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

Wed Sep 2 20:15:17 CDT 2009

Sorry Susan, can't find anything as you suggest on Goggle, but I did  
find a former Canadian Minister of Health speaking on CNN, July 20.   
It's on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XWZBrg91Ik

George Holcombe
14900 Yellowleaf Tr.
Austin, TX 78728
Home: 512/252-2756
Mobile 512/294-5952
geowanda at earthlink.net

On Sep 2, 2009, at 6:55 PM, Susan Fertig wrote:

> One of the Canadian ministers was on record on this just last week  
> telling us not to emulate them because their medical system is on  
> the verge of collapse. It was on television, radio, and probably the  
> papers -- try googling it.  Sorry I don't remember the name -- I'd  
> probably recognize it if I heard it.  I'll see if I can find info on  
> it.
>
> Susan
>
>
> From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net]  
> On Behalf Of Bill Schlesinger
> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 10:05 AM
> To: 'Order Ecumenical Community'
> Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] A Matter of Human Rights
>
> Could you please document when and where Canada proclaimed its  
> health care system ‘unsustainable’?  I find such claims to be at  
> odds with other voices from Canada.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 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: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net]  
> On Behalf Of Susan Fertig
> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 10:31 PM
> To: 'Order Ecumenical Community'; 'Colleague Dialogue'
> Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] A Matter of Human Rights
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20090902/40ddaa62/attachment-0001.html>