Faith-based healthcare gaining political momentum (can I get a face-palm?)

[Dudde]

.However, my concern is they are not trying to just bring a secular coop around the church mailing list - they are bringing the benefits of their faith into this system to do it better.

~~~

It's fine to run a church by faith - worst case people have to go somewhere else on Sundays

 

I do agree, as stated earlier I'm not really for this approach. The only reason I'm against it, however, is because if something does happen in this respect, that the people involved will expect the government to do something about it, whether federally or judicially. Otherwise, I'm up for the way that teaches the most people the best lesson. And it seems the U.S needs a huge lecture on fiscal responsibility

[padren]

I respect your opinion also, but I think your concerns are misplaced. No rational Christian is going to sit there and wait for "divine intervention" on a financial crisis, or think that he would punish people for such a small transgression (or even have the desire to do so). And as it goes, we Christians are becoming more rational every day.

 

I think this could work if we get the right people to set the infrastructure up.

 

As for the "punishment" factor, there are active groups that felt Katrina was the result of God's wrath for weak morals, as with 9-11, and just about any catastrophe. It's not about punishing them, it's about whether you can help them if it is God that is punishing them, and whether they have to get right with God first before any help you offer can do any good.

 

I definitely acknowledge that there is a huge range of Christians and I by no means try to bunch all in one generalized group. The article pertains to "evangelicals" in particular, which also has a range but that overlaps with some pretty intensive faith based beliefs for how politics and at times, even business should run.

 

To me, this system sounds similar to the idea of say, a church setting up a 'non commercial charter flight schedule' that is in every way an airline, but done without contracts and donations to do away with the "greed" and bureaucratic red tape (ie, federal regulations).

 

That's fine and all, and could even be well done. It could also be run by the same people that believe American Airlines does not allow two Christian pilots to work on the same shift due to the potential of the rapture. For the record they believe this is AA's policy, some believe all airlines do this. Most important they believe this is done because it's the smartest and safest decision.

 

Now, that's fine and good - but what we have is a bunch of people with "good intentions" who create a coop to sidestep the regular oversight (to save good people more money) of commercial versions who genuinely believe that (A) the regulations are good in theory to keep bad people honest but (B) really isn't needed for them because they are good people and now they are taking their experience as Ministers and church officials and trying to run an ad-hoc business. (At this point, this describes the medical coops and the example of an air-charter coop equally. Also, this is honestly the key element in my resistance to the coop program.)

 

On top of that, if you throw into it people that believe commercial airlines take safety precautions to cope with The Rapture and think it's considered just good common sense that flight rosters should include one pilot non-Christian even if the only non-Christian available for a given flight has less experience, is a little sick, or far less rested than an alternative.

 

It's fine to run a church with all those sorts of ideas. It starts to concern me when it starts bubbling over into critical programs. It always will to some degree, but it's not a trend I can see as anything but disconcerting.