[Dialogue] rampant socialism

Sat Aug 29 19:53:51 CDT 2009

Um, Susan's perception of the role of government is - at best -
'pre-socialist.'  Both John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards advocated the role
of government in health care and relief of poverty.  Calvin persuaded (he
never held office) the City Council of Geneva to operate a hospital funded
by taxes and public fines.  Jonathan Edwards - Puritan theologian - had a
low view of the 'goodness' of human nature.  'It is kinder to ask into the
needs of the poor than to put them to beg,' he said, and, 'the good will of
sinful human beings is but a slender reed upon which to place the needs of
the poor.'  This is part of his writings 'On Christian Charity,' where he
advocated the role of public government in caring for the poor.

Granted, this was during the 'Established Church' colonial period, and there
were other activities and comments about 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry
God,' but government - simply put - is what all of us 'do.'  Private and
voluntary associations are what 'some of us' do.  If anyone wants to really
live in a purely libertarian society, they'd be hard put to find one
functioning anywhere outside of Somalia.

Bill Schlesinger
Project Vida
3607 Rivera Ave
El Paso, TX 79905
(915) 533-7057 x 207
(915) 490-6148 mobile
(915) 533-7158 fax
bschlesinger.pv at tachc.org
www.projectvidaelpaso.org

  _____  

From: dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net
[mailto:dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of W. J.
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 4:40 PM
To: Order Ecumenical Community; dialogue at wedgeblade.net
Subject: [Dialogue] rampant socialism

Susan, just get over it and think seriously about where our nation would be
if we didn't have some version of a right to public education. If the public
school system didn't exist. We so take that for granted that not even the
right wing nut cases are proposing a totally privatized educational system
(I hope!).

I'm aware of two major examples of the dangers of a public-private mix (or
mess).

One is California's famous Prop 13 (1978) Jarvis initiative that lowered
property taxes and sank our public school system from highly rated to very
poorly rated. This set up a two-tier system in which the rich folks sent
their kids to private schools while paying much lower taxes to subsidize
public schools.

The other is Charlotte's court-mandated school busing (now rescinded) which,
in my view, drained the school system of public support (guess what? the
rich white folks sent their kids to private schools while paying much lower
taxes to subsidize public schools) and dramatically 'leveled down' or
reduced the quality of public education in the system. (Full disclosure: I'm
a 'product' of Charlotte's formerly excellent [and segregated] public school
system . . . but unlike those living on the wrong side of the tracks, I was
privileged to attend one of the top public high schools in the
country--class of 1958.)

In the health care system the concept of medical 'standards of care'
supports a minimal level of quality care. Not so in our educational system.
There is no standard of excellence in teaching, just an imposed 'teach to
the test' method to prepare students to be tested. But at least every child
has the right to some version of public education (including home
schooling--don't get me started on that!).

More later on health care 'reform.'

For a clear perspective on the health care mess, just "follow the money" to
see who's raking it in.

Marshall 

  _____  

From: Susan Fertig <susan at gmdtech.com>
To: Order Ecumenical Community <oe at wedgeblade.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 10:49:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] all the earth belongs to all the people

Jack and Paul, First of all, I appreciate your taking my question seriously
and not just dismissing it as uncaring or unthinking.

Next, I think what has always distinguished people of successful community
is that they CHOOSE to care for each other.  Not that there is a governing
body (the Soviet?) requiring it and thereby diminishing to nothing the human
spirit.

Finally, I do not believe that anyone or any government "owes" me medical
care, or food, or a home, or a car, or any of the things that everyone seems
to take for granted. If I am unable to provide those things for myself, then
I truly do hope there will be kind and generous people who will help me.
But not, please God, my government.

I have been so dismayed by our pell mell helter skelter descent into
socialism within an oh-so-short handful of months that I am no longer a
conservative.  I have lost all balance I ever had and have fallen right over
into libertarianism (not, of course, the LaRouche style version).  

Susan

Susan Fertig-Dykes

tel: (703) 751-5956

  _____  

From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf
Of Jack Gilles
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 12:09 PM
To: Order Ecumenical Community
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] all the earth belongs to all the people

Dear Susan, 

I too think this is a question that needs a thoughtful answer.  I am
grateful for Paul's response as it is, as it should be, from the heart which
is the means by which this community dialogues.

I remember JWM reminding us that first and foremost we were born into
humanity, not family, community or nation.  Therefore, it is the humanity of
us all that we stand before as equals, and with a mutual responsibility.
That said, each of us has a responsibility for how that life is lived and
cared for.  We bare the responsibility for our actions, including those that
lead to consequences of illness and poor well-being.  But there are issues
of wellness that are beyond our individual control, be those of birth,
accident or social circumstances.  For these we need to ask, whom will be
responsible for the healing and care?  In that question it is clear that our
(USA) social structures and consciousness is in need of strengthening,
including our understanding of death.

We all know of the issues of families not willing to care for, nor honor the
dignity and role of elders in their lives.  We have developed vast
industries to hide this responsibility, to render the elders subservient to
youth and deny a legitimate profound role in our collective community.  We
also know that we have lost community in and through which care needs to be
acted out.  We have seen so many fine examples of community care including
many that have financial structural designs that seem to work well.  In a
"perfect world" perhaps this model of caring community with equitable
structures would be what we need to build.  I would share with what I
imagine is your concern that once a "right" is designated at such a large
level as the US economy and society things not only get complicated and
often too expensive, but it keeps us from facing the more ontological needs
of building our local communities and our individual responsibilities for
ourselves and our neighbors.   It hinders the necessary dialogue on what
care should we collectively render (i.e. unlimited end of life treatments at
all costs, who gets transplants etc.).   We have a very profound dialogue
that needs to occur around these issues that isn't taking place, at least at
a national level.  In other words, the issue of "the right of care for all"
when implied at the national level, is not dealing with the contradictions
and therefore, I believe, will not lead to the solutions we need to develop.
Without elaboration, we who live in the Litibu community of Mexico are
presently facing such community care issues.

That said, it remains to say which present options being discussed will take
us towards our goal of all of us caring for all in a way that brings us into
full mutual love and responsibility.  I am not totally clear as to which
model does that and what model keeps us further away from the real
contradictions of our common good.

Grace & Peace,

Jack

On Aug 29, 2009, at 2:46 AM, PSchrijnen at aol.com wrote:

Why? What a great question, Susan.

I was on top of Table Mountain yesterday. The cable car and facilities on
top of the mountain were refurbished about 10 years ago, and Mandela opened
it: declaring it SA's gift to the earth. He declared it so. An act of
generosity.  Of hope. And most people on top of the mountain were South
Africans, most of them black, but there were accents and shades of all
colours of the rainbow. 

So, thanks Susan, for letting me ponder that question.

By the way, the top of Table Mountain is sacred space. There is an awe in
the air. People whisper thoughtfully, aware of the presence of the mystery.
I wept at times in the presence of this perspective on the beautiful earth
on which I live. 

Paul

<table%20mountain.JPG>

_______________________________________________
OE mailing list
OE at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20090829/934bea0c/attachment-0001.html>