Thursday, June 25, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
The Westminster Confession of Faith
Of the Civil Magistrate
I. God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers.[1]
II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto:[2] in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth;[3] so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.[4]
III. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;[5] yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.[6] For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.[7]
IV. It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates,[8] to honor their persons,[9] to pay them tribute or other dues,[10] to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience' sake.[11] Infidelity, or difference in religion, does not make void the magistrates' just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them:[12] from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted,[13] much less has the Pope any power and jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretence whatsoever.[14]
Monday, May 18, 2009
Delivery of Social Services through Faith-Based Organizations
The growing interest in the provision of public social services via faith-based organizations stems from several factors. First, some faith-based organizations have demonstrated dramatic success in curbing or alleviating social problems in particularly distressed communities. For example, the efforts of Reverend Eugene Rivers of the Azusa Christian Community in the Dorchester section of Boston have been credited with reducing the juvenile murder rate in that community to almost zero. Second, social science data has increasingly documented a strong inverse correlation between religious commitment and social pathologies. Beginning with Harvard economist Richard Freeman’s work on church attendance and juvenile delinquency, numerous studies have shown that religious commitment tends to lessen the tendency of both children and adults to engage in counterproductive behaviors, ranging from delinquency to addiction and violence. Third, dissatisfaction with the outcome of government programs has led both to reduction in federal welfare spending and increased pressure to enlist the help of faith- and community-based organizations in caring for the poor. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act included a "charitable choice" provision that permitted states to direct funds to faith-based organizations for childcare and other services aimed at helping welfare recipients return to work. Several states are taking advantage of these provisions.
The Debate
Advocates of enlisting faith-based organizations in the provision of public services point to anecdotal evidence of the success of faith-based programs. They argue that the dangers posed by the social problems such as drug addiction or teen homicide outweigh any threat to the separation of church and state posed by the use of faith-based organizations. They often argue that faith-based or religiously oriented approaches are inherently more effective than secular approaches in changing behavior.
Opponents argue that directing government funds, at either the federal or state level, to sectarian organizations raises serious separation issues. While organizations such as Catholic Charities and Lutheran Charities have long received large subsidies from the federal government, such traditional charities have pursued their efforts in a self-consciously nonsectarian manner. Critics argue that newer faith-based approaches, such as that embodied by Eugene Rivers program in Boston or Charles Colson’s Prison Fellowship, rely explicitly on proselytization as the means of effecting behavioral change. Subsidies to such organizations, according to critics, can amount to violations of the Constitution’s establishment clause because they involve the state directly in supporting the spread of particular religious views.
The Communitarian View
Communitarians emphasize the role of the community as a potent "third force" in shaping the conduct and quality of both individual and collective life. Communitarians argue that a healthy and strong community can frequently exert a deeper and more lasting influence on individual behavior than the state acting via law and law enforcement. The restoration of vitality and safety to beleaguered neighborhoods and cities usually requires a revitalization of the organic community institutions that enrich and order community life. Healthy families and churches and neighborhood communities and like institutions are the key to shaping the conduct of children in such a way that they will become productive adults.
For this reason, communitarians generally support a creative division of labor, which permits the state to channel resources to community organizations, including faith-based organizations, for the provision of services within a community. Community-based organizations, including church organizations, have a comparative advantage in dealing "close-up" with community members. Communitarians believe that safeguards need to be in place to protect the individual’s free exercise of religious rights under the Constitution. Social service should not be provided as a quid pro quo for religious adherence; secular alternatives should also be available. But for those individuals who choose them, faith-based alternatives have been shown to accomplish dramatic improvements in the quality of both individual and community life..
A division of labor that permits faith-based organizations to act as service providers observes the key communitarian principle of subsidiarity--which posits that no unit of society should perform functions more appropriately performed by a smaller entity. The neighborhood should not usurp the normal function of the family; the city the function of the neighborhood; the state the function of the city; or the federal government the function of the state. Similarly, the bureaucratic government should not usurp the immediate functions of the family and the church. Use of faith-based organizations as service providers--with proper Constitutional safeguards--permits common resources to be directed toward strengthening the community rather than enhancing the power of the state, often at the expense of community institutions.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Marriage and the Separation of Church and State
If you have answered I will to the question above in front of witnesses and you are a Christian, then you are married.
If you have said or have had said to you in front of witnesses "Behold, you are consecrated to me with this ring according to the laws of Moses and Israel" and you are Jewish, then you are married.
I could go on but the point is that there is no need for government to be in marriage. If a persons vows to the other are not enough we have contracts that can lend legal binding to an agreement. Marriage is for the couple their families their community and frequently their church not the state.
by Matthew Bartko
Government should stay out of any marriage
Marshfield News Herald (Marshfield, Wisconsin)
Published Opinion.
August 9, 2003.
Editor:
Lately, homosexual marriages have been a subject of much unnecessary controversy. The simple solution to the gay marriage conflict is to privatize marriage. This would put gay relationships on the same footing as straight ones, without implying official government sanction. No one's private life would have official government sanction - exactly as it should be.
In the last century government intruded upon the marriage contract, among much else. The modern mistake is to think that important things must be planned, sponsored, reviewed, or licensed by the government. Let's get the government out of marriage and allow individuals to make their own marriage contracts.
Marriage is an important institution. But it's only because marriage is wedded to the state that it causes a political debate and social friction. Should the state force employers to provide "benefits" to gay spouses? No, but neither should the state force employers to provide benefits to heterosexual spouses.
Both taxes and adoption are state-related activities. If there were no income tax, the issue of filing taxes jointly would be moot. Given that we have an income tax, there's no reason why the government can't treat all kinds of families the same, without resorting to legally sanctioning "marriage." Similarly, there's no reason why state-controlled adoptions can't treat gay partners the same as heterosexual ones.
The institutions of marriage and family are actually made stronger in an environment of freedom where each marriage or family decides for themselves the parameters of their relationships.
Aaron Biterman
Brookfield
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
The Role of Government Chart
| Ideal | |
| Very little government responsibility. | A lot of personal responsibility. Responsibility for themselves, their communities, and their nation. (this would require lots of charity and voluntarism) |
| How We Are | |
| Some government responsibility. | Some personal responsibility. |
| Where We Are Heading | |
| A lot of government responsibility. Responsibility for individuals, communities, and the nation. (this would require lots of taxes and bureaucracy) | Very little personal responsibility. |
Sunday, April 12, 2009
an excerpt from The Pope's Easter Message
"If it is true that death no longer has power over man and over the world, there still remain very many, in fact too many signs of its former dominion. Even if through Easter, Christ has destroyed the root of evil, he still wants the assistance of men and women in every time and place who help him to affirm his victory using his own weapons: the weapons of justice and truth, mercy, forgiveness and love. This is the message which, during my recent Apostolic Visit to Cameroon and Angola, I wanted to convey to the entire African continent, where I was welcomed with such great enthusiasm and readiness to listen. Africa suffers disproportionately from the cruel and unending conflicts, often forgotten, that are causing so much bloodshed and destruction in several of her nations, and from the growing number of her sons and daughters who fall prey to hunger, poverty and disease. I shall repeat the same message emphatically in the Holy Land, to which I shall have the joy of travelling in a few weeks from now. Reconciliation - difficult, but indispensable - is a precondition for a future of overall security and peaceful coexistence, and it can only be achieved through renewed, persevering and sincere efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. My thoughts move outwards from the Holy Land to neighbouring countries, to the Middle East, to the whole world. At a time of world food shortage, of financial turmoil, of old and new forms of poverty, of disturbing climate change, of violence and deprivation which force many to leave their homelands in search of a less precarious form of existence, of the ever-present threat of terrorism, of growing fears over the future, it is urgent to rediscover grounds for hope. Let no one draw back from this peaceful battle that has been launched by Christ's Resurrection. For as I said earlier, Christ is looking for men and women who will help him to affirm his victory using his own weapons: the weapons of justice and truth, mercy, forgiveness and love.Resurrectio Domini, spes nostra! The resurrection of Christ is our hope! This the Church proclaims today with joy. She announces the hope that is now firm and invincible because God has raised Jesus Christ from the dead. She communicates the hope that she carries in her heart and wishes to share with all people in every place, especially where Christians suffer persecution because of their faith and their commitment to justice and peace. She invokes the hope that can call forth the courage to do good, even when it costs, especially when it costs. Today the Church sings "the day that the Lord has made", and she summons people to joy. Today the Church calls in prayer upon Mary, Star of Hope, asking her to guide humanity towards the safe haven of salvation which is the heart of Christ, the paschal Victim, the Lamb who has "redeemed the world", the Innocent one who has "reconciled us sinners with the Father". To him, our victorious King, to him who is crucified and risen, we sing out with joy our Alleluia!"
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
MORE ON THE CENTRIST DEMOCRAT INTERNATIONAL
The Christian Democrat and People's Parties International was founded in 1961 under the name Christian Democrat World
The evolution of the international system since 1989, the end of the East-West confrontation which dominated the international scene since the end of World War II, as well as the appearance of new independent states, the struggle for democracy and the conditions of globalisation at the dawn of this new millennium, offer the peoples of the world new opportunities and new challenges for coexistence, both in national and international communities, so that they may live in peace, freedom, justice and solidarity.
The Christian Democrat and People’s Parties International federates the political parties and organisations based on the principles of Christian or integral humanism, that is, a humanism open to transcendency and committed to brotherhood. This implies on the part of these parties and organisations:
1. the irrevocable recognition of the dignity of every person, irrespective of sex, age, colour, economic, social or cultural status or personal convictions;
2. the recognition and promotion of the individual rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and complementary treaties;
3. the orientation of their policy in accordance with the fundamental values of the ethic of Christian or integral humanism, particularly the values of truth, freedom, personal responsibility, justice and solidarity;
4. the search for peace through the aforementioned values;
5. the recognition and assertion of the social nature of human beings, who live as members of the multiple communities, particularly the family, upon which human society is built;
6. the attainment of the common good as the objective of political society and the guiding principle of public power;
7. the recognition and defence of democracy as the sole form of political organisation of nations guaranteeing the participation of all in public life, particularly through free, secret, general and regular elections offering the possibility of alternation, within the framework of the rule of law, which ensures constitutional balance between State bodies;
8. the pursuit of sustainable human development with a view to satisfying the material, cultural and spiritual needs of the individual, the family and society whilst respecting their freedom and the natural environment, the resources of which must be preserved and renewed;
9. the recognition, particularly in the economic area, of the necessity to reconcile the private interests of the individual with those of others and of society as a whole, through measures based on the principles of subsidiarity, solidarity and justice, by means of a social and ecological market economy;
10. the promotion of forms of community organisation and participation that contribute, as of civil society, to development based on equity;
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
More on Health Care Reform
THE BIG PICTURE
The health care system in this country is irrevocably broken, in part because it is only a "health care" system, not a "health" system. We do not need universal health care mandated by federal edict or funded through ever-higher taxes. We do need to get serious about preventive health care instead of chasing more and more dollars to treat chronic disease, which currently gobbles up 80% of our health care costs, and yet is often avoidable. The result is that we'll be able to deliver better care where and when it's needed.
We must advocate policies that will encourage the private sector to seek innovative ways to bring down costs and improve the free market for health care services. We have to change a system that happily pays $30,000 for a diabetic to have his foot amputated, but won't pay for the shoes that would save his foot.
WHAT WE CAN DO
We can make health care more affordable by reforming medical liability; adopting electronic record keeping; making health insurance more portable from one job to another; expanding health savings accounts to everyone, not just those with high deductibles; and making health insurance tax deductible for individuals and families as it now is for businesses. Low income families should get tax credits instead of deductions. We don't need all the government controls that would inevitably come with universal health care. Americans must have more control of their health care options, not less.
We need to utilize the states as laboratories for new market-based approaches, and our next President should encourage those efforts. He should work with the private sector, Congress, health care providers, and other concerned parties to lead a complete overhaul of our health care system, not more of the same, paid for by Uncle Sam at the expense of hard-working families.
Health care spending is now about $2 trillion a year, which is close to $7,000 for each one of us. It consumes about 17% of our gross domestic product, easily surpassing the few European nations where spending is close to 10% and far higher than any other country in the world. If we reduced our out-of-control health care costs from 17% to 11%, we'd save $700 billion a year, which is about twice our annual national deficit.
Our health care system is making our businesses non-competitive in the global economy. General Motors spends more on health care than it does on steel, $1,500 per car. Starbucks spends more on health care than it does on coffee beans. We have an employer-based system from the 1940's, a system devised not because it was the best way to provide health care, but as a way around World War II wage-and-price controls. Costs have skyrocketed because the party paying for the health care - the employer - and the party using the health care - the employee - are not the same. It is human nature to consume more of something that is essentially free.
Workers complain that their wages are stagnant, but businesses reply that their total compensation costs are rising significantly because they are paying so much more for health care. Health care costs are adversely affecting your paycheck, even if you're healthy. Some Americans are afraid to change jobs or start their own businesses because they're afraid of losing their health insurance. It is time to recognize that jobs don't need health insurance, people do, and to ease the burden on our businesses. Our employer-based system has outlived its usefulness, but the answer is a consumer-based system, not socialized medicine.
Core Values in Health-Care Reform
Health-care reform is upon us. We urge that core values other than curbing costs and ensuring universal access be given due consideration. We all favor saving money; indeed, controlling health-care costs should allow the nation to provide more health services and higher quality care. We also strongly favor the inclusion of all Americans in our health-care system. However, we are deeply concerned that many of the reform efforts currently under review will unwittingly undermine the culture of care in their pursuit of savings and access.
We rise to speak for the moral commitments, the social and institutional arrangements that are essential to maintain both the trust between patients and health-care professionals, and the professional commitments of health-care personnel. Let us not turn the health-care community into a health industry; let us take the steps necessary to sustain and nourish the care in health care. Specifically, we raise a communitarian voice for:
. sustaining the balance between individual rights and social responsibilities, especially regarding that which we must do on our own, and for others, and that which we can legitimately expect from others in the way of health care. As a matter of simple justice, we believe that it is legitimate to ask one and all to make a contribution to the commons and not simply seek more from the commons.
. the need to protect the moral integrity and unique character of the health-care system. In particular, we warn against the intrusion of commercialism and the managerial imperative. Unless health-care reforms are carefully crafted, they may undermine a system which is far from flawless but treats millions every year--with a great deal of care.
. the imperative of providing coverage for and crafting a health system in which preventing disease and promoting health are an integral part of the plan, not afterthoughts.
. the imperative of reforming other aspects of American society to reduce the burdens on our health-care system. We must not treat health care as the social garbage can into which we deposit the ill consequences of our nations problems, and expect it readily to absorb the costs.
. the moral justification for cutting administrative waste, defensive medicine, lavish promotions and excessive profits before we begin rationing beneficial and humane health services.
. the priority of serving children, that vulnerable group of society which has no vote, has no political muscle and represents the future of the nation.
. and, the social responsibilities of health-care professionals, who ought to raise their moral voice to alert and counsel the society within which they work.
Only by attending to these signal areas, as we attempt to provide every American with decent health care, will we ensure that our health-care system will sustain rather than lose the culture of care and the moral values and institutional arrangements that sustain it.
to read more visit http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/Health2.html
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
