I honestly hope that someone will correct me about this, but it seems to me that the objections to health care reform always come down to selfishness. People who enjoy good health care are worried that their own care might suffer if it were extended to a wider group, or else they resent that they might have to pay a bit more to allow for health care for the poor. Putting aside the fact that those with money will always be able to buy superior health care, and that insurance companies continue to raise costs on health care annually — with reform or without it — the religious objection to these arguments is that they are grounded in making self interest the priority at the expense of the well-being of others. This selfishness is the antithesis of the religious impulse. Those whom we identify as truly religious are those who live their lives not thinking how they can best arrange the world to serve their own interests, but who instead see the world through the lens of compassion and attempt to live in service to others. Again, speaking for the Christian tradition, it is clear that Jesus is especially concerned with those who were living in poverty, who were outcasts, or who were sick. Jesus never mandated his followers to seek the best they could for themselves, it was always through the lens of the ‘least of these.’ If we conveniently forget the plight of the millions who live without health care and who face the decision between paying for an operation or keeping a home, then we are not really considering the religious perspective on health care. It becomes a classic case of the powerful protecting their own interests while the weak suffer — an equation that must be repugnant to the religious sensibility. Paul Raushenbush ☀
Sunday 28 February 2010
Notes
-
chloelikedolivia reblogged this from azspot
-
racheumeuneu liked this
-
inascaldingjoy reblogged this from azspot
-
nerdgasms liked this
-
azspot posted this
A GNT creation ©2007–2010
