Probably to his regret, President Obama further stirred the hornet’s nest with his recent comments supporting the building of an Islamic center near the twin tower site in
Quoting the Apostle Paul, “all things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful.” (I Cor. 6:12) Few, if any, argue that the center’s supporters have no right to build there. But the real question is whether it’s appropriate. As some commentators pointed out, a similar situation arose several years ago when a group of nuns wanted to establish a convent near the former
Assuming the best intentions of the Muslim supporters, while the building of a Muslim center near Ground Zero is certainly legal, it’s also highly inappropriate. The 9/11 attack against the
What the world seems to forget is that Hamas engineered most of the suicide bombings within Israel following the beginning of the 2000 Intifada. When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, its purpose was a good faith gesture to the Palestinians to further the dormant peace process, a process that their leader Yasser Arafat walked away from in the year 2000. The result was the Palestinian election of the radical Hamas terrorists to control Gaza. Since Hamas refused to temper its espoused policy of destroying Israel, Israel initiated a naval blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with bombs and missiles. Despite the blockade, Hamas operatives built a series of tunnels underneath the Egyptian border funneling in the weaponry. Thereupon, Hamas terrorized nearby Israeli cities with thousands of missiles over a three year period until Israel invaded Gaza in the winter of 2008-09 to destroy Hamas’ military capability. Only then did the world speak – not about the Hamas terrorist missile attacks – but rather about Israel’s “disproportionate” use of force to halt the attacks. At the same time, the world says nothing about Israel’s arch enemy in the north, Hezbollah, a surrogate for Iran, arming itself with thousands of powerful missiles from Iran and Syria, in direct violation of the United Nations directives for Hezbollah to be disarmed.
Of course, the world’s concern is for the plight of the poor Palestinians. But who caused what? During the relative peace of the 1990’s following the Oslo Accord, the Palestinian economy grew. When a permanent solution for the Palestinian problem was on the table, granting the Palestinians their own nation with territory relinquished by Israel that will probably never be matched, the Palestinian leadership walked away. Why? Their ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel. Following that ill fated attempt at peace, the Palestinian leadership instituted suicide bombings in Israeli cities. Israel’s response was to build a security fence along parts of the West Bank and target Palestinian terrorist leaders, both of which are condemned by the world, but similar to the US border fence with Mexico and the US targeting of Al Qaeda leaders.
What is Israel to do? These are the days described by the prophet Isaiah, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” (Is. 5:20) Israel wants peace, but its greater need is security. Israel can succeed without peace, but she won’t survive without security. The world treats the situation as if there is no history, no prior experience. The Arab governments and the Palestinian leaders have caused these problems from the get go but are rarely, if ever, called to account. Israel has sued for peace numerous times, only to find herself facing more attacks from extremists. In reality, the flotilla of ships bringing humanitarian aid to the Palestinians was a ruse. Its goal was to embarrass Israel, and it succeeded. But to what end? Hear the word of the prophet Jeremiah: “They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. Peace, peace, they say, when there is no peace.”(Jer. 8:11) When the Palestinians are serious about peace, there will be peace. Until then, Jerusalem will be “a cup that sends all the surrounding people reeling.” (Zech. 12:2)
]]>Since the beginning of time, mankind has sought to produce wealth, to not only provide for his own but to live comfortably and sometimes excessively, absent the fear of scarcity. (Mt. 6:25-33) But until the rise of capitalism in the 18th century, wealth was limited to few, usually royalty. Adam Smith and other economists argued that when government relinquished control over the means of production, private markets would assume the role, overtime providing more goods at reasonable prices and building increasing wealth for more people. In particular, 20th and 21st century America has proven capitalism to be history’s most successful economic model in that significant wealth spread to more and more people.
Unfettered capitalism, however, is not without problems. In the early 20th century, Congress passed laws authorizing the government to crack down on private companies’ monopolistic practices, which undermine the efficiencies and creativity inherent in the capitalistic system. In addition, as witnessed recently, speculative bubbles attract limited resources which when finally burst create cascading effects across the economy that if not interrupted by government intervention can cause tremendous loss of wealth and possibly economic collapse. The best example of this is the Great Depression.
This leads us to today’s economic issues. Two phenomena combined to cause the recent recession. One, numerous Congresses and administrations mandated the lowering of financial standards required to purchase homes to enable more people to qualify for mortgages and thus increase the number of people who could afford homes. Two, these reduced standard mortgages were bundled together by financial institutions and sold as investment tools to others, thereby increasing capital into the economy, making even more money available for investment and further fueling economic expansion. As was seen, however, these arrangements were like a house of cards that finally collapsed.
Major banks and investment houses had purchased these bundled securities and when large numbers of home owners defaulted on their loans, the securities lost tremendous value, threatening and, in some cases, destroying the viability of the financial institutions. The financial institutions thus stopped lending money; the economy contracted and millions of workers lost jobs.
Ironically, on the one hand, the recent hardships were caused by too much government intervention and on the other by insufficient government regulation of the bundled securities market. Massive and unprecedented government intervention into the markets begun under the Bush Administration and continued in the Obama Administration likely prevented a world wide financial and economic collapse.
Where should things go from here? It’s interesting to reflect again on the previously quoted Deuteronomy passage. The Scripture suggests God grants us, individually and collectively, the ability to produce wealth. Wealth is produced by the offering of goods and services wanted by others who pay for them. Those payments are then distributed to the workers producing the goods and for re-investment to produce more goods and services and so on. Historical experience clearly shows that less regulation of production provides more goods at lower prices. Typically, following a crisis responders react by establishing new standards to prevent a recurrence. The danger, of course, is overreaction and, in the case of the economy, over regulation.
The Obama Administration has proposed a financial reform package. The House of Representatives has passed one, and the Senate is considering another. All of the proposals are huge, extraordinarily complex (far more so than the recently enacted health care reform), create new federal agencies including an important consumer protection agency and establish new regulatory schemes over much of the financial world. Unquestionably, reform is necessary. But unlike the health care system, the financial industry actually works well and simply tweaking it by directly addressing its two major weaknesses would likely prevent another economic doomsday scenario.
First, federal programs bolstering the housing industry must end. Financial institutions should determine the credit worthiness of home owners without federal protection of home mortgages, or mandating the lowering of standards. Home ownership should be treated like other consumer products. This likely would mean home prices would continue to slide until the over abundance of homes on the market match a lower number of credit worthy buyers. Two, all forms of investments - derivatives, credit swaps, bundled instruments - need regulation, including some form of capital reserve standards, similar to the way banks are treated. In addition, protections against fraud, deceptive advertising, ponzi type schemes and the like should be enacted on all types of financial instruments, for those in existence now and for those to be created in the future.
Directly addressing the above weaknesses creates a fairer and more stable financial system. Creating multiple federal agencies with the expected enactment of a myriad of rules will hamper the long term creation of wealth. Abuses within the financial system were rampant, and because of its complexity few foresaw what occurred, but let’s not allow the pendulum to swing wildly in the other direction. The founding fathers saw it correctly - a limited form of government preserves liberty and creates opportunity.
]]>Health care legislation has interested me for over 30 years. When I first began serving in Congress in the late 1970’s, one of my responsibilities was to oversee the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which covers federal employees, Members of Congress and retired federal employees. Often, the federal program has been viewed as a model for national insurance (the current Senate bill actually utilizes this approach) because every employee is covered and each employee has multiple choices among differing health plans, supposedly holding down health care costs. But beginning in the early 1980’s the costs of this federal program began escalating, and we wrestled with a variety of approaches to hold down these costs - one of them was actually applied to the Medicare program with marginal success.
Sadly, the approaches being considered today are recipes for far more problems, and the costs of health care will continue to escalate, further pushing the country towards bankruptcy. The real problem with the provision of health care is the insurance system. It is inefficient and unfair. As I pointed out in my earlier blog, insurance insulates the consumer/patient from the real cost of health care. Unlike almost anything else in American experience, the consumer is removed from decision making with respect to the supply and cost of health care. Decisions for provision of health care essentially are delegated to providers (doctors/hospitals) and insurance companies. As an example, how many times do we check the cost of a doctor’s service or compare hospital rates before being admitted? Yet, in all other purchases, comparative benefits and costs are examined prior to the purchase. This is the basis of a capitalistic or free market economy, which has helped the US economy to be the richest and fairest in world history.
As an analogy, let’s examine the American food industry. As a percentage of income the American consumer spends less money on food than any other nation. The problem in America is not lack of access to food but almost too much food. Even the poor have access to an adequate food supply through the very successful food stamp program. Why? Because of fierce competition at every level of the food supply chain. I visited the former Soviet Union shortly after Communism’s collapse. The difference in what grocery stores provided there and here was shocking. Because the government regulated prices and production, farmers and other suppliers had little incentive or were prohibited from providing new and different products. Consequently, there was little. What if the American health care system was revolutionized to empower the consumers/patients to make their own health care decisions?
I know this is a radical view because it’s so different than what we have. But this was reality until the initiation of health insurance in the 1930’s and 40’s. Insurance, which is simply the idea of shared risk, works extremely well for both auto and life policies. Life insurance is the simplest concept. The consumer pays a premium to provide benefits to a beneficiary if and when the person dies. Using actuarial tables, the insurance company sets a premium for the consumer based on age and health. In other words, the consumer shares a risk with the insurance company of a premature death by paying a certain sum to ensure adequate provision for beneficiaries. The only two involved in the transaction are the consumer and the insurance company. The beneficiaries become a substitute for the consumer in simply receiving the benefits but don’t add to supply or cost.
Health insurance is completely different. Rather than the consumer sharing risks, the consumer is transferring decision-making about health care to others. Furthermore, the consumer is completely insulated from direct costs of health care, creating a nightmarish situation when the consumer is denied benefits by the third party insurer, often leaving the consumer frustrated and in the dark about the decision. As a bizarre analogy, assume the same system controlled food supply and purchases. Instead of buying food, you grab items off the grocery shelves and then find at the checkout counter that the computer system controlling the dispense of food items inexplicably disallows some of your choices.
Can a free market system actually work for health care? I believe so. Let’s begin with primary physicians or what we call family doctors. First, we abolish all insurance for primary physicians. This action reduces health insurance premiums to those who carry insurance. For the poor health care stamps are made available, similar to food stamps. For physicians’ offices, costs are sharply reduced because they no longer need to process insurance claims. Now, consumers choose physicians based, in part, on price of service. Physicians, realizing that price now determines demand for services, reduce fees. When the physician suggests a battery of tests, the consumer, knowing he has limited funds, demands to know the cost and benefits of each test. This puts health care into the same category with every other purchase Americans make.
Second, hospital emergency room care is limited to true emergencies. Many with no insurance or a family physician go to hospital emergency rooms for essentially basic medical care. Instead, under a new plan, emergency rooms are limited to those referred by other physicians or to rescue squad services who are satisfied that the situation is an actual emergency. Others are directed to medical clinics, such as Patient First or family physicians, where costs are lower, and insurance is not a factor.
Third, insurance is limited to catastrophic situations. For example, insurance is not applied until an individual has paid, let’s say, $5000. It seems like a lot, but for those with insurance, insurance premiums would drop precipitously. Often, insurance for families runs around $1000/month. Employer based insurance costs would also drop, thereby allowing higher pay rates to employees to compensate. Finally, again health care stamps could be granted to the poor. Before entering a hospital, consumers could compare hospital rates for admissions or tests, something unknown today since insurance insulates the consumer from direct costs.
Fourth, insurance for catastrophic situations is paid for by a tax, similar to Medicare. The insurer would be the government. The government would set rates for care and limit unneeded procedures. Having one insurer eliminates insurance companies from “skimming the cream” of healthy individuals, leaving the unhealthy to a few or one plan. These situations unbalance the insurance system and defeat the purpose for insurance. In addition, catastrophic insurance is closer to the concept of true insurance, i.e., shared risks.
Fifth, malpractice claims and awards would be limited, thereby eliminating what is commonly referred to as defensive medicine, i.e., extra medical procedures that are done to avoid malpractice claims, even when such procedures are unlikely to change outcomes. .
Sixth and probably most controversial, prohibit insurance from covering expensive procedures when patients have less than six months or a year to live where the procedure itself does not significantly add to life expectancy. As life expectancy has increased so has medical costs. Statistics show that 30-40% of health care costs in the US occur in the last year of one’s life. Often, extraordinary procedures are performed that grant an individual just a few more months of life while the costs are astronomical. Yes, this suggestion raises the specter of the “death panels” similar to allegations made against earlier health proposals. But what Americans fail to comprehend is that the current system with few cost controls will bankrupt the country. If health insurance was non-existent, then the only ones who could pay for extraordinary procedures would be the wealthy, and overall life expectancy would drop, obviously a grossly unfair and, in my view, unbiblical situation. On the other hand, the current system so insulates consumers from real costs that most consumers are faced with wildly disproportionate premiums to their own health care. To make the system affordable and workable, trade-offs are required.
I have no illusions regarding the likelihood of my suggestions being adopted. The reality is, however, that the current health care system is in disrepair, and needs a complete overhaul. Patching up holes and covering everyone under a mandatory insurance program will only exacerbate the failures of a disastrous system. Massive reform is necessary.
]]>I was in Israel in 2003 with a group of other lawyers when a retired Israeli general, who was briefing us on terrorism, declared that Israel will never allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon. Today, experts predict Iran will be able to assemble a weapon anywhere between 8 months and 3 years. Some suggest Israel preemptively destroy the weapons’ factories like they did in 1981 to Iraq. But doing so in Iran is far more complex. One, unlike in Iraq, Iran is aware of Israel’s capabilities and willingness to attack and has prepared intricate defenses. Two, Iran is further away. Three, Iran’s program is more sophisticated and widespread than Iraq’s. Four, Iran has long range missiles capable of reaching Israel. Five, Iran has proxy regimes in both Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Gaza (Hamas) who will likely attack Israel if Israel attacks Iran. Even if Israel were successful in destroying Iranian nuclear capability, in and of itself highly problematic, such an attack would likely cause a major Middle Eastern conflagration with significant loss of Israeli lives and property. The one country most able to destroy Iran’s plans is the U.S. But with U.S. troops tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, direct U.S. involvement in an attack is unlikely. So far, plans to dissuade Iran from acquiring nuclear capability have failed. What can be done?
I was in Israel again in 2007, a few weeks following the war with Hezbollah and Lebanon. I spoke at an Israeli military base to 500 soldiers as a result of a humanitarian project sponsored by the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations to which I was president at the time. In my short remarks I quoted the following from the book of Amos: “Also I will restore the captivity of my people Israel, and they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will also plant vineyards and drink their wine, and make gardens and ear their fruit. I will also plant them on their land, and they will not again be rooted out from their land which I have given them, says the Lord your God.” I concluded by saying it doesn’t matter what Hamas says or Hezbollah says or the world says. Rather what’s important is what God says, and He says you will not be uprooted from your land again.
Now, more than ever, Israel needs a miracle. She needs new Esthers and Mordecais to deal with the new Haman. As we approach Purim that celebrates deliverance from a remarkably similar situation, would you “pray for the peace of Jerusalem?”
]]>Immediately following the horrific tragedy that befell Haiti, a well known Christian leader attributed the disaster to a self imposed curse that Haitians assumed when appealing to the devil for assistance in defeating French colonial powers over 200 years ago. Naturally, this claim caused a public outcry from the White House, the media and most other religious leaders. In fact, it seems every disaster, from 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina to Haiti, leads to theories about God’s judgment upon humanity. While it’s easy to mock these proclamations, the events themselves raise questions about God’s existence, his goodness, and his intervention in the world.
Disasters, both natural and man induced, have occurred since the beginning of time, including during the Biblical period. It’s instructive to see how they were understood by the Biblical prophets. In the first case, hear Isaiah the prophet describe what may well have been the aftermath of an earthquake:
Your land is a waste; your cities burnt down. Before your eyes,
the yield of your soil is consumed by strangers - a wasteland
like Sodom overthrown. Fair Zion is left like a booth in a
vineyard, like a hut in a cucumber field, like a city beleaguered.
Had not the Lord of Hosts left us some survivors, we should be
like Sodom, another Gomorrah. (Is. 1:7-9)
In the second case, the prophet Joel describes the ravages of a locust invasion:
The country is ravaged; the ground must mourn. For the new grain
is ravaged; the new wine is dried up; the new oil has failed. Farmers
are dismayed and vine dressers wail over wheat and barley; for the
crops of the field are lost. The vine has dried up; the fig tree withers,
pomegranate, palm and apple - all the trees of the field are sear. And
joy has dried up among men. (Joel 1:10-12)
In both cases as well as others, the prophets seek to show the fragility of life, the call to repentance and the need to turn to God. There is an acknowledgment that the particular disaster is a tool God will use for a greater purpose. Finally, some responsibility is laid on the leaders of the nation, often for injustices against the masses.
Both 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, mentioned above as examples where certain religious leaders suggested God’s hand was behind the events, directly impacted the U.S. Of course, the events themselves were completely different, the first perpetuated by an enemy attack, the second, a natural disaster. Rather than seeing 9/11 as God’s judgment against America, I believed then and now it should be viewed as a wake up call to confront the growing evil in the world, the radicalization of Islam. Just as many pooh-poohed Adolph Hitler’s aims in the 1930’s with disastrous results, the same is true with the empowerment of Islamic jihadists. As the English politician Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” 9/11 should be viewed as a demonic attack against the goodness of God and mankind. Did God use the event? I say yes, and I pray the free world will continue to pay attention to the worst threat since the rise of Nazism.
With respect to Hurricane Katrina, some suggested the disaster was God’s judgment against a sinful New Orleans. During the hurricane, I happened to be in Argentina and watched the unfolding drama from foreign news reports. It was embarrassing for the world’s richest country to appear impotent in response. Like Haiti, televised images of poor black families crying for help captured the attention of the world. Unlike Haiti, of course, the US is a rich nation, and the images told a story of an America that most never see. Rather than the crippling of the “sin industry” in New Orleans, the real victims were poor blacks who could not escape the storm. Whereas the government’s response at the time was delayed and paltry, many American religious institutions responded with open arms, housing New Orleans residents in other cities and ultimately sending thousands of workers into the city for renovation. On the one hand I felt the storm was an expose of America’s rampant materialism and the consequent ignoring of the poor. On the other, America’s religious and other communities showed amazing generosity and self-sacrifice in turning the city and its inhabitants around. While there are still vestiges of the hurricane’s destruction, today New Orleans is smaller, wealthier and more secure.
That leads us to Haiti. Haiti’s history is highlighted by it being primarily the descendants of slaves, i.e., Africans captured, relocated and enslaved by first the Spanish and then the French. Haiti’s independence was won by a slave revolt in the early 19th century in the alleged infamous pact with the devil. More accurately, the leader of the slave revolt, Toussaint l’Ouverture, referred to the African gods’ call for freedom in a speech to stir the masses to revolt. Like most nations in Latin America and the Carribean, Haiti has been plagued with unstable and often dictatorial governments. In addition, Haiti was saddled by enormous debt to the French, who imposed massive reparations for “French property” destroyed during the revolt against French rule. The debt was finally paid off in 1947, leaving Haiti mired in poverty, deforested out of desperation for fuel, and subjected to home grown dictators. Today, it is the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere by far, one of the most corrupt in the world and its restrictions on economic liberty one of the strictest. Because of these factors, an earthquake comparable to the one in Northern California in 1989 that resulted in 63 deaths will in the case of Haiti likely result in hundreds of thousands of casualties.
Similar to Joseph’s remarks to his brothers telling them that God used their intended evil for good, ironically, in the long run, this terrible tragedy may turn things around for this country. Billions of dollars of aid will pour in, not only to heal, feed, clothe and house the wounded and homeless, but also to rebuild infrastructure that hopefully will be erected on firmer foundations. Whereas the colonial powers, especially the French, despoiled the country, now many of these same nations will contribute far more money for restoration. Not only should we all contribute to this effort, but we must pray that God will raise up leaders of integrity in that nation to lift it out of its challenged past and transform it into a modern nation.
Following the prophet Joel’s vivid description of the locust invasion, he calls upon the people to turn to the Lord, “for He is gracious and compassionate.” He follows with these poignant observations: “Then the Lord was roused on behalf of his land, and had compassion upon his people. In response to his people, the Lord declared, ‘I will grant you the new grain, the new wine and the new oil, and you shall have them in abundance. Nevermore will I let you be a mockery among the nations.’” (Joel 2:18-19) We pray the same for Haiti and her people.
]]>
Until the rise of industrialism in the 19th century, man-made actions affected only local or regional areas of the world, mainly as the result of warfare. Now, with growing populations and increased demands upon natural resources coupled with the proliferation of factories, cars and electronics, the entire planet is suffering. In many areas of the world, air quality is poor; bodies of water are polluted; ocean life is degraded. Over the past century, the earth’s temperature has increased, causing major climate changes, including the rapid depletion of ice in both the Arctic and Antarctica. Most scientists blame man-made activities as the cause, although there is a minority of scientists who attribute the warming to the earth’s cycles. Regardless, changes need to be made. When we consider the classic Scripture verse, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” we must realize we have a sacred trust to preserve and beautify our planet for the sake of others now and in the future.
The modern environmentalist movement was launched with the inauguration of Earth Day on April 22, 1970. I actually remember it quite well because I was a senior in high school, and we celebrated the day on the lawns of our high school campus. Over the next several years federal legislation was enacted to clean up our nation’s air and water. We take for granted now what was then controversial because the restrictions imposed by the various acts meant significant costs to many industries to comply with the new requirements. But our economy adjusted, and the result is restored rivers and far cleaner and healthier air. Global warming, however, is trickier. One, as mentioned previously, while most scientists believe human activity is warming the earth, it’s difficult to prove because of the history of the earth’s natural warming and cooling cycles. Two, irrespective of global warming, it’s unclear what the results of warming will actually be. Three, most proposed solutions only slow the growth of warming, not reverse it, assuming it’s caused by human activity.
Driving the movement towards tackling global warming have been the gathering of international conventions. The most important is known as the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 where an international treaty established specific targets to reduce greenhouse gasses that cause climate change. The U.S. never signed the treaty. Just recently, the Copenhagen Treaty was adopted again targeting the reduction of greenhouse gasses. The Obama administration was active in treaty negotiations and is a proponent of reducing greenhouse gasses. U.S. reluctance to sign these treaties is due to 1) the likely deleterious effect on U.S. industries to comply with new requirements; 2) the apparent advantage given to developing countries such as India and China to meet lesser standards and thus augment their ability to compete unfairly against American industry that is burdened with greater environmental restrictions.
To combat global warming, the House of Representatives passed a bill instituting what is known as cap and trade. This is a tool that has been utilized in addressing other forms of air pollution such as “acid rain.” The government sets an emissions target (cap) to which an industry must comply. Those companies who emit at levels under the target are given so-called credits. Companies exceeding the target can then buy those credits (trade) in order to meet the cap requirements. Hence, cap and trade utilizes private markets to achieve government imposed ends. Obviously, the companies who save emissions are rewarded by those who emit more. Most analysts agree that cap and trade has worked well for the reduction of specific pollutants. But its application to attacking global warming is far more controversial because most forms of energy production - gas, oil and coal - will be subjected to emission limits, thereby driving up costs to almost every conceivable industry. When this is coupled with the uncertainty of both global warming’s effects and the lack of any real evidence that global warming can be reversed by these actions, the chances of successful passage of such legislation are low.
Further complicating these efforts are national security concerns. Environmental restrictions or concerns limits domestic exploration and production of oil and gas and has prevented the building of any nuclear reactors for nuclear energy for over 25 years. The result has been greater dependence upon foreign sources of energy, often from unstable areas of the globe. More restrictions on industry to combat global warming will only increase dependence upon these same foreign sources, putting the country at greater risk of foreign threats.
Another option being considered is a carbon tax. Rather than setting emissions targets and then trading credits such as the cap and trade proposals, the carbon tax is a tax on the emission of carbon dioxide, considered by most to be the cause of the greenhouse effect (global warming). Of course, all taxes raise costs and create the kinds of problems previously mentioned. However, to some degree a carbon tax can be a win-win. Oil, gas and coal are all non-renewable energy sources and are the greatest polluters. The more the U.S. moves away from these sources of energy to renewable sources, such as nuclear, solar, wind and geothermal, the less the carbon footprint on the planet and the less reliance on potentially unstable foreign sources of energy. The challenge to using renewable resources is the cost, but a tax on emissions can make them more cost competitive. In addition, with huge federal budget deficits looming for the foreseeable future, something needs to be done to drastically curb federal spending and/or raise taxes. A carbon tax can assist in deficit reduction.
Sadly, the greatest impediment to doing anything is the American lifestyle. As discussed in an earlier blog (Crass Consumerism), Americans consume goods and energy at rates that far exceed any other country. Seriously addressing global warming will affect our consumption orientation. At the beginning of the Shabbat meal, fathers bless their children by declaring over them, “May God make you like Ephraim, Manasseh, Sara, Rebekah, Rachel and Leah.” What type of planet will we leave our children and grandchildren?
]]>The context within the New Testament period was quite different. Jews were no longer in control of their society or government. Rather, they were subject to a foreign power, i.e., the Roman Empire. Hence, the focus was on the people’s relationship with the government, with the emphasis on respect of authority. However, there was an implicit recognition of the government’s role in ensuring justice. Nevertheless, both Testaments suggest a role for godly people to challenge society and governmental injustices.
Throughout most of world history, the primary form of government was a type of monarchy. More progressive monarchies attempted to raise the standard of living for the masses and granted limited freedoms. For the most part, however, there were two classes in society, the rich and poor. The concomitant rise of both capitalism and democracy in the 18th century dramatically changed society. Our founding fathers constructed a governmental model in the midst of the rise of these two huge societal changes. Unquestionably, the fathers proposed a government with limited powers that provided for maximum individual freedom. It really was a grand experiment. That experiment proved wildly successful as the United States has been the most prosperous and free nation in world history, and its influence upon other nations has brought freedom and prosperity to much of the rest of the world.
Until the twentieth century, the federal government was quite small, and its reach into private economic affairs was limited. With the ascension of Teddy Roosevelt to the presidency, the federal government’s role in society grew. He successfully pushed through legislation limiting economic trusts and monopolies, increasing the government’s intrusion into private business. He established new agencies regulating various products such as foods and drugs. He began calling for limiting the use of natural resources to preserve the environment. But it was his remote cousin, Franklin Roosevelt, who in response to the Great Depression, oversaw a vastly increased federal government. Massive government work projects were instituted to lift the collapsing American economy, and possibly, most importantly, programs were launched to protect the economic security of the population, the best known being the Social Security program.
Since the Depression, scholars have debated the successes of the Roosevelt plan. Regardless, he created a new foundation in America of an activist government. Following World War II, the United States became the world’s foremost powerhouse, economically, politically and militarily. It seemed as if the mixture of opportunity and government imposed security nets provided a secure foundation upon which America’s freedoms and prosperity could grow. The next major change occurred during the Johnson/Nixon administrations. Huge entitlement programs were enacted such as Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps and benefits for the poor and the disabled, followed by the passage of environmental legislation attempting to clean up America’s air and water and protect endangered animal species. The government, foreseen by the founding fathers as limited, had grown to affect almost every part of American life. With the exception of some minor blips, however, it seemed the American model continued to work, successfully adapting to each new economic and political development. The United States seemed to achieve an almost Biblical envisaged society of justice, prosperity and protection for the down trodden.
However, there remain huge challenges to this reworked formula for government involvement. Government programs are financed either through taxes or borrowing; the larger the government, the higher the taxes or the greater the borrowing. Tax rates have remained relatively low for awhile, thereby enhancing investment and consumer spending. Hence, government programs have been subsidized by ever increasing borrowing. That cannot continue. In addition, huge entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare are badly underfunded and will need massive infusions of income in the near future. The most recent recession reveals the vulnerability of enhanced government involvement. The recession was caused by numerous factors, but most experts point to the collapse of the housing market as the prime mover. Government mandates to lower housing financing standards to enable more people to qualify for home ownership undermined the integrity of normal business decisions. Previously unqualified applicants were granted home mortgages. The increased number of applicants drove up home prices. When these individuals no longer could afford their homes, the housing market began to collapse, threatening the viability of financial institutions around the world. As a result, the Bush and Obama administrations intervened into the economy at rates previously unseen, leading to unprecedented and massive deficits for the foreseeable future. Despite assurances to the contrary, the government’s increased involvement in American society is likely to remain, best exemplified by the health reform legislation being considered by the Congress today.
In reality, there are only three responses to the enhanced government involvement in American life. 1) The United States can continue to borrow funds for its programs, a situation that could lead to wildly escalating interest rates and the collapse of business. 2) Taxes can be significantly increased to pay for the new programs, the current deficit and for the unfunded entitlement programs. This, in itself, could lead to another recession. 3) Government spending can be sharply reduced, including drying up the funding of foreign wars and cutting the benefits promised through various entitlement programs. Only the third option would scale back the government’s role in society. It’s ironic that only 25 years ago serious consideration was being given to pass a constitutional amendment requiring the federal government to maintain a balanced budget.
There are no free lunches. Someone has to pay. When the government provides benefits to one group, another group must pay. This impinges upon freedom. Historically, the United States has successfully balanced freedom and opportunity with limited safety nets. It appears, however, the balance is changing. Americans increasingly demand that government provide for their needs, and most politicians refuse to confront the necessary trade-offs to meet those needs. Expect an ever increasing role of government and a diminishing of freedom, opportunity and prosperity.
]]>
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
As so many others, my immigrant grandparents assimilated into and fueled the success of their new country. In fact, no other country in history has welcomed and been built by immigrants.
Today, however, the U.S. faces a unique and troublesome problem - millions of undocumented and illegal immigrants. Most of them came for the same reasons our forebears came - freedom and opportunity. Under current law, the vast majority of them have no recourse to legalize. If they leave, they are barred from returning. How shall we deal them? The Scriptures have a great deal to say about the alien or the stranger. “You shall not pervert justice due an alien or an orphan, nor take a widow’s garment in pledge. But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and that the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing.” (Deut. 24:17-18). From there the text commands that the surplus of the harvest be left for the alien. The New Testament warns that strangers could be unrecognized angels - hence, treat them well.
Nevertheless without regulated and limited immigration, the U.S. would be overrun with immigrants, taxing government programs, lowering wages, spiking unemployment and likely receiving undesirables. There are many legal avenues for potential immigrants. Most, however, immigrate through close family relationships or special business provisions. Illegal immigration has always been a problem, but in the past 30 years, it’s become enormous. The last time Congress addressed this problem was in the 1980’s. Then illegal immigrants were given a window to legalize. Yet, America’s growing prosperity in the 1990’s energized particularly Latinos to migrate northward across U.S. borders. Thus, many feel that providing a legal path again for the illegal population exacerbates the problem of continued illegal immigration.
Interestingly, the Bush Administration supported providing a means to legalize this population, but the Congress rejected it as granting amnesty to law breakers. More emphasis was placed on enhancing border protections to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. But that failed to address the existing millions of illegal immigrants. One response is to round them up and deport them. That approach increased during the latter years of the Bush Administration. Sadly, many of these families have been in the U.S. for years, their children either born here or were very young when they arrived. Most of them are hardworking and law abiding. Many of them are part of religious communities, including some in ours. Worst of all, this approach contravenes the Scriptural mandate to treat the alien well and flies in the face of the Statue of Liberty’s motto.
A combined program of beefing up border security, including the building of fences (it worked in Israel), and providing a means to legalize seems the most humane and godly approach. Some argue building a fence on our Southern border is an affront to Mexico. But the only obstacle a fence creates is to illegal immigration, which everyone agrees needs to be addressed. The last time Congress provided a means for illegal immigrants to legalize a system of fines was instituted, which actually worked well. Fines of $1000 per immigrant were assessed, and when combined with the normal fees for legal residency, the total today would be around $2000. If all illegal immigrants took advantage of such an offer, government revenues would increase by approximately $25 billion. It’s a win/win situation. It certainly would uphold the reputation of the U.S. as a nation of generosity and opportunity.
]]>
Islam originated with Mohammed, who claimed to have a vision of the one true God - Allah, meaning God in Arabic. He preached against idolatry in his hometown Mecca but was rejected. He then traveled to nearby Medina where he attracted a large following. He returned to Mecca with an army. The leaders in Mecca surrendered peacefully, and Islam became the religion in a major trading post in the Middle East. Following Mohammed’s death Islam spread throughout the Middle East, North Africa and eventually Spain through Islamic armies and preachers. Mohammed’s views on violence and peace are mixed. Both the Koran (Allah’s revelations to Mohammed) and the Hadith (Mohammed’s sayings) contain contradictory messages on war and peace. For example, in chapter 2:191 the Koran declares: “Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter.” On the other hand, Muslim scholars often point to this suggestive passage: Chapter 5, Verse 32: “[I]f anyone slew a person—unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole people. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.” Interestingly, the part about saving a life is very similar to a quotation in the Jewish Talmud. Most modern Muslim scholars argue that passages in the Koran and Hadith that apparently advocate violence are misunderstood and taken out of context. More radical Islamic leaders, however, utilize these same passages to justify violence.
Moderate Muslim scholars point to violent periods within Christianity as a way to deflect attention to Muslim violence. It’s true - Church sponsored or accepted violence has a long history. But there are very few Christian leaders who advocate violence today. With the exception of responding to outright aggression, Christianity’s record vis a vis violence has been quite good over the past few centuries. When issues of human rights are examined, the areas of the world with Jewish or Christian majorities and influence have far better records than areas controlled under Islam. Muslim scholars rightfully argue that most Muslim countries are controlled by autocrats, who are Muslim in name only. In fact, there is really only one Muslim country that is truly democratic, i.e., Turkey, which has a pretty good record on human rights, and interestingly is the most Israel friendly nation among the Muslim nations. However, where Muslims overthrew autocratic governments and installed more Muslim-leaning nations, human rights regressed, such as Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban and the Sudan.
Until the rise of Islamic terrorism in the 1990’s, concerns about Islam were limited. 9/11 changed everything. Despite popular attempts to minimize the effect of Islam upon the 9/11 terrorist acts, in the minds of the perpetrators the attacks were religiously motivated. In the past, religious wars were common. The United States, however, has never been involved in a religious war and Europe has not since the 17th century. Since 9/11 the United States and her allies have invaded two Muslim countries with the express purpose of rooting out Islamic terrorists, costing hundreds of billions of dollars. In addition, hundreds of billions have been spent on internal security within the U.S. to prevent terrorist attacks, most related to Islamic fundamentalist threats. Muslim immigrants to both the U.S. and Europe have come under increasing scrutiny bolstered by laws enhancing eavesdropping. To the dismay of many throughout the world, the U.S. continues to hold so-called enemy combatants (all of whom are Muslim) in Guantanamo Bay without formal charges. Many question whether Muslims can be integrated into a modern society. Of course, moderate Muslim leaders find such attitudes patently offensive and discriminatory.
Muslim immigration (legal and illegal) to Europe and to the U.S. has dramatically increased over the past thirty years. Today, the population in some European countries in Europe approximate 10% Muslim. In the U.S. the Muslim population ranges somewhere between 5-7 million. In Europe the non-Muslim population is decreasing due to low birth rates. Birth rates among Muslims are quite high, and some demographers project Muslim majorities in parts of Europe within 20-30 years. Can Muslims be assimilated into Western cultures without forcing conflicts with democratic and human rights institutions? In parts of Europe where Islamic communities are strong, anti-Semitism has increased. In addition, there have been domestic disturbances and violent outbursts in Islamic communities. This could be due to the fact that Muslims are not readily accepted by the larger European community, and thus, unemployment and poverty prevail. For the most part, however, the majority of Muslims in the West keep a low profile and seem to assimilate into Western culture. It must be noted, however, that almost every terrorist plot exposed by authorities is comprised of radical Muslims.
There is no question - Islam contains two sides, a peaceful one and a violent one. Over the past 20 years the violent side has predominated, certainly in terms of public exposure. While Western fear mongers generate hatred and xenophobia, the main problem lies within Islam itself and Muslim leaders. If Muslims are unwilling to publicly condemn Muslim fanatics such as President Ahmadinejad of Iran or terrorist actions by Hezbollah against Israel, the West understandably will hold deep suspicions about Muslim motivation and intention. Sadly, the reality in the United States is that many Muslims, possibly unwittingly, have donated to Muslim “charities” that support terrorism. Members of Saudi Arabia’s royalty, supposed U.S. allies, fund the radical Wahhabi Muslim sect from which Al-Quaida originated, including funding Wahhabi preachers in mosques within the U.S. When Muslim leaders in the U.S., Europe and around the world show by their actions that democratic freedoms and human rights must be upheld over fanaticism, Islam can become a respected and accepted faith. Until then, the jury remains out on Islam.
In previous generations families saved to afford large purchases. Today, with the proliferation of credit cards, everything is charged, and until this recent recession, saving was almost non-existent. In contrast, the Book of Proverbs challenges us: “A good man leaves an inheritance for his children’s children.” (Prov. 13:22) A noted economist recently declared that the next generation is likely to be poorer than this one. What has happened to our country, and what can be done to turn the tide?
The Bible concerns itself with adequate provision. In fact, money matters is its most extensively addressed subject. In the Sermon on the Mount Yeshua focuses on personal need. Regarding food, clothing and shelter, he says, “For all these things the Gentiles eagerly seek; for your Heavenly Father knows that you need these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you.” In this text Yeshua clarifies priorities. Our nation must do the same, both at the individual and governmental levels.
In the 1950’s average house size was under 1200 square feet, in 1970 - 1400 square feet, in 2006 - 2350 square feet, and family sizes were larger in the past than now. Buying a house is part of the American dream. As a homeowner myself, yes, it’s nice. But why buy a house with excessive space, all of which needs to be filled, decorated, lighted, heated and cooled? Why purchase a home to which one barely financially qualifies, based on two incomes, when smaller, older and more affordable houses are available?
How about gadgets? 50 inch HDTVs, Iphones, Ipods, GPS, digital cameras, even robots. Are they necessary? What’s more important - the $1000 TV plus the special monthly cable service or investing that amount into a state sponsored college education fund for one’s children? There still are Americans who survive on - God forbid - small, black and white televisions.
Individual excesses are simply multiplied at the governmental level. I worked in the Congress from 1977-86. Shortly after the election of President Reagan, the economy collapsed into a severe recession. For the first time in American history, the annual federal budget deficit was projected to exceed $100 billion. In response, the President influenced the Congress to cut spending. It was an arduous process. Instead of Members of Congress channeling funds to local projects (known as earmarks), now benefit programs were shaved. Still, annual deficits grew to almost $300 billion until the mid-1990’s. Amazingly, from 1998-2001, the federal budget was in surplus. Since then, the deficit has ballooned through the roof, this year significantly exceeding $1 trillion. This excessive federal spending is similar to individual households spending in excess of income. For awhile, it’s sustainable, but eventually the house of cards collapses. History reveals that most empires declined due to overspending.
Crass consumerism and an entitlement mentality has overtaken America. The ship can be righted by individuals reducing their demand for the unnecessary and living within their means. Politicians must be held to account for reckless spending decisions, including going to war and expanding domestic programs without sufficient funding. Yeshua concluded the Sermon on the Mount with these words: “Therefore every one who hears these words of mine and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock. And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and great was its fall.” (Mt. 7:24-2) Will America listen?
]]>Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States remains the sole military power in the world, and since 9/11 the United States has lead invasions into Afghanistan, Iraq and now possibly Iran. As the Afghanistan war enters its ninth year and the Iraq war its seventh year, questions arise from numerous sources as to the wisdom, viability and justification for the invasion of other countries with the concomitant loss of life and destruction of property. This certainly becomes even more important with the potential attack against another nation with potentially more far-reaching consequences. For us, possibly, a larger question exists: are these actions and potential actions supportable from Scripture and our religious communities?
Both Judaism and Christianity historically have wrestled with the reality of war and how to respond. Both have come to similar conclusions that actually lead to modern Western perspectives behind war. Until relatively recently the Jewish perspective evolved from a community not directly involved in warfare. Following the unsuccessful revolts against the Romans in the first two centuries of the Common Era, Jews lived as outsiders in numerous empires and kingdoms, and while affected by warfare around them, Jews played no military role. That, of course, changed in the modern era. Still, the Rabbis examined the Scriptures and determined there were three types of war - 1) obligatory; 2) optional; 3) pre-emptive. Joshua’s invasion is considered obligatory but was limited to the removal of the Canaanite states. Defending one’s people from attack is also considered obligatory. King David’s expansionist wars were seen as optional and could only be justified by divine approval through the determination of the Sanhedrin and the High Priest - no longer applicable because of the demise of both institutions. Finally, the Rabbis concluded that a pre-emptive war may be justified depending upon the circumstances.
The Rabbis also made a number of interesting rulings with respect to the conduct of war - 1) clerics should be exempt from service (I Kings 15:23); 2) defense is a duty (Ex. 22:1); 3) proportionality of response (Ex. 22:2); 4) defense of a third party (Deut. 22:25-27); 5) compassion to the enemy (I Kings 20:31); 6) protection of the environment (Deut. 20:19); 7) offers of peace (Deut. 20:10).
Christianity took a very different tack in the beginning. Unlike Jews who began as a national group and who continued to be considered a nation without territory for most of their history, Christians comprised numerous people groups incorporated within the Roman Empire. Based upon Yeshua’s teachings (Mt. 5:38-41) and example (Mt. 26:51-52), most early Christians were pacifists and were barred from serving in the military. According to the church father, Tertullian, a Christian who did serve in the military could be excommunicated from the church. But beginning in the third century, these views began to change as Christianity became more popular and influential in the Roman Empire. The turning point came with the integration of Christianity into the Empire through Constantine. Now, the Empire’s business was Christianity’s business, which included military conflicts. First, Bishop Ambrose from Milan (a former Roman military leader), and then, St. Augustine, fashioned the doctrine of “Just War.” Both were influenced by Plato and Cicero, who had written on the subject long before. A “Just War” must be 1) for just cause; 2) for just intention; 3) as a last resort; 4) initiated by formal declaration; 5) have limited objectives; 6) conducted by proportionate means; and 7) not target non-combatants. The “Just War” doctrine served as the basis for the United Nations charter on war.
Let’s now turn our attention to Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. The United States lead invasion against Afghanistan followed the 9/11 attacks against the United States. The Al Qaeda terrorist network, responsible for 9/11, was based in Afghanistan. The U.S. requested that Afghanistan expel and turn over those responsible for the attacks. They refused, and the U.S. and allied forces attacked. There is almost no question that the invasion was justified utilizing both Jewish sources and the Christian “just war” doctrine. The continuing war, however, does raise significant questions. What began as a war of defense, i.e., responding to an attack concocted and/or launched from Afghanistan, has evolved into the prevention of the Taliban from regaining control of the country. Does the Taliban return to power directly endanger the United States? Are there other overriding just causes for preventing their return?
With respect to Iraq, the Bush Administration attempted to extend both UN protocols and the “Just War” doctrine to cover a pre-emptive strike. Interestingly, Jewish sources support pre-emptive war in certain situations. The Administration argued that Iraq was holding weapons of mass destruction in contravention of UN orders, and that such weapons constituted an imminent threat to the US and its allies. Assuming Iraq contained such weapons, without a concrete threat by Iraq to use them, it is questionable as to whether the “Just War” doctrine or Jewish views on preemption supported the invasion. However, the apparent lack of such weapons makes the question moot. The invasion of Iraq was not supported by either religious community’s long standing definitions for legitimate war.
Iran raises a new and different threat. Unlike Iraq, Iran’s leadership continually threatens the existence of Israel, a long time ally of the U.S. Iran admits the pursuit of nuclear power but denies its purpose is for the construction of weaponry. Is Iran believable, and, if not, does their manufacture of nuclear weapons grant just cause for a military attack? Had Iraq actually contained weapons of mass destruction in keeping with most intelligence services’ views, an invasion of Iran, while potentially catastrophic, could well be supported by a legitimate use of the preemption doctrine. This is certainly true of Israel and possibly the U.S. as well. It could also be argued because of Iran’s support of terrorist organizations that acquisition of nuclear capability could well lead to the transfer of nuclear materials to these organizations, also providing justification for a military attack to prevent Iran from acquiring them. The issue becomes more complicated because of the mistaken intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Without a direct and imminent threat from Iran, once again the developed world is dependent upon intelligence assessments as to Iran’s capability and purposes. In addition, an attack against Iran is likely to lead to a wider Middle East war. Returning to the “Just War” doctrine, a military attack should be seen as a last resort. It seems like the Obama Administration, the Israeli government and most of the West are following this course. At this point our role should be to “pray for the peace of Jerusalem” and for the internal overthrow of the current Iranian regime.
Jamie Cowen
]]>While America becomes increasingly secularized, she still remains the most religious of the developed nations in the world. High percentages of Americans go to synagogue or church regularly, and the vast majority of Americans believe in a personal God. Yet, many Americans become squeamish when politics and religion are mixed. It’s one thing to argue for certain policies based on merit; it’s another to suggest that God has political preferences. History’s experience with religious politics is fraught with disaster, including the modern religious wars being fought by Islamic fundamentalists.
On the other hand, to suggest religion have no bearing on politics is both unreasonable, and, I believe, unbiblical. Probably the best model for religious political activity is that of the biblical prophets. They called governmental leaders to account for corruption, injustice and idolatry, yet generally remained outside the political system. Probably the two most successful modern examples of such activity is the Civil Rights and the anti-abortion movements. Both movements were instigated and fueled by religious leaders. In the case of Civil Rights, African-American churches became the gathering places for the demand for equality. Civil Rights leaders, such as the Rev. Martin Luther King, often quoted from the Bible to make their case. With respect to abortion, the Catholic church began the anti-abortion movement. Raising the specter of killing the unborn gradually weighed upon the American conscience as increasingly sophisticated technology depicted early fetuses as clearly formed children. As a result, restrictions on abortion are commonplace.
Sadly, in my view, both causes were co-opted by political parties. The Democratic Party became the home for Civil Rights leaders and most African-American voters. The anti-abortion movement spread rapidly into white Evangelical Protestant churches, who openly supported the Republican Party through some of their primary spokespersons. Today, most of the African-American community scorns one of their own who is involved in the Republican Party, and it’s almost impossible to be active in the Democratic party and be anti-abortion. Hence, issues of justice and morality become captive to political parties and their agendas.
The Bible highlights numerous issues that should affect public policy today, even in our religiously pluralistic and democratic society. For example, “Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge.” (Deut. 24:17) In other words, the Bible demands fairness and opportunity for the marginalized, whether immigrant, poor, disabled or divorced. Another scripture says, “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.” (Gen. 2:15) The prophets foresaw the Garden being extended to the whole earth. Shouldn’t we then support protections to the earth’s environment? “I hate divorce, says the Lord God of Israel…” (Malachi 2:16). We should support policies that protect the integrity of marriage and family.
Despite the above, I believe religious leaders make serious mistakes when they become closely aligned with political parties. A religious leader’s primary job is to represent God to his community. When religious leaders ally themselves with one politician over another or one party over another, they compromise the prophetic role they can play by calling them to account. Successful politics involves the bestowal of favors. “You support me, and I’ll support you.” When a religious group is beholden to someone other than God, it has compromised its mission. Which party represents God? Neither one. Nevertheless, we as believers should be God’s mouthpiece to the political world and call for justice, ethics, morality, peace and a better world.
]]>By its very nature, politics is rough and tumble. From the earliest days of our nation, personal attacks by one politician against another were common. By and large, however, most of the population either were unaware of the attacks or simply didn’t care. Now, all that has changed. In the past twenty years an ugly, vicious and potentially dangerous infection has polarized America. Mass media has contributed to this societal breakdown by highlighting and replaying every individual misstatement or misstep. A life’s reputation can be ruined by one mistake that is blown widely out of proportion. Often, politicians’ positions are deliberately mis-characterized by others. The effects of proposed legislation often are misconstrued, highlighting the worst conceivable scenarios, however unlikely. America faces very serious problems at both home and abroad, and without cooperation from all sides, her future is grim.
The saddest part is that religious leaders and members often instigate or accentuate the divide. Rather than calling for humility, respect and upholding the reputation of others, they fuel the fires of hatred and division. At a critical time in America’s history, a religious leader who had been vilified, jailed and beaten, rose above his own personal experience to give hope not only to his own discriminated race but to all mankind,
We must forever conduct our struggle on the high
plane of dignity and discipline. . .I say to you today,
my friends, so even though we face the difficulties
of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a
dream deeply rooted in the American dream. . . I
have a dream that my four little children will one
day live in a nation where they will not be judged by
the color of their skin but by the content of their
character. . . I have a dream that one day every
valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall
be made low, the rough places will be made plain,
and the crooked places will be made straight, and
the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh
shall see it together.
Martin Luther King refrained from blame and attack politics. Rather, he like the prophets of old painted a vision of a different society that all could join. I think we forget that first and foremost King was a religious leader. His words and conduct led to healing a nation and ultimately rectifying a terrible wrong. As religious people shouldn’t we be doing the same in our generation?
]]>A few months ago our local newspaper, Richmond Times Dispatch, ran an article about religion and health care. The author argued from Jewish, Christian and Islamic sources that each of the religions support the provision of adequate health care for all people. Jewish sources are clear on the need for provision of health care. The Talmud contains numerous references to assisting the sick. Of course, one of Yeshua’s primary ministries was to heal the sick, and he instructs his followers to pray to and minister to them. All things being equal, who could oppose adequate health care for all people? However, extending this reasoning to national and governmental policy is more problematic, especially when the structure of the current health care system is a complete mess.
An example is in order: By and large health care in America is driven by insurance. Yet unlike other forms of insurance, i.e., life, auto, etc., health insurance is not true insurance. Insurance is a system of generally known and accepted principles of risk. For instance with respect to life insurance, you pay a premium to a company who guarantees upon your death your beneficiaries will receive a certain sum. Based on your age and health, the insurance companies use actuarial tables to determine an adequate premium. Barring a huge catastrophe, they know out of a hundred people, how many will die at various ages. Hence, life insurance costs stay relatively constant. Health insurance doesn’t work that way. The very nature of health insurance increases costs. When one is insured and is thus insulated from the cost of visiting a physician or hospital, the individual will utilize health care services more. This is unlike life or other forms of insurance where the provision of the insurance does not increase the likelihood of the event being insured. Life insurance does not cause us to die earlier nor does auto insurance cause us to have more accidents.
Every health care proposal being seriously considered in the Congress simply overlays governmental mandates upon the current health care and insurance systems. Governmental subsidies will ensure individual premiums don’t go through the roof. The reality is that whatever version or hybrid thereof passes, government costs will seriously escalate. Current federal deficits are unsustainable. Something has to give. While there are strong Biblical and religious arguments for national health care, there are counter arguments from the same sources regarding the accumulation of debt, such as the “borrower is servant to the lender.” (Proverbs 22:7) Our national debt to other nations, especially China, is astounding. Without a program to get our national finances in order, every great idea including national health care, sadly will ensure our quicker demise as a prosperous and generous nation. If proponents of national health care were more honest, they would admit the huge cost of such a program and propose either significant tax increases or corresponding federal spending reductions.
Where am I on national health care? I’m for it but not now. Changes should be made incrementally to the existing system. In the long run new and creative alternatives to payment for health care must be considered.
]]>