I didn’t realize this, but apparently, there’s some academic debate going on as to whether the Romans had hospitals and to what extent they were publicly funded. FWIW, there’s this from Wiki:
Furthermore, the Wiki article on Fabiola only indicates that she built a hospital, not that it was the first hospital.
However, even if we remove hospitals from the mix, I think it’s fair to say that the Romans at various times spent public money on health issues.
Well, this is a query I have not really given much thought to before. I am inclined to say there probably are some governmental health care regimes consistent with Christ’s teachings. However, my point is nothing in Christ’s teachings mandate his followers advocate for or support government health care. One can oppose government health care and not contradict any of Christ’s teachings.
In regards to your second question. Let’s assume, I reiterate assume, as true abortion is funded in the health care plan. I think this would contradict, perhaps none of Christ’s teachings, but Biblical doctrine. It is said in the OT God knew us while we were in our mother’s womb, he stitched us and put us together in our mother’s womb, thereby demonstrating we are God’s creation and even in the early stages of development in the womb, we are of high importance to God. Abortion interferes with this Godly process, indeeds deprives a life God was developing inside the womb. Hence, I think it can be inferred abortion is not consistent with the Biblical, or Biblical principles.
I do not deny the Bible has a mandate for those adherents of the faith to obey human government, and paying taxes would come within this mandate, so long as the taxes themselves do not contradict some Biblical rule or command. However, I do not think we can equate the notion of obeying human government as a command to advocate or support some governmental action.
I’ll agree that one can. However, I think that it is important to carefully examine your reasons if you do. When speaking to individuals about this I’ve found that those who don’t oppose it for moral reasons sometimes oppose it for reasons of greed and uncharitableness. I hear “its my money and they can pay for their care on their own,” more than I am happy with.
Okay, but as the issue of abortion seems to be a matter for debate with both sides claiming they don’t want it and that their bill is more pro-life I don’t think it is a very strong argument to say the bill is contrary to biblical teachings. I myself am a very pro-life Catholic and, as I’ve said above, I find the arguments that the bill will not fund abortions stronger than those that say it will.
Are there any other issues in the bill?
Well, amidst the apparent confusion over this issue, I think a Christian, uncertain and incapable of actually determining whether the legislation does fund abortion, would be wise, justified, and correct to oppose the health care plan.
Well, I have philosophical and constitutional objections, both of which probably exceed the scope of this thread and I do not want to go off on a tangent. However, I will give you some hints without derailing the thread. I find Nozick’s ideas in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, regarding the redistribution of wealth, very persuasive. Second, I appeal to originalism when interpreting the U.S. Constitution, which necessarily means I find many provisions in the proposed health care legislation objectionable because they are contrary to the U.S. Constitution.
I don’t know about the religious community, but in general it is trust in God, not the state, to meet the needs of the people.
The confusion is caused by people lying about the contents of the bills. I’m pretty sure there’s something in the Bible about lying. Anyone who opposes this legislation based on lies is a deeply immoral person, AFAIC.
I also found this thread which discusses what the OT actually says about abortion. Since I’m not versed in Christian theology, I can’t really argue for or against any viewpoints in that thread, but my takeaway from it is that the OT is fairly unclear as to the morality of abortion.
Of course, whether or not abortion is moral from an OT perspective is an independent issue from what the bills in Congress actually say.
Apparently, this is the text of the Executive Order that is part of the compromise for the passage of the health care legislation (link goes to TPM). Here’s language from the order:
So, this Executive Order, which apparently is the grand compromise, reaffirms that community centers are restricted by the act. Now, we won’t know what exactly ends up being in the final act until it hits the President’s desk, but if it turns out Stupak and Co. are willing to settle for this language (as opposed to modification to the Senate bill), then to me that will indicate that they have been lying all along.
If the final act does turn out to have additional language outside of what’s in this Executive Order, that’s the only way I will believe that they have been arguing in good-faith and not intentionally lying.