 2009, not sure what was passed since Medicare Advantage was first passed), or that the Democrats are trying to sneak in abortion funding. It's just that I don't think it is entirely convincing to plead for insinuation of motives to end and then to accuse your opponents of falsehood in the same post. Apparently only those of us who disagree need to "get with it."
Thursday, March 11, 2010
A call for civility in debate?
Every once in a while I will read a blogger or writer calling for "civility in public debate." The hatred is too intense. The language is too coarse. We aren't communicating with each other. Etc. All of the above in a certain sense is true (though I truly wonder if it was really different in any other age or time).
What I have found interesting is a curious phenomenon where the person calling for civility is often commits the very crimes he decries. In one post the writer will lament the lick of civility and then in the next declare how his opponents are the very incarnation of evil, because he wants to lower/raise taxes or some other trivial nonsense(depends on what you read).
I read such articles and posts and while in general I agree that we could all do well with a dose of civility, I often feel that those who make the call often enough are in need of their own advice. It's almost a dye marker of sorts. If you find yourself thinking there is too much heat in the kitchen, maybe you were the one who turned up the oven.
I was thinking these thoughts as I realized that I myself was thinking that there is too little charity in the public square. But as I meditated more I realized I was just as much as a problem as anyone else. The Internet, for the good it does in terms of making information readily available, makes it difficult to connect on a human level. A person I tear apart in a combobox I might be best friends with despite our disagreements if sat down and had a beer.
I think anyone who wants more civility in discussion should take a good look in the mirror. Too often we fail to see, in specific terms, how we contribute to the problem. Whenever we accuse someone of ulterior motives, we should be the first to point out our own faults in this matter. To truly see if we are acting in charity rather than simply trying to "win" or "be right."
In this vein I would like to make an apology. There is one person named Henry Karlson, a regular contributor at a site called Vox Nova. Their politics are about as far from mine as they can get. Yet in arguing with him I have said things that were unfair. In particular, I have accused him of supporting the pro-abortion movement despite his protests to the contrary.
For clarification, I think Mr. Karlson argues too much against the pro-life movement. At best, I think his views do little to advance the rights of the unborn, and at worst undermine them. I stand by my view of this and will defend such. Indeed it was because of my view on this that I initially thought he was actually arguing for a pro-abortion position.
But my evaluation of his arguments and what he actually says and believes are different things. Everyone deserves to have his opinion represented accurately. What I think his opinion leads to is not the same as his opinion. Karlson, despite my disagreements with him, says he is pro-life, and without evidence to the contrary he deserves to be taken at his word.
And so with that I offer a heartfelt apology. I hope to rectify this mistake however I can. And will attempt in the future to discuss, debate, and argue in the spirit of charity. If we truly seek to live as Christ's disciples, then we should at least be able to discuss our political differences in the Truth of the Faith.
What I have found interesting is a curious phenomenon where the person calling for civility is often commits the very crimes he decries. In one post the writer will lament the lick of civility and then in the next declare how his opponents are the very incarnation of evil, because he wants to lower/raise taxes or some other trivial nonsense(depends on what you read).
I read such articles and posts and while in general I agree that we could all do well with a dose of civility, I often feel that those who make the call often enough are in need of their own advice. It's almost a dye marker of sorts. If you find yourself thinking there is too much heat in the kitchen, maybe you were the one who turned up the oven.
I was thinking these thoughts as I realized that I myself was thinking that there is too little charity in the public square. But as I meditated more I realized I was just as much as a problem as anyone else. The Internet, for the good it does in terms of making information readily available, makes it difficult to connect on a human level. A person I tear apart in a combobox I might be best friends with despite our disagreements if sat down and had a beer.
I think anyone who wants more civility in discussion should take a good look in the mirror. Too often we fail to see, in specific terms, how we contribute to the problem. Whenever we accuse someone of ulterior motives, we should be the first to point out our own faults in this matter. To truly see if we are acting in charity rather than simply trying to "win" or "be right."
In this vein I would like to make an apology. There is one person named Henry Karlson, a regular contributor at a site called Vox Nova. Their politics are about as far from mine as they can get. Yet in arguing with him I have said things that were unfair. In particular, I have accused him of supporting the pro-abortion movement despite his protests to the contrary.
For clarification, I think Mr. Karlson argues too much against the pro-life movement. At best, I think his views do little to advance the rights of the unborn, and at worst undermine them. I stand by my view of this and will defend such. Indeed it was because of my view on this that I initially thought he was actually arguing for a pro-abortion position.
But my evaluation of his arguments and what he actually says and believes are different things. Everyone deserves to have his opinion represented accurately. What I think his opinion leads to is not the same as his opinion. Karlson, despite my disagreements with him, says he is pro-life, and without evidence to the contrary he deserves to be taken at his word.
And so with that I offer a heartfelt apology. I hope to rectify this mistake however I can. And will attempt in the future to discuss, debate, and argue in the spirit of charity. If we truly seek to live as Christ's disciples, then we should at least be able to discuss our political differences in the Truth of the Faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)