Even though Ron Paul clarified himself at the Tea Party debate, and explained that he doesn’t think those who can’t afford medical care should be laid out on the curb to die, the Left went about painting his answer as morally abominable. Before we deal with their abuse of Christian doctrine, let’s see what Paul said:

I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals. And we’ve given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves, our neighbors, our friends, our churches—would do it.

A great answer, it seems to me, and thoroughly Christian, unless you take the United Nations as an instantiation of the Gospel command to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” Liberals latch onto the Good Samaritan aspect of the commandment and think, if my neighbor, then why not the fellow two counties over, two states over, or two countries over?

Newsflash: prudence is a part of moral calculations.

The Good Samaritan was passing by the man who had been beaten and robbed, and was in a position to help him. But while residents of Alaska and Florida are each others’ neighbors in one sense, they cannot be of service to each other in the same way that they can those on their own streets. Moral considerations involve not only intention but also acts themselves, and whether they are likely to succeed (cf. Catholic just war principles).

Furthermore, the federal government might be practically able to assume some of the responsibilities of the Good Samaritan, but no one on the Christian Left has provided an argument why it should—why it would be better for two neighbors to love each other through the government, in some sort of progressive trinity. Otherwise, isn’t it best to let people practice love of neighbor themselves, so that they can store up treasure in Heaven?

Finally, most of the people making these arguments don’t think Congress should pass some sort of Obamacare law for the entire world, but that’s exactly where their thinking leads. Really why not preemptively cover any Martians without access to dental care and free contraception? Well because that would cost too much.


  • http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/ M. Simon

    Once we get religion out of politics there will be a lot of changes
    made in this country. Or maybe it will go the other way around when the fall of Drug Prohibition
    discredits the churches that supported it. Especially when you consider
    all the people who have died because government denies that Marijuana IS Medicine.
    I don’t see how those churches can claim to be healers of the sick when
    in cahoots with a government that denies the sick medicine. It is
    probably that “compassionate conservatism” I have heard so much about.

    And what will be the #1 driver of the End of Drug Prohibition? About
    75% of Americans say the Drug War is not working and Government at all
    levels is broke. Sounds like an opportunity for the first Party that
    raises the question.

    from:

    http://classicalvalues.com/2011/09/the-yockey-puck/