[Dialogue] [Oe List ...] A Matter of Human Rights

Wed Sep 2 05:30:07 CDT 2009

Susan,

I agree that the sustainability of the approach is a big concern.  However, there has to be a way to bring the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and the medical institutions who put profit above care, to heel.  That's not going to be done by the churches, etc.  Can we not, rather than to say government has no role, which again I believe is unrealistic, work toward defining what the role of government should be?

The people in my neighborhood (if The Big Sort is true, boy did I ever pick the wrong place), good church-goers all--may or may not be good Christians--insist the poor are so because of their own lack of initiative and that "we the people" through government or otherwise have no responsibility.  All this is contrary to the facts.  Most of the country does not have the moral courage to address the problem at the root, but we can't wait for them to change their minds.

Here's the quandry for me.  The US has the worst healthcare record among the industrialized nations.  The innocents--the unborn and their mothers, children, the elderly poor, the chronically ill, the working poor--are suffering and it's costing not only them but all of us tremendously, financially and otherwise.  The system is broken and we can't fix it without government playing a major role, it's going to cost you and me money, and the solution will not be perfect whatever it is.  If we keep on doing what we've always done we'll keep on getting what we have.  So what do we do?

If people of good will can agree to this much then it seems to me the disagreement in the approach can be overcome by sitting down and reasoning together.  My view is, that's what the President has been trying to accomplish, which is why he hasn't put forth a plan of his own.  Those who are seeding the town meetings with ranters and using this whole thing as a partisan ploy to try to unseat the President and the Democrats are not people of good will.  Thankfully the President has caved in neither to them nor the far-left wing of his own party, but I'm not sure how long he can hold out.  I would not like to see him sign into law legislation with no bi-partisan support as he did the stimulus plan.  However, I believe the priority, after all the attempts at compromise and consensus are done, must be to get something passed.

Randy

--- On Tue, 9/1/09, Susan Fertig <susan at gmdtech.com> wrote:

From: Susan Fertig <susan at gmdtech.com>
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] A Matter of Human Rights
To: "'Order Ecumenical Community'" <oe at wedgeblade.net>, "'Colleague Dialogue'" <dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2009, 11:31 PM

Randy, thank you for that research and reasoned response. And yes, you got my point exactly.  I still feel that this country's incredibly generous citizenry has demonstrated over and over again that, presented with a need, they will respond.  But when government co-opts that role, they turn away.  This current government has already created a situation that is unsustainable financially, even without the addition of universal health care.  Individuals and communities are much more creative and capable of finding solutions than the massive and unwieldy machine that the federal government is.  Canada has already proclaimed that its health system is unsustainable and has warned the U.S. against using it as a model.

Susan

From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of R Williams
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:45 PM
To: Colleague Dialogue; Order Ecumenical Community
Subject: [Oe List ...] A Matter of Human Rights

Colleagues,

The conversation about rights--generally "human" rights although the non-human has been interjected--has been fascinating.  I have been encouraged to go beyond my usual knee-jerk reactions when I hear something I disagree with.  So I've done a little research on the subject through religious and secular sources, namely the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church, The Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the U.N.  Interestingly, none of them gives a theoretical definition of "rights" or "human rights."  Each of them gives their list of human rights -and- each of them in one form or another proclaims human rights to be rooted in human dignity which, in the religious tradition is because of the belief that humans are created in the image of God.

The Methodists say, "We support the basic rights of all persons to equal access to housing, education, communication, employment, medical care, legal redress for grievances, and physical protection."  They then get more specific about the rights of particular groups--racial and ethnic persons, religious minorities, children, etc.

In the case of Catholics one must search a little more diligently since everytime a new Pope comes along he appears to write something somewhere that implies directly or indirectly a new stance on the subject.  The latest list of specific human rights I could find comes from the Pastoral Constitution of Vatican II and includes food, housing, work, education and access to culture, transportation, health care, the freedom of communication and expression, and the protection of religious freedom.

The UN Declaration has several very abstract human rights listed and reads in part a little like the American Bill of Rights enumerating a several items of "freedom from."  The more practical, material ones that compare with the Methodist and Catholic lists are found in Article 25 and include food, clothing, housing, medical care, security during unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age "or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."  Article 26 includes education as a right.  You really have to read the entire document to get the full impact.

These three sources, but especially the Catholic one, relate rights to responsibilities, insisting that every person has the responsibility not only to provide for his or her brothers and sisters but also, and perhaps first, for himself or herself.  When we hear strident voices that seek to deny basic material human rights to anyone and claim that all should make their own way, I believe they have the view that most people who lack basic necessities simply have not worked for them and therefore do not have a right to them.  The facts do not bear this out.  For example, nearly 50% of the 39 million Americans who live in poverty work at full-time jobs, some more than one job, and still are impoverished.  Others are the very young, the very old or the chronically ill.  When you put such faces on the need, what are their rights?

The issue, as I heard Susan Fertig raise it, was not whether people in dire circumstances should be provided a safety net, but who should provide it, and whether government has a role to play.  I appreciated Marsha Hahn's reminder that our government is "by the people, for the people and of the people," "we the people."  We and our government are not adversaries.  I believe it is naive to think that those in need can be provided for without government mandates in the form of legislation, funded by our taxes.  I believe the business and social sectors, including certainly faith-based groups, have an obligation to participate but for better or worse we cannot rely on the voluntary good will of the people anymore than we can rely on the trickle down of Reaganomics.  Not that legislation changes anyone's heart and mind, but where would we be today in terms of race relations and the practice of racial equality without the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Each of us in deciding what we believe are inalienable human rights must rely on some kind of input to help us decide responsibly.  In the Christian faith, depending on the flavor we rely on some combination of Scripture, tradition, experience and common sense (reason.) Whether this or something else, I would encourage those ranters at the healthcare town meetings, etc., and each of us as well, to rely on something other than our own immediate emotional reactions.

Randy Williams
rcwmbw at yahoo.com

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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/20090902/11944e26/attachment.html>