Thursday, September 10, 2009

Hand in Hand

This video gives us a visual metaphor of how humans need one another. We miss the truth of our interdependency in every regard, not just the physical interdependency which this captures. We miss the holistic interdependency of human and God, male and female, between races, between all ethnic heritages, tribes, nations, humanity and environment, humanity and conditions in which we live. Humans naturally striate and separate themselves from one another, but God's love is found in our unity.

It seems to me that the health care debate is really between those who envision independence and those who are aware of dependence and interdependence. James spoke to this profound reality when he contrasted the partiality being awarded to the privileged with God's choosing of the poor: "My brothers and sisters, you do not hold the faith while practicing partiality. ...Listen, my beloved brothers and sisters. Has God not chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him?" (James 2:1, 5)

Hand in Hand


Tom, thank you for your comment. I do believe you completely missed the point that I made, and inadvertently, you strengthened my point. I hear your words as dividing humanity out of people who work in government offices - you characterize them as "bloated, impersonal government bureaucrats" not as people. Any person - whether in a bureaucracy of a governmental entity or of an insurance company - can become "inhuman", as it were, in relation to others. As soon as we stop seeing another person or group of people as anyone we want to be "with", we've divided ourselves from them, instead of listening to and hearing them. I don't trust in a "faceless social responsibility." I hope and work for a society of humans who individually place people's welfare and well-being above self-interest & profit-making.


FWIW, it seems unlikely that anyone working in a democratic governmental structure would be able "to corruptly aggregate to themselves more power" at any level that even draws close to the corrupted power among leaders of Wall Street and insurance companies! The myth of free-market capitalism has been exposed in recent years for market leaders' inability to regulate participants' own sinfulness. The insurance company, AIG, was right in the thick of the corruption and dehumanization. Government jobs simply don't pay that well. There are people in government who care about doing their jobs well and ethically. I'm sure there were individual people working at AIG who were dismayed about the directions their bosses were taking, ethically and in terms of risk-taking.

Human sinfulness being what it is, our society, governmental structures, corporate structures, groups and individuals will always need to be adjusting to compensate for the advantage that self-seeking people will try to take of any system. Right now, the profit-making system holds sway. The human leaders of that system who pursued only profits have harmed too many families and individuals with their carelessness for providing care to the poor and the sick. They do not see themselves as being "with" the poor and the sick, or as being part of a society which is mutually interdependent.

Obviously, the same danger may surface with leaders and individuals working in government offices. But, at the least, they won't personally profit by refusing to be "with" the poor and the sick.

I've always tried to listen to everyone's POV, and although I disagree that the "good and workable suggestions" proposed by Republicans are sufficient to deal with this problem, I do think that leaders should heed what's valuable and true about them.


  1. You are certainly correct, I imagine, that there are some opposed to healthcare simply because they seek "independence" (however you may understand that term) rather than "dependence" (likewise qualified.) But I do not believe that that is the rationale for the majority of opposers; certainly not for me.

    I oppose it because I am absolutely convinced that government:
    A) Really doesn't care about healthcare, it is only a plausible excuse for powerful people to corruptly aggregate to themselves more power. It is the history of mankind throughout the millenia that tyranny has been the nature of governmental relations. Only in America has that trend been minimized by a Constitution that explicitly limits government power.
    B) Cannot, for structural reasons, including the innate sinfulness of man, do a good job of providing a service like this...even if 'A' above were not true. You can find abundant evidence of this in everything from $1,000 toilet seats, to the inefficiencies of the Post Office, the compassion of the IRS. And if American bureaucracies aren't sufficient evidence, there is abundant evidence from socialized medicine overseas to give pause to any but the most credulous bureauphiles. Consider or or And those are just from the recent news. Those stories do not reflect any bureaucratic sense of "dependence" in any definition I would want to use.

    Moreover, opposers are not merely opposed because they oppose giving bloated, impersonal government bureaucrats control over the decisions of their own lives. They recognize that, indeed, we are interdependent, and our loved ones , or even strangers, may need care and we believe it is OUR responsibility before God to provide for them, not that of a faceless social responsibility.

    I could continue at length on numerous reasons why people oppose the healthcare proposal that is presently on the table without ever dealing with "independence" vs. "dependence". Your characterization is simply, is any characterization that divides all mankind into to camps...those who agree with you and those who disagree.

    THAT is the problem. Solve the problem of people dividing the world into 'US' and 'THEM', and you will have taken the first step towards solving the healthcare issue. Then you will discover that there are some good and workable suggestions being proposed by 'THEM'.


  2. Tom, I would find your argument more compelling if everything about it weren't dividing the world into 'US' and 'THEM'! You just have a different idea of who 'THEM' is/are. I don't despise those on the right, I just disagree that they have the corner on a biblical view. You, however, have routinely insulted and demeaned those you disagree with.