The Juxtaposition of Small Government and Big Religion
The other day, I had a very frustrating Facebook dialogue with an old friend. She had posted about the President’s proposal that contraceptives be classified as preventive medicine and included without a co-pay in employer-provided benefit plans. She was absolutely aghast at the very idea, proclaiming a threatening, dangerous invasion of religions liberties. I completely didn’t get her point: after all, no one was forcing anyone to take contraceptives, so what was the big deal?
Our argument lay right at that crossroads where the religious right goes from small to big – government should be small, in order to allow individuals to help those in need. On the other hand, God is so big, that we can’t restrict His divine will in any way. And there is less argument among different American sects of fundamentalist religions about what constitutes His will than there has been in years and centuries past; as they were all papering all over Facebook “We are all Catholic now!”
My friend is a loving, caring, giving person who would literally donate her last dollar or hand over her last item of clothing to someone in need. I have personally seen her extend her helping hand to strangers crying over coffee in a restaurant, homeless people living in parking lots and people asking for food in the streets. She isn’t the typical “let them eat cake” conservative. She has no desire for the poor to be punished. She just doesn’t want tax dollars from the government going to help the poor, by and large.
I think that this mindset comes from the evangelical belief that God uses all life experiences to teach His people something. In that world view, if you get cancer, there is some message in the experience of cancer that you needed –perhaps you had not submitted your will to the Lord’s enough, or perhaps you needed to learn compassion, or perhaps you needed to exercise your faith. Likewise, if you become homeless, if you are starving, if you haven’t the money for your prescriptions, perhaps there is a lesson for you in that terrible experience against addiction, for thrift or for patience. After all, Job suffered for how many years before God came and revealed that, in essence, he was playing out a cosmic bet using poor Job as the pawn?
Above all to the true evangelical, if you are suffering in some way, that might “open your heart” to the message of salvation, delivered while reaching out to you in your time of need. The fact that some people will doubtless fall through the cracks using this system of one-by-one, individual-on-individual rescue is immaterial; remember, to the evangelical, all that happens is His will, after all. And the only thing that really matters in the evangelical world view is a person’s relationship with God, not his or her material well-being or even survival.
Seen in this light, the evangelical insistence that government has no role in caring for the "least" among us, as commanded by the Gospel of Matthew makes some strange kind of sense.
It’s like a return to “Pilgrim’s Progress” thinking; each person has a path laid out for them, and a detour to Law (represented in our times by our government) turns one aside from reaching Christ, in our times- as in the original 17th century allegory- reached only through Evangelist.
At the crossroads where small government has to choose the fork for either Big Religion or Freedom of (from) Religion, they veer even more sharply to the right and take the path of Big Religion.
Their reasons for this choice are less than clear to me. Some evangelicals I know are very sincere in their firm belief that the United States is (and always has been) a Christian nation, and that eventually, we will be a Christian theocracy. This philosophy has even crept gingerly into mainstream politics, most notably through VP candidate, Sarah Palin.
As Americans stumble in our bumbling and sinful way towards this Godly Kingdom on earth, I suppose that these particular evangelicals believe that we must erect as many barriers to sin opportunity as possible. This is the same thinking that installed Blue Laws in my state, Texas. It’s the same type of thinking that drives laws in Muslim-governed countries, like the Taliban-led Afghani government’s prohibitions against women working, being educated or even going out in public uncovered, or the Saudi government’s ban on women driving.
In some cases, the sin being barricaded against might not be one that all fundamentalist faiths accept as sin. For example, my friend who was so incensed about the contraception controversy is right-wing charismatic Episcopalian; she admittedly doesn’t think personally that birth control is a sin.
In these instances, I find the sudden agreement between the various Christian faiths very surprising. After all, wars have been fought in my lifetime between Catholic and Protestant.
The political right has done an amazing job in the modern United States of easing the deep, long-standing denominational divisions to unite “believers” or "theists" against “godless, secular humanists”. It’s so much a case of anyone-is-better-than-a-liberal that evangelicals are probably going to swallow hard and pull the lever for a Mormon, a member of a faith that many evangelicals speak of as a cult.
In the Dominionist world view, government is the protector of religion, not the protector of the people against religion.
Why would anyone who believed that God has a plan for the world think that we would have anything to fear from religious involvement in public life?
I think that this is why the arguments we liberals often make of the what-would-happen-if-the Scientologists-were-in-charge variety make no impact. God would never allow the Scientologists to be in charge; that is just ridiculous, misguided, secular fear in an right-wing evangelical’s book.
More than eight out of ten white evengelical Christians surveyed feel that God has a special role for the United States. The number one underlying policy goal to a true right-wing religious believer in twenty-first century America is to advance the cause of the faithful against the secular. Even if the actual specific measure being pursued in the name of God is not in agreement with their personal theology.
Something that Dominionists never really discuss is whose version of Christ’s word we will be following in this Utopian Christian America that they envision.
If, God forbid, we were to arrive at that point in our history, I can easily see us desceding into denominational conflict. All we have to do to see this possibility is to look at Shia vs. Sunni divisions in modern Muslim nations.
Because all of the deep differences between the various sects and denominations of Christianity haven’t gone away, they’ve just been papered over. If the religious right ultimately manages to wrest full control away from the rest of us and begins to really govern, those divisions are going to emerge once again, in living Technicolor.
As for me, I’ll take freedom from religion, for as long as I can get it. If we’re not careful, that won’t be very long.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
bluestocking babe
Reflecting On History
Pensive Person
Barbara Becker
David Schiller
Tiffany Brubeck
Salon.com
Comments
Is it not possible their god could choose to do things that way???
I think you articulated well the Pilgrim's Progress thing. Much goes back to the dispute between the 19th century Social Gospel movement (against child labor, poverty, alcohol, slums, etc) and the Fundamentalists (1905-) who saw salvation as essentially individual. As you say, one soul at a time. Wikipedia has a useful summary at "Social Gospel." As an Episcopalian, I find the whole mega-church thing problematic: it seems the Walmart/Sams Club approach to faith - big, impersonal, marketing, style over content.
There is so much you've raised - Dominionist theories, special role for the USA, parallels with other religious cultures such as Islam or Israel. There's also the tired old bogeyman, "secular humanist"! Some of us Europeans see 1776 as the start of the first secular nation, & the first secular constitution, in world history! Yes, there is a strong Puritan stream in America, back to the 1620 Pilgrims (but also the 1607 Jamestown Anglicans!), but there is also a strong foundation of Deism - a non-Evangelical version of Christianity (to put it mildly!) that seems very similar to today's "secular humanism." Deism obviously goes way back to the beginnings of America. In other words, it didn't all change with prayer in schools in 1962. I think it was Karl Barth who described the French 1779 as Catholicism "gone to seed" and the US 1776 as Calvinism "gone to seed"! Evangelicals would deny that, I'm sure, but there is a grain of truth to it, nevertheless.
Well, this comment has gone too long already. Thanks again, Laura.
If you assume that government by its very nature encourages sloth, irresponsibility and the other deadly sins then you can oppose it for performing even those services that by any definition constitute the Christian charity of caring for the least of our brothers.
It makes sense in its own strange way and has a grasp of certain partial truths but at the end of the day seems so self defeating and ripe for exploitation by the rich and powerful who don't care much about the Sermon on the Mount or the gospels just so long as their taxes are kept low.
David - The facts don't matter at all; it's "us" against "them" and anything Obama tried to do is automatically part of "them". That is the genius of this whole set-up; by playing on the religious in this way, it removes any ability to rationally assess self-interest or to hear facts. Thanks for commenting.
The separation of church and state may be the single most important edict of our Constitution. Up until that document founded the basis of a secular state, while still allowing folks to worship as they pleased, there was no such thing as separation of the Church from the State.
Any king in power, even if they stole the throne (and they often did) could claim divine right to rule. And of course, at the height of the Holy Roman Empire, any king had to submit to ultimate Church authority if they deigned to remain in power. In short, the role and rule of kings was as much about submitting to the Church's authority as it was to ensure the laity paid their taxes and tithes.
Is that really what we are looking to have here? I say no. I don't think all the American Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Sikhs and Shinto faithful would welcome a Sacred State based on the hodgepodge of fundamentalist crockery most of this country's "faithful" call Christianity.
The most obvious reason to oppose this religious attack on our freedoms is exactly the same reason the Puritans, Huegonots, Protestants, Lutherans and Quakers emigrated to America -- religious freedom. Religious freedom has to include the freedom to completely ignore worshipping any god at all. In a Sacred State, such will simply not be tolerated.
In fact, tolerance won't be tolerated. That should scare anyone that thinks we should be flowing with the milk of human kindness and charity.
As a last note, it is important to understand the Balkan comparison made earlier by Raymond. The ethnic divide in that region is less ethnic in truth and more religious than anything. The Balkans (*which includes the former "republic" of Yugoslavia) is a transitional area where many disparate people have lived for centuries, under the controlling thumb of one government or another. Once those controls fell away, literally a thousand years of grievances based on religious intolerance were now given free reign to express their hatred for and vengeance of the other side.
The only real difference is that we won't have to raid now abandoned armories for our weapons to wage this war of attrition, they're all over the place already. We already have "Christians" who think it's okay to bomb abortion clinics, shoot doctors and beat gay people, because it all "goes against God."
Can you imagine the incredible atrocities that would be perpetrated in "God's Name" if they were State Sanctioned? Legally entitled to act in the name of their religious views, unfettered by secular law for the responsibility to be held accountable for their actions?
--R--
“Seen in this light, the evangelical insistence that government has no role in caring for the "least" among us, as commanded by the Gospel of Matthew makes some strange kind of sense.”
I understand that you're trying to interpret your friend's position. However you both may have missed a larger point about the Bible’s admonition of taking care of each other. When did God, or the Christ, ever call out to government to take care of the unfortunate?
On the secular plane, what part of the Constitution mandates that we transfer wealth from the fortunate to the unfortunate? If you feel others need help, what prevents you from providing them assistance - instead of government?
Is there a possibility that, when legislation like that ACA is passed, which further entwines institutions that serve our needs (religious or otherwise) in an intimate, pervasive, financial relationship with government, these institutions then become outlets for the large, monolithic, policymaking machinery of our national government?
The Constitution doesn't mandate we take care of the poor, it allows it. Of course, paying a Poor Tax to care for the poor was common in colonial and revolutionary America and beyond, as were taxes for indigent's medical care. Both, obviously, considered proper goals of government. As England had a habit of sending its poor here, we had an inordinately large population of poor. The people of faith and otherwise transferred the concept of the English Poor Laws to America. I recall reading of a town law making the Constable responsible for finding poor people to take care of, and being fined if he missed somebody.
So, the concept of private charities alone, not government, is yet another one of those conservative and fundamentalist myths, shrouded in contrived history "lessens" and wrapped in the need to feel self righteous while implying others are misguided and unworthy.
Sometimes you'll have an exchange with one, as sanctimonious as they are bereft of historical knowledge, pretending to know what they obviously don't.
Perhaps their worst violation of denying American history and Americanism is they separate We, the People from government, and then wax all pseudo-patriotic even as they prove they don't agree with the most fundamental American cause and belief.
After that, it's that they believe in things that simply don't work and never will.
With all due respect, I think your friend was not talking about forcing anyone to TAKE contraceptives. She was talking about government, via regulation, forcing institutions and/or employers who do not BELIEVE in contraception to PAY for it for others.
Obviously, people are free to take contraception as they like and, just as obviously, other people are free to start charities or fund groups like Planned Parenthood to pay for that need on behalf of those too poor to pay. I suspect your friend simply believes people and institutions should not be forced to pay for that need when they are thus being forced to subsidize a product that goes, rightly or wrongly, against their conscience.
(And since the government is obliged to provide for our common defense, please no "I'm paying for the military" responses.)
Good luck to you.
The separation of church and state may be the single most important edict of our Constitution. We need to hang onto this cornerstone of our democracy with tooth and nail.
Maureen - Thanks so much.
Ian - That would never occur to them because, after all, they are right, you see.
Marty's Husband - Oh, your use of "when" scares me! And yes, I think that big government would be okey-dokey with them if they had control of it...
UncleChri - I agree, nothing mandates (in the Bible or elsewhere) that we use government to care for the "least of these". But nothing precludes us using government either. Common sense tells us that it's easier to help a large group of people if we do it together, rather than individually. That's all government programs do: they are applied to a social problem that we have agreed as a society, through legislation, is a real problem and are used to ameliorate the problem systematically. And of course, people can (and should) still work to help others individually. The two things are absolutely not mutually exclusive. And to speak of our government as though it's Hal from "A Space Odyssey" - doing things on its own and out of countrol - is just silly. The government is nothing more than a group of people hired to carry out our society's decisions, which were reached through the representative legislative process. (Now, there are some issues with that representative process involving the influence of big money that we could discuss, but government, even influenced in that way, is not some anthropomorphized monster that we need to keep in its cage lest it devour us.)
PJ - Thanks for that excellent explanation of government's role in social policy. Uncle Chri, read PJ's comment; it explains better than mine.
Barbara Joane - In the past, I worked a lot with group benefits, and was a licensed agent for group health. One thing most people may not know is that it would be MORE expensive to custom-design a group health plan that excluded contraception. Most plans cover it because it's so much cheaper than materinity care, which is one of the least profitable coverages health insurers have to pony up for. Also, each plan has to be filed with the state insurance commission for approval - when you pick a group plan, you get a choice of pre-approved plans: either Plan design A, B or C for example. if you want your own design, that requires customization, re-filing etc. Much more costly. So, no, it's not a money issue. And anyway, the President's compromise eliminated that issue, so the real problem is laid bare. The right is just using this cynically to make their "us" feel yet more bitter against our "them". Oh, and they don't want people to have contraception, because they don't believe in it, so there's that as a handy side benefit if they succed in limiting coverage of contraception.
bike - Tooth, nail, claw, toenail - with everything we've got. Unfortunately, I fear that the religiously motivated have a lot more momentum on these issues than many less fanatic people. In our system, momentum and drive can translate into power, particularly when coupled with a healthy dose of money.
Jonathan - You're welcome and thank you for reading!
that said, i draw the line at government edicts which force people who members of legitimate churches to engage in activities which strike at the core of their faith
i accept that some others regard abortion as murder. i don't think they should have to pay for it, as part of their health plans.
what's next? a law that requires muslims to borrow money at interest (it's against islam), or a law that requires jews to eat at least 2 servings of pork weekly for their health?
The dark ages are coming back again....an age when belief was based on biblical instruction, and priests controlled the public conversation....only now the people who waving the banners of belief are making it up as they go along.
The church's edicts against abortion and birth control are not based on any scripture....because there are none. Neither word is mentioned in either Testament. The strictures against abortion and birth control are actually relatively recent.
In fact, the Church's position on abortion is based on an obscure passage by Tertullian, an early and rather obscure church father, who interpreted the Mosaic Law of Retribution incorrectly. Moses postulated that if a man were to strike a pregnant woman causing that woman to give birth prematurely, and the infant were to die, then the offender would be subject to the "eye for eye" punishment.
T stretched the point to suggest that the intentional termination of a pregnancy was somehow equal to assault, when this was not how the Israelites themselves saw it.
This is the only biblical reference ever used to establish the church's position on abortion, and it is most clearly a false analogy.
The Church's opposition to birth control is even more arcane. The only citation they can offer is found in Genesis 38.9 - the story of Onan, who God slew for refusing to impregnate is dead brother's wife, which was the custom of those times.
The sin involved wasn't masturbation, nor was it contraception. It was refusing to impregnate his brother's wife....and this is the basis for the Church's opposition to birth control?
We have to look to the real reasons for these positions.
The chuch has long realized that their strength lay in numbers. The more children born to Catholic families, the stronger the faith became. Two seminal events contributed to the Church's paranoia about numbers: the Crusades and Protestant Wars.
During the Crusades, it became obvious that the Muslim world was outproducing the Christian world in terms of offspring. During the religious wars in Europe, it became equally obvious that the strength of the Catholic Church lay in its ability to outproduce the Protestant Churches in terms of offspring.
As a consequence, it became the established policy of the church to oppose abortion and birth control because it is the settled policy of the church to encourage population growth among its parishioners.
The adoption of these positions by Protestant sects is nothing less than amazing and disheartening.
These positions have nothing to do with religion or faith but are exclusively about political expediency.
Princess - I think you misunderstand me. I am speaking here specifically about a political/religious movement in the US at this moment in time. In this country at this moment, there are evangelicals who are driving towards a goal that I find incompatible with freedom of religion. That goal is to form us into a "Christian nation". They are accomplishing this an inch at a time by exploiting issues like this health covereage structuring "issue".
Never, ever, in any way did I mention the word "nazi" or the word "fascist" or anything even remotely close. If you had read my blog in the past, you would know that I have been an active part of evangelical Christian congregations. I do not view faith or the faithful as evil or stupid; I do view the efforts of political manipulators to use well-meaning people of faith as evil.
And, honestly, if dragging out the nazi meme is the best you can do in your reponse here, I do have to wonder about your brain!
Laura, thanks for the thoughtful essay. It helps to understand how evangelicals are thinking, even if I don't agree with their beliefs. What you've written is illuminating. And understanding someone's point of view is always the first step towards changing their mind.
Thanks for your response. I’ll take this another round.
You wrote this in your reply to me:
“Common sense tells us that it's easier to help a large group of people if we do it together, rather than individually.”
When our national government, or you, believe that the same social welfare policies work as well in Wyoming (where the population is three people per square mile) as they do in New York City (where the population is nearly 30,000 people per square mile), then my common sense tells me somebody is not thinking well. You might be correct in the sense that many people make lighter work; however, extending this philosophy to the imposition of the same benefits under the same implementation throughout the nation probably doesn’t make sense, even to you, after a little cogitation from this perspective of our national system of welfare programs. It is for such reasons that local charities, local school boards, and local medical services, for example, are all more cost effective, easier to adapt, and more responsive than those that are managed remotely.
You also wrote this in your reply:
“I agree, nothing mandates (in the Bible or elsewhere) that we use government to care for the "least of these". But nothing precludes us using government either.”
This likely lies near the core of the disagreement between those who support the incumbent President and those who are angered by the obvious fiscal irresponsibility of government. You wouldn’t get Ron Paul to agree that “. . . nothing precludes us using government . . . . .” to establish the social programs that transfer wealth from those who pay taxes to those who generally do not or from a minority of the fortunate to a minority of the unfortunate. Further, it’s not likely that you would get many of those who drafted the Constitution to agree that this was contemplated, much less allowed.
However, I find this to be your most fascinating statement of your reply:
“ . . . but government, even influenced in that way, is not some anthropomorphized monster that we need to keep in its cage lest it devour us.”
In response, let me supply a few quotes from others:
From Jefferson:
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."
“I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.”
“Most bad government has grown out of too much government.”
“I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.”
“A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
From Washington:
"Government is not reason, nor eloquence. It is force. And like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master."
From Hamilton:
"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself."
From Madison:
"[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. "
From Franklin:
"I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am naturally very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country, and the least encroachment of those invaluable privileges is apt to make my blood boil."
Laura, there are many more quotes such as these from our Founders. It's difficult to believe that they would agree with you that we shouldn't fear an uncaged national government.
You had left out some interested parties, namely, the Righteous religious, the Self- righteous Libertarian religious -- not to be confused with the entangled Libertarian followers of truck stop, over proselytized opaquely religious, or those pure souls, the right is always right, even in spite of religious obligated to tithe to their local states rights freedom to be free and voting rights to all who have property, employees and assets inherited within the landing of the Mayflower, even if they had, in fact, conjoined with the right -thinking Americans in our Compact with America, in the previous century, anchored by the sometimes astute Newt Gingrich and his ilk, followers, apologists and bastard sons, twice removed.
Just so you know, when painting with a broad brush, there are many Americans out there, mired in the nettlesome nests of their own doing. And, to their undoing, so help them God ...
inthisdeepcalm - Thanks for commenting! I love the phrase you use: "nettlesome nests of their own doing."
The quotes are meaningless when used to buttress your arbitrary definition of an uncaged government, as nobody here has made that claim but you, and those quotes are general statements, only attached to your claim by your wishful insistence.
In other words, pointless and kind of funny, considering you know next to nothing about their history. Extending the hilarity is this statement:
"Further, it’s not likely that you would get many of those who drafted the Constitution to agree that this was contemplated, much less allowed."
Funny, considering you have no freakin' idea of what they would think or thought about poverty assistance, except to know it was a function of government in their time, and you can't find a quote specific to what you claim to know. You know pretty much next to nothing about the Constitution anyway, and have shown that to be true several times.
I'll give you a hand, though. Franklin would be closer to what you pretend to know they all thought. Yet he wouldn't be so bereft as to define the scope of his or the others thinking through a few quotes.
But even if you had some grasp of that history, taking general statements and saying they conform to your vision of what they mean is so silly somebody who understands logic wouldn't attempt the use. They would look for something specific, or wouldn't reach for quotes at all, knowing it would only look like a desperate attempt to attach their reason to your lack of same.
If you're Googling anyway, look up logical fallacies, in this case Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
You should read some of that history and find out what actually happened, as the quotes don't define anything but a natural suspicion all should have towards those in whom we vest power.
However, those who attempt to interpret history through quotes are pretty silly, any way you look at it. Don't be lazy, even though learning the history will be one disappointing experience after another as you find out they didn't see things as you say they did.
Heck, throw some more quotes at this, though. Sooner or later you'll find one that at least sounds like it supports your claim, then we can deal with that.
So, set yourself to the task of finding a quote or two on public assistance. You'll need that, as I have already shown it was a common function of government then, as now.
You both claim that the government is not mandated to care for the disadvantaged and, oddly many here agree. You're all wrong, in all point of fact.
The Constitution explicity states the function of the Federal Government is To:
Provide for the Common Weal
Establish Secure Borders
Stabilize Trade between the States and Foreign Countries
Do you not know that the word Weal means the good or care of the People?
So the common weal is a direct and explicit instruction for the Federal Government to establish principles of Care for the People.
Universal Health Care sounds like a step in that direction
Labor Laws
Anti-Discriminatory Laws
Protection from the Majority's power
All these things are part of establishing a Federal Government to provide for the Common Weal. In this sense, the Common Weal, could be said to be the Common Man's Welfare.
Ooh. Welfare!
So, yes, Virginia (and Georgia, Alabama, Hawaii, Alaska and Nevada, too) there is a direct and explicit instruction in the Constitution of the United States of America to discuss, direct and ultimately, through the will of the people, dictate what is in the overall Best Interests of the People.
Just thought you should know.
I will look forward to your opposing quotes from the same people.
Let's first see a quote that supports your position, as nothing you offered does.
However, you did write this unintended joke:
"You wouldn’t get Ron Paul to agree that “. . . nothing precludes us using government . . . . .” to establish the social programs that transfer wealth from those who pay taxes to those who generally do not or from a minority of the fortunate to a minority of the unfortunate. Further, it’s not likely that you would get many of those who drafted the Constitution to agree that this was contemplated, much less allowed. "
First, that you suggest Ron Paul honestly represents the Constitution, which is a howler. Then you claim to know those Founder's minds, which is an insult, considering you place your uneducated thoughts into their highly educated minds.
However, Jefferson did have a few things to say about transferring wealth:
“Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portion of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”
“The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. – Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canal, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.”
"Whenever there is in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural rights. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of {x} industry we allow it to be appropriated we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed."
Obviously your insistence that Jefferson's idea of an "uncaged government" matches your arbitrary version is wrong.
Now, if you wish to remain constant in your OWN opinion, you can begin ranting that it's no wonder "socialism" is running rampant, as Jefferson was a redistributionist, collectivist socialist.
So were the rest of those you quoted. Back to school, Chris -o-the-quotes. Thanks for the laughs.
Princess - I owe you an apology: I was too touchy and I jumped the gun when I saw the "nazi" word. Part of my touchiness is because I really, really try to understand the US political-evangelical point of view. Until recently, I would have personally identified as a member of an evangelical church, albeit with more liberal beliefs than the norm here in W. TX. I know there are a lot of good people in those churches; I also know that putting relationship with the Lord first doesn't always fit with the notion of a democratic, secular society. And I firmly believe that we should be a secular society.
Dunniteowl - Very interesting! I learned a new term today. Now I have to work "weal" into my conversation! :)
Audrey - I have watched Maddow's segment on that. We miss her show most nights, but when I do catch her I am often struck by how she handles these tough issues with good-natured humor.
In October of 1785, France was just four years away from the storming of the Bastille and the French Revolution. The last king of France, Louis XVI, was just a little more than eight years away from having his head separated from his body.
Such events were driven by many complaints of French citizens, not the least of which was the corruption of the French monarchy. They hated a monarchy that was insensitive to their needs while indulging itself in a lifestyle that no monarchy before, or since, has matched.
The palace at Versailles, to which Louis XIV had moved the seat of French government, was the largest castle in the civilized world, with more than three square miles of formal gardens. The joined castles of the Louvre and the Tuileries had an internal floor space exceeding twenty acres. The Forest of Rouvray was a 140 square mile hunting refuge for the French kings including an experimental farm of mulberry trees designed to foster the art of silk making in France.
What is left of this old-growth oak forest is the Bois de Boulogne.
Every fall, King Louis XVI retired to his castle at Fontainebleau. To get to Fontainebleau from Paris, one travels through the Bois de Boulogne. In 1785, Thomas Jefferson, our ambassador to France, traveled through this forest on his way to Fontainebleau.
He saw first hand French royal opulence and selfishness. He saw huge chunks of the French countryside reserved for the unproductive use of being a rare pleasure for the King. Jefferson had always imagined America as a land of small farmers; and this waste of potentially productive French land bothered him greatly.
Thus, as Jefferson was establishing himself at Fontainebleau in the fall of 1785, he penned a letter to James Madison, his friend. The letter begins by detailing the fact that the town of Fontainebleau had a permanent population of 5,000 residents; however, when the king came with his retinue and court, the population ballooned to 20,000.
It continues on to document an interview Jefferson conducted while walking with one of the laboring poor. It was this interview, as Jefferson writes to Madison, that caused him to reflect upon “ . . . . that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe.”
Two of PJOR’s quotations come from this letter, Laura – the first and the third. Neither refers to anything other than what Jefferson saw in Europe. Jefferson was describing the horrors of prerevolutionary France. Neither comment applies to what Jefferson wanted for America. Both applied to what Jefferson believed should be done to correct the inequities at the time in France and Europe.
Jefferson clearly divorces his recommendations from his view of America by stating in this same letter “ . . . . It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent.”
Paul’s middle quote, taken in context, neither applies to the debate at hand (regarding your remark that we shouldn’t fear an “uncaged” government) nor can be interpreted correctly as anything other than Jefferson’s support of a consumption tax versus one imposed upon all people (e.g., poll tax). This statement was made well before an income tax was considered, much less constitutional, in our country.
Laura, we keep Paul around simply to show how far Liberals have to overreach in order to justify their positions regarding more government and equal misery for us all. He is the person to whom idiots turn to feel good about their intelligence. He is one of the few to whom a definitive answer can be given regarding whether he is smarter than a fifth grader.
The point of your post was one that expressed a fear about “remaining free from religion”, in the context of recent events where HHS rulemaking imposed a policy upon institutions sponsored by religious groups that they found objectionable. You are welcome to your atheism or agnosticism or whatever philosophy guides your morals and ethics. The only one whom you should fear in this regard is the incumbent head of our national executive branch.
My point to you is that when government becomes so pervasive that it has the authority to promulgate these policies through such institutions, then it is too big. My point to Paul is that every fifth grader knows what he denies: Our Founders sought to establish a national government both limited in scope of duties and unobtrusive in the lives of its citizens. My point to you both is that if you wish to prevent government policymaking stepping on the toes of our rights, then understand what the consequences are of entwining the institutions that mediate between us and it, and that serve us well at the local level, in a pervasive, financial relationship with our nation’s government. When such institutions end up unable to exist without federal funds, then they all become another set of outlets for what the federal government decides is best for us, no matter where we live, no matter who we are, no matter what we believe, and no matter our own needs.
Chris,
None of the quotes you posted supported your position as refuting what Laura said. As yet another lesson in grown up logic, let's review. Read as slowly as you need.
“ . . . but government, even influenced in that way, is not some anthropomorphized monster that we need to keep in its cage lest it devour us.”
In other words, for the comprehension impaired, the idea is to address legislation as it is presented or passed, consider what influenced it and react accordingly. Government as The People, not as your necessarily limited, unstudied ideological knee-jerk thought-absent anthropomorphic monster.
Your reply lacked context in all cases. Laura was not saying she supports an uncontrollable government and the various quotes provided general observations, with no context to what acts those Founders would consider out of control.
She was just questioning --to be hopefully redundant -- your misguided characterization of government.
Now, to ridicule your response to Mr Jefferson, which was yet another response where you seem to think irrelevant facts cited at length can change the clearly unambiguous intent of Jeff's words.
---As an aside, I like the literary touch at the beginning, where you pretend to be studied in the French Revolution. You must think it adds heft, but trust me, I found it funny enough to actually laugh. So much embellishment for such an obtuse response.--
You say:
"Jefferson clearly divorces his recommendations from his view of America by stating in this same letter."
First, he does in no way divorce those statements from America.
"It is TOO SOON YET in our country to say..." Isn't a divorce, it's a delay. You have to be shamelessly obtuse to miss something so obvious. An incompetent lawyer hoping for a stupid jury.
So, not divorced, and certainly not rendered inoperative as philosophical observations, which is what you stupidly imply. An intelligent person wouldn't attempt such a laughable, illogical response.
Jefferson's observations of France aren't much different than Thomas Paine's observations about England. In both cases, they well knew that America, still having ample unclaimed land, was not the same as Europe, where all land was owned.
What they both also knew that you do not--as your cruise through history is limited to a scrambling attempt rebut my facts -- is that there would come a time when America was also unable to expand, all land owned, and questions of how employment and poverty would be addressed would be more frequent, prominent and relevant. Like in France, goofus.
My middle quote applied as perfectly as they all did, as it's your constant assertion, made here again with as much ignorance as usual, that government involvement in unemployment and poverty issues was beyond the bounds of the Constitution, and was, in fact, never a part of our history until...what, Chrissie? FDR? Whatever.
Point being you're bone ignorant on that as well.
I know I've deeply wounded you on every occasion when you've tried to whip your extremely limited one-note argument into something resembling intelligence by larding it with irrelevant verbiage, so I understand your need to address your failures "as if" you prevailed.
I'll wrap this up with yet another example of you fabricating my argument and then arguing against yourself, like any low IQ clown would. You say:
"My point to Paul is that every fifth grader knows what he denies: Our Founders sought to establish a national government both limited in scope of duties and unobtrusive in the lives of its citizens."
The fact -- as I have explained to you, but you can't absorb so you use the same stupid argument again and again -- is that the Constitution is exactly about applying limits to government, though it is about what limits we, the people, agree to apply to ourselves acting through government. Your problem is you claim to know those limits, and gee, how shocking! They are what YOU say they are.
That's the funny thing about you and those other low-ball ideologues who argue WAY above their pay grade.
You also say government is supposed to be unobtrusive, but that's a pretty dumb statement considering it's impossible. We surrender certain liberties in order to retain others. It's always been a balancing act, but one only understood by those who have the ability to use reason. Simple-minded, unstudied...yet strangely assertive, considering the aforementioned...people who can't reason seek black-and-white lines, and end up looking like jackasses when they try to perform above their ability.
In conclusion, you have already well established yourself to be incapable of participating in any of the more advanced discussions on OS, as there are too many good minds far more studied on the facts and capable of applying logic.
Your politics are, in fact, nothing more than an unstudied, simplistic belief in a sort of brain dead libertarian framework, not made intelligent or relevant by your windy excursions through a child's garden of verbiage.
Now, if I'm so benighted and you're so smart, do what I have suggested. Make a post, perhaps on this subject, with my name in the headline, and challenge me to a duel. You once said you were going to post on the constitutionality of "entitlement socialism." Please do so, as a challenge. I'll be there for you.
Until then, all I hear is a pompous blowhard huffing and puffing, but not blowing down my house.
This sounds very fair and may seem an incontrovertible argument, but only if you fail to think deeply about the special deference and rights the religious are claiming for themselves in this situation.
I had to pay for the Iraq war. I was not able to stop routing my tax dollars to the military when men with values and goals diametrically the opposite of mine made what I consider to be the worst decision ever in American foreign policy. It was a deep shame, a horrifying painful agony that the nation I love was behaving that way, and responsible for so much unnecessary misery and death. It depressed me and made my heart ache and was a cruel and merciless violation of my conscience and my principles. Yet I was powerless to stop the money that I entrusted to the government for good purposes from being spent aiding and abetting these horrifying crimes that I could not bear to be a participant in.
I'll listen to these arguments about religious conscience and birth control as soon as every American is able to dictate how their tax dollars are spent, or control the corporate use of dollars earned from every product they purchase.
Why this special deference to religion on health care? What if some shareholders of the insurance company use earnings from the business to pay for a prostitute, or to buy drugs, or to pay for porn, or to invest in a company that produces contraceptives or in some way participates in abortions? Is your religious conscience offended by that as well? Perhaps, but sometimes you just have to accept reality and mind your own business.
What about poor vegetarians who have to live with the fact that money they spend might be used to pay for plates of slaughtered and roasted animals? Should they be able to demand that none of their health care dollars help pay the salary of non-vegetarians, or is ever used in any way on products that contribute to the suffering of animals?
If you just think about this a little bit, there is no reason a religious person deserves such deference. They are not being forced to use contraception, nor are they being forced to directly engage in any behavior that violates their relationship with God.
The religious should have no right to impose their beliefs on others, and should receive no special deference that vegetarians or anti-war advocates or any other person of conscience is denied.
Health care should be a national priority greater than defense. Disease is nothing but a slow motion invasion of our national health, and without health there can be no life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. So let's just toughen up a bit and accept that sometimes a little sacrifice for the good of the nation is a good thing. Let's be adults, not pouting pious prima donnas.
Chris, - Two points: The French Revolution was a direct consequence of economic inequality, as was the Russian Revolution. People get hungry, people become homeless, people lose hope and that's when heads roll. Big, government, small government - it doesn't matter. Any government at that desperate point becomes the enemy. And this "You are welcome to your atheism or agnosticism or whatever philosophy guides your morals and ethics." isn't helpful. This post is not about my religion; it is saying that faith (anyone's) doesn't belong in government. You have no idea what faith I am or am not. Read my past posts for some clues, if you like.
Jeff - The anti-war argument as well as the capital punishment example are clear places where government violates many citizens' deepest moral beliefs. It is always odd to me that many of the same folks who object to government spending money on family planning are huge defense budget hawks. Not all certainly - I know that the Catholic establishment is staunchly anti-war and anti-capital punishment - but many.
It’s sad to read that you find Paul’s insult driven responses to my comments a debate (or discussion), much less an interesting one. Moreover, there isn’t even any debate between PJOR and myself here. My comments have been addressed almost exclusively to you; and Paul, for some reason, believes that he should respond on your behalf.
This is just like dozens of other posts on OS. Paul doesn’t comment until one of his targets appears. Then, he’s all over any attempt at a discussion with the author like stink on a dirty diaper. It appears that his ability to reason in these circumstances has been impaired to the extent that he has deduced that his targets are obsessed with him.
The truth is that I am not here to change your mind, or his. I am interested, as the author of the post associated with these comments, in what you (not Paul) believe.
You have posted about a consequence that arose from a rule made by our national government. You appear to view this consequence in terms of evangelicals imposing their views on others and not as government stepping upon the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
President Obama apparently believes that specifying what employers, or their insurance companies, must cover regarding contraception is allowed under the ACA. Since this rule had the initial effect of forcing the Catholic Church to pledge an allegiance on the secular plane to birth control methods it opposes on the spiritual one, the Church saw a First Amendment issue.
Consequently, a legitimate concern arises whether governments should be commenting in these areas at all. After all, ObamaCare next might be forcing insurance companies to cover injuries because of dancing, or illnesses because of drinking. What would Baptists do then?
This turns your theme, so well expressed in your title, on its head. The question, in my view, should be whether government has become too big. This is why I am interested in your response in quotes from our Founders claiming that we should NOT fear an “uncaged government”.
Beyond this, if you believe that we can sustain the social welfare entitlement programs in this country in their current form, then you don’t understand the relationship between what our government collects and what it outlays on these entitlement programs alone. In this case, the only real question is whether you will persist in this belief even after we go bankrupt.
On the other hand, there is plenty to chat about if you will admit that there is something wrong with the social welfare entitlement model in America, especially as it might be further promulgated under the ACA. The consequence about which you write is, in my opinion, much entwined with this topic.
1. Never discuss things you don't know to be true.
2. When you get hung out to dry because you did, don't blame others.
3. Social Security and Medicare had nothing to do with causing our debt.
I'd list "learn logic," but that's something you either have or don't. If you had that ability, you would have seen the huge flaw in trying to put Jefferson back in your lil' box, and would have never offered that windy rebuttal. You engage in post hoc almost as often as you comment or post. Because the Founders said A, it means they meant B, yet you show no logical connection. Jefferson makes a clearly irrevocable, global statement about addressing dysfunctional inequities, and you try to delete it by saying it doesn't apply here because "not yet" means "never."
Your real problem is you have conclusions in search of justifications. The path to sound thinking and argumentation is to build from facts to reach an honest conclusion. Your problem with that is you would rarely arrive at the conclusion you want.
As to your attempts to argue with me, note that I argue based on precisely what you say and you run to a childish effort to append an argument to me, leading to your 5th grader statement. That is a red flag of inanity and hardly the act one should perform while trying to build a case for their intelligence.
I suggest you just argue your simplistic belief for what it is, justify it as best as you can based on the idea itself, and leave The Founders and the Constitution out of it.
Oh yes...one more thing. Your argument about Medicare increasing HC costs has been debunked, punked and shown to be as logically discombobulated as most anything you say. Yet, instead of updating your data base, you simply look for somebody else to run it past. The conclusion here is obvious -- you have no concern about truth, you just like to huff and puff.