The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Rights.

A very idealistic friend of mine is in med school. He is Iranian, so he really doesn't know too much about how this country works or the fine points of our history, so his viewpoint is somewhat understandable if you stand in his shoes. Anyway, on Facebook, he recently wrote:

"As a future doctor,I think it is a shame that American Medical Association (AMA) opposes President Obama's plan for universal health care. Health care is a human right. It is not something upon which insurance companies make profit or doctors make themselves rich."

BTW, go easy on this man-- he is a new brother. My response was:
"I percieve there is definitely a problem that needs to be solved but am not sure we have a human or Constitutional right to it. Certainly God commands mercy, and tells us that we are our brothers' keepers-- I'm just not at all sure that mercy is the State's job. I think it is really the job of individuals. Don't ask me to legislate that, though. Would love to hear more of your thoughts on this."

When I think of human rights, I think of things like freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom to assemble peacefully-- that is to do all the good things human beings do socially. I also think of the right to life, and the right to work (thinking on this last is a relatively new activity for me and is a whole other thread).

Having a right to something, however, is different than saying the State is responsible for providing it. Defending it yes, providing it, no. We can ensure people can worship, but they are not forced to worship. We can ensure people can work freely (wow, think of all the implications of that....another thread!), but we do not force them to work (I'm thinking at-home moms and a 'conventional' use of the word 'work', as in outside the home.) But what about life?

What does it mean for the State to defend life? Does it include a right to universal health care? And have we 'forced' life in any way? Is this another category unto itself? (I feel like I'm framing this in a slightly off way, so bear with me.)

I also think of human rights as those rights which transcend the rights outlined in the Constitution. We have a right to life because God says we do, but He does not give us a right to freedom of speech, or even a 'right' to liberty, as we think of it in terms of anti-slavery. Yet the Scriptures (Prov 31;5-9 comes to mind) speak of "rights" in general terms. What are those 'rights'?

These so-called human rights vary widely from one culture to the next, which is why I want to think carefully about how to frame this with my friend.

Eleanor,

I think you are taking the right (biblical) approach in all this. Although the State can mandate such and such, that doesn't necessarily make such the mandate right. Scripture clearly mandates that the CHURCH (professing believers) is to care for the poor, the infirm, hungry, naked, etc. There is no mandate from God that relinquishes nor adds to this responsibility of the Church, i.e., God doesn't make this a responsibility of the State. This wouldn't be the case IF, which it isn't, there was a theocracy in place.

However, and this is a bit off-topic, should the State mandate universal healthcare, then its citizens... ALL citizens are obligated to accept it. Christians are not exempt since such a mandate would not violate a command of God in either omission or commission. Yet, since the State would be taking upon itself to do that which is the responsibility of the Church, I do believe it would be incumbent upon the Church (individual believers) to voice their opposition to such a mandate.

On the practical side, having lived in Canada for 16 years under a system (Socialism) which has a universal healthcare plan in place, I can tell you from experience that it simply doesn't work, at least the way it is implemented there. It is a total disaster!!

That's my

The dumb thing to me about unoiversal health care is that it really doesn't change much except that we pay alot more for it. It doesn't guarantee that said healthcare will be excellent, or even good. Wealthy people will still be able to purchase higher end care that would be inaccessible to the poor.

Twenty years ago I commented to a pastor that it seemed to me that churches should be self-insuring. He just said, "Oh dear, we'd better not go there!" It would call for an earthquake of change, for sure, and it would certainly test the Church.

Christian Socialism?