Children's Health Care: A Prime Moral Imperative

Please explain!?!

I am having a very hard time understanding the reasoning in the OP and that of the majority of the above posts on this issue. I don't understand how anyone (especially pagan, Wiccan or any other minority for that matter (race, color, creed...)) can condone the use of force, ESPECIALLY to impose morality on another being. I find it morally repulsive that there are people, young and old, in need all over this planet yet still we wage senseless wars (is there any other kind?) on one another. I believe each of us should lend what aid we can to any we see in need but, I do not believe in using force. Government is force. The government has no money of its own, it has only what it takes from us in taxes, fees, etc. BY FORCE. Charity works, but works much, much better when the government isn't forcing the $ from us as well, only to be wasted in the bureaucratic nightmare we've created. I think it is immoral to force our morality on others and once it begins...where does it stop?

I completely agree that it is morally reprehensible that anyone should go without health care. I have been there and it stinks, but I would never consider forcing someone else to pay for me and I think neither would any of you. It is easy to convince ourselves to just get the government to do it but we really need to stop and think...would any of us rob our neighbor or even a stranger on the street at gunpoint for that money? That is what we are doing when we ask the government to pay for anything, we are effectively putting a gun to each and every tax-payer's head and ordering them to pay.

I am really concerned. I have no pagan friends or family to discuss social issues like this one with and I really don't understand how any pagan could petition or even condone the use of force on other human beings. Personally, I am devoted to the goddess. I think Lady Liberty is one of her most beautiful faces.

Blessed be!

******
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

*pointpoint.* Sick poor people.

Sick children.

I will sit in your existential ducking stool if you help the sick children first.

Christians.

Deal?

Well, Anonymous,

I see what you're saying, but I have some problems with it. "Be good to each other" is great, and we're after that too. The rest...

The 'institution of marriage' has nothing to do with morals. You can have abusive marriages, loveless marriages, and marriages where a parent is virtually absent. The institution is meaningless: the RELATIONSHIP is everything, and that doesn't need a stamp of approval from the Church.

Applying "morals" to 'all of us' is problematic. Strict authoritarianism never brings about a good result. Everyone is always claiming that we have descended into immorality fairly recently, but this is never true - it's always been like this. It's frequently been much, much worse. If there's one thing anyone from any period in history could agree on, it's that people were better behaved 'in my day'.

"Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book." - Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BCE.

We *don't* agree that your definitions of morality are self-evident or the best choices for mankind.

As for the initial debate on this page, and who owns the 'moral' choice, I notice that the conservative view leads to rich people keeping money, and the liberal view to providing healthcare to sick, poor children. I don't care what you interpret a text to say, I'll keep trying for the version that saves lives.

We all should not be afraid to admit there is/are fundamental (meaning basic) types of morality that all of mankind should live by. Not saying all should be yellow pencils in thought, culture, etc. It is evident around us that we have passed the rubicon with regard to morals, that is, we now embrace a lack of standards of the basic morals that are inherently good for all of us and would apply to all of us. And we all know what these are. Human morals. Respecting one another. Respecting the institution of marriage. Living life to benefit others as much as we do for ourselves. Not branded by any particular group or anything of the like. And that lack of standards is in the filth of pornography to the vilest of speech that lowers the potential character that mankind can have.

Regards, and good day.

An American:

If pagans appear averse to the use of the word 'morality', it's probably because it is used so often to mean "Christianity". The other assumption is that anything which comes from outside christianity cannot be 'moral', or that christians are inherently more moral than anyone else.

On the contrary, sanctimonious conservatives preaching 'morality' have been at the heart of the greatest harm in the past few centuries, and continue to be so. We are entirely justified of being wary of the word.

Morality is not the same as ethics, and our definition of it is probably very different to yours. I'd argue our version ends up doing more good in the real world, is psychologically healthier, and is based on exactly the same love for our fellow man.

Not so sharp, now, I guess.

"An American."

I'll tell you who's an American.

Could be someone who *doesn't* think she has only one life to give for her country.

If scorning me and my people will appease your need for an excuse to stop hurting people, then do so.

If that's not enough, that's neither our fault, nor our problem.

If you were to succeed in driving faithful Pagans underground again, this would not absolve you of the effects of what you do.

It never does.

But I don't think there's a Pagan heart among us that wouldn't *let* you, if it meant you would stop killing the future in the name of your self-proclaimed righteousness.

We did not ask for this kind of controversy.

But *you* have the power. The credibility gap is your own issue. You talk about 'absolute morality,' but it always ends up being a justification to hurt the poor, to hurt children, to hurt non-Christians, to hurt, hurt, hurt, hurt.

Then you claim you alone know mercy and forgiveness, but your knuckles get white whenever it comes to treating others like human beings.

Blame us, if it'll help.

But I observe it does not, and never has.

Capiche?

Cause, An American:

If you really need to hurt Pagans in order to *actually stop hurting children,*

I'm your huckleberry.

Do it. Defame all you want, if that's what it takes.

Just don't fool yourself like you haven't been hurting kids in the name of your 'Morality' all along.

Ever seen a kid with TB?

You may blame Non-Christians for it, but... Funny thing is, somehow I didn't see you there.

Moral guy.

" An American:

"An American:

"Alot of people on this thread seem to be repulsed by the word 'morality'."

That's probably because 'a lot' of people use the word to try and justify doing really hurtful things to innocents, ...because a lot of people say 'This is moral' before doing horribly *unethical* things, if not *just plain wrong things,* and then try to spin it as 'Moral.'

You *bet* it's repulsive.

As bumper stickers of the Seventies said:

"The Moral Majority

Is Neither."

Capiche?
How bout you let poor kids go to the doctor, then bash us for coming up with the idea.

Meanwhile.

*point*

Sick kids.

Christian.

Alot of people on this thread seem to be repulsed by the word 'morality'.

Go figure.

Well, actually, no, I misspoke, Anonymous.

I *don't* respect that position. In fact, I hold it in utter contempt.

With civility, I say, you are wrong.

But I do not respect what you say. I think it's a dodge, an excuse, a dishonesty, a fraud.

All I respect is you are a human saying it.

But I think it's horrible. And I think it hurts people. And I think you do not see the effects of what you say.

And I think you are afraid to.

And I cannot respect that.

Sorry.

"I respectfully disagree. I believe morality and ethics go hand in hand."

I respectfully state that if your lot were to get the ethics right, you could sputter about what you think 'morality' is all you want.

I've got nothing but mad love for this crazy world. Sometimes that's mad as in joyful, sometimes it's mad as in angry, but I try to make sure that what ever I feel and however I act or react, that it is based in love. Thanks for asking!

MAD LOVE:

Thank you also.

Just curious - tell me about your handle - Mad Love.

It's all semantics to me. Just do the right thing. Simple enough even a child could get it. Justify it anyway you need to. Just do the right thing.

Paganplace:

Thank you.

I see Ethics as something that the individual lives by, through their own inner guide and morality is something enforced from the outside.

terra

"Where there is no free agency, there can be no morality. Where there is no temptation, there can be little claim to virtue. Where the routine is rigorously proscribed by law, the law, and not the man, must have the credit of the conduct." [William H. Prescott, "History of the Conquest of Peru," 1847]

We have free will to take the actions we wish. It is up to us if we care about others. It is up to those Pro Lifers to really walk their talk and care about Kids outside of the womb.

It seems the pro choice folks believe everyone has a stake in the future. A healthy child will be a more productive adult.

It is all free will. If virture was easy we all would be perfect. It's a test...
terra

Im not sure where you are senseing any 'fun' I might be having in my remarks with regard to immorality, ethics, children and all else.

I respectfully disagree. I believe morality and ethics go hand in hand.

Regards

Im not sure where you are senseing any 'fun' I might be having in my remarks with regard to immorality, ethics, children and all else.

I respectfully disagree. I believe morality and ethics go hand in hand.

Regards

There *is,* however, a difference between *ethics* and "morality," inasmuch as people claim that 'morality' is an externally-imposed judgement.

Ethics relate to *at least* being internally-consistent amid an agreed-upon set of rules.

The distinction is *real,* as evidenced by the willingness of the 'moral' to *cheat,* to be... unfair and hypocritical, ...whoever it hurts... in the name of their 'Morality.'

Have to say, all I see is Christians claiming 'moral superiority' while dealing unethically in government...

Cause it's apparently a lot more fun to call people 'immoral' than actually care for children.

>>"If you had read my original post today, I concurred..children are the exception."

>>In what way do you express this 'exception?'

Pasted below is what I mentioned in my original post today:

...Children, until they reach adulthood, should have the parents to rely on for care. But, when that is not possible, society should provide for that need as best as possibe....

Regards

I stated above:

>>"Ethics is synonymous with morality."

Paganplace responds:

>>Not really

Merriam-Webster states:

ethical

Main Entry: eth·i·cal
Pronunciation: \ˈe-thi-kəl\
Variant(s): also eth·ic \-thik\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English etik, from Latin ethicus, from Greek ēthikos, from ēthos character — more at sib
Date: 1588
1: of or relating to ethics
2: involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval
3: conforming to accepted standards of conduct
4of a drug : restricted to sale only on a doctor's prescription
synonyms see moral
— eth·i·cal·i·ty \ˌe-thə-ˈka-lə-tē\ noun
— eth·i·cal·ly \ˈe-thi-k(ə-)lē\ adverb
— eth·i·cal·ness \-kəl-nəs\ noun

This is the base of the problem with our society. No morals, no ethics, no absolutes. There are some standards all must live by in the same way (no conservative, no liberal, no whatever applies) to have equal outcome for the family of man.

Believe me, I agree with your point with regard to children. I have three of my own. The problem lies with adults that have not held themselves to standards that would have ensured a better existence for our children.

Regards

"If you had read my original post today, I concurred..children are the exception."

In what way do you express this 'exception?'

Somehow I hear a lot of justifications for conservatives even *bringing up* the obedience to Christian tabooes of the parents when it comes to the simple question of, 'Should we care for children?' And not just by trying to take kids away from loving queer and Pagan parents for abuse by Fundies and calling it 'love.'

"Immorality can certainly be associated with what you have mentioned. Countless relationships based on premarital or extra-marital sex have ended up causing much greif for the very children spoken of."

And about half of those supposedly based on 'conservative family values' end up in even more grief. The more 'red' the state, in fact, the higher the divorce and abuse rate.

Why, again, did you bring up your 'values?'

"Ethics is synonymous with morality."

Not really. But continue gutting the education system, and more might think so.

"It is not ethical in our society for one to commit rape against another. Those that do not follow ethics and do not care for ethics disqualify themselves from matters of which we are speaking."

Funny how conservative Christians in Kansas and other places have tried to use force of law to force rape victims to carry children to term *and* allow their rapists full access to them and their child until the children are adults.

" Children, though, as I stated originally, do not fall under such."

Could have fooled me.

Should be very simple. If we have a trillion dollars to borrow-and-spend on Iraq, funny how we haven't had somewhat less to care for our own people.

Notice the pattern, there, btw? Conservatives claim that liberals want to 'tax-and-spend,' (whenever it comes to caring for people or even giving them the social security they *paid for* ... ...so instead they *just spend.* Let the people suck up the debt, and then blame the liberals for settling up *their* debts.

Somehow, amid all this wealth, health care profits are king, and conservatives claim it's about 'morality' when kids don't get health care.

There's no excuse. Not even for whatever reality you live in.

If you had read my original post today, I concurred..children are the exception.

Immorality can certainly be associated with what you have mentioned. Countless relationships based on premarital or extra-marital sex have ended up causing much greif for the very children spoken of.

Ethics is synonymous with morality. It is not ethical in our society for one to commit rape against another. Those that do not follow ethics and do not care for ethics disqualify themselves from matters of which we are speaking. Children, though, as I stated originally, do not fall under such.

Regards

How bout, Anonymous, we start with *not hurting children and denying them health care cause we believe 'sex without my Church's permission is immoral?'

It's a *child.* Look at them.

If what to do ain't obvious, don't talk to me about 'morality.'

>>Bringing on human suffering brings on human suffering.

Exactly. Immorality is one of the factors that brings/is bringing on human suffering.

Regards

"Immorality inherently brings on human suffering...doesnt require to be any ones side. Its been that way for time immemorial."

Nonsense.

Bringing on human suffering brings on human suffering.

You gonna sit in your wealth and deny sick kids medicine, or are you gonna blame the 'immorality' of parents who can't do any better?

Your choice.

The results are clear.

Calling others 'immoral' might salve what you call a conscience, but it's still *you.*

Watching kids suffer and trying to inflict more.

Pagans aren't known for calling much 'black and white,' but this one's just that simple. All prevarication aside.

I have mulled this issue over long enough now.

Suppose the Government mandated that all employed people carry health insurance administered by a private insurance carrier and partially subsidized by employers and the government in proportional shares. There could be a catastrophic level of insurance and several levels of buy-up in 5% increments up to 95% of total coverage. The catastrophic level would insure the basic needs such as immunizations, emergency care, needed surgery and hospital expenses. Buy-ups, depending on level of coverage could include cancer screenings, dental and vision insurance and specialized care such as provided by physical therpists, chiroprators, etc.

The American populace is large enough to spread the risk insurance companies carry over a large cross section of individuals. Liability would stay acceptable,premiums would be kept at an affordable level and the potential underwriting gain for insurers would still be profitable.

Immorality inherently brings on human suffering...doesnt require to be any ones side. Its been that way for time immemorial.

When a child becomes an adult, then responsibility starts with them (with regard to what they are 'owed' or better said 'eligible' for in regard to health care, etc) . If they live their lives recklessly, they reap what they sow. Children, until they reach adulthood, should have the parents to rely on for care. But, when that is not possible, society should provide for that need as best as possibe. Unfortunately, there are subcultures of those in the adolescent years that live just as recklessly as some adults...they need help before the adult world receives them.

Regards

I think the conservative Christian attacks we see here are entirely summed up by the words of Rev. Elliot in his column:

"The Republican side of me says the immoral should suffer."

When greed and a desire to see people who 'sin' (either by having sex without their permission or without being personally-rich) ...*suffer* coincide, we get the system we have now, where Christians are told there is a *conflict* between personal and societal responsibility for children.

In the Pagan view, there *is* no such conflict.

And anyone who tries to make it about their sense of righteousness does so at the expense of suffering people. Children.

Period.

The concept of sin comes with a concept of punishment and reward. We do not have a concept of Sin, punishment and reward in the same way that Christians think. There is no hell for punishment and heaven for reward, all after death.

We believe that doing wrong hits you now in the life you are living and the here, where you are.If you intentionally do wrong for greed, lust or power you will recieve what that earns you. We do not believe that manipulating others for power or to gain what you think you want, will bring anything but harm back to you. So it is stupid to go that route.

We have laws called Principles, Ordaines and Redes that give us the commonsence way to live in community. Our ethics create morals without the "thou shalt not's", because we are responcible for our actions, and we believe that the laws of nature and the universe, which are reflected in our laws, are active in the world. In other words it is better to do good then bad. Helping to make the world a better place for all of us is better then to care more for money (that is loseing value every day).

Like Athena said... we do not strive for perfection, only to be the best humans we can be, and to help others to achieve this goal also.

terra

Mad Love-

None taken. I've faced off with Canyon Shearer, Pablo, and other "True Believers". Haven't gotten scared yet. :-)

Wiccan, no offense meant, but I think what Chris REALLY wanted was an opening to scare with his burning Hell if we don't repent out evil ways and bath ourselves in the blood of his sacrificial lamb.

Great response, Athena.

If it harm none (responsibility)
Do what you will (freedom)

Responsibility comes first. It is impossible to live on this earth and harm none. Each Wiccan must use his/her judgement to act in a manner that brings about the least harm.

The Law of the Three-fold Return

This is what Chris really wants to know. Who punishes us if we do something bad? Ourselves? The universe? I don't know. I do know that if I make the deliberate decision to act in a manner that harms another, I will receive that harm back three times as strong.

These two concepts probably will be as hard to understand from a Christian viewpoint as "original sin" is for Wiccans.

Well, Wicca doesn't have the concept of "sin". Instead of trying to live up to an unattainable idea of perfection, we accept that we are Human Beings. Instead of a "thou shalt not" from some judgmental Man-in-the-sky, we have the concept of "If it harm none, do as you will." The most important part of that being HARM NONE. One can interpret that any way that they choose. If that means not eating meat, not wearing leather, or not swatting mosquitoes, that's for you to decide and to be consistent about. We also have the concept of "whatever you do comes back to you three times over." This is about as close to a deterrent to doing harm as one can get. It takes the Golden Rule one step further.

That doesn't mean that bad things don't happen to Wiccans. They do. But we forgive ourselves, move on, and try to do better the next time.

In matters of theurgy the god or goddess principle can represent whatever you need it too. So the question becomes: can you forgive yourself?

Barena raises a good point, and it applies to a realm far broader than abortion. She says that "Women who have chosen to have an abortion live with regret, guilt and sometimes profound psychological pain." I know firsthand that she is right, but it is the same with many other acts that some call morally wrong.

What I'm getting at is this: Starhawk insists that it is a "moral imperative" for us, or the government, or both, to support government-funded health insurance for children. Now if a Christian believes that, and still opposes it -- let's say out of sheer selfishness, and not prudential judgment -- if a Christian refuses to obey a "moral imperative," he commits a sin.

Now the Christian, recognizing his sin, might well "live with regret, guilt and sometimes profound psychological pain." She might long for forgiveness. And, the Christian firmly believes, Christ came to forgive, and to save, sinners.

So my question is, does (or can) the Goddess worshipped by Wiccans forgive sin?

Barena,

Really excellent post, thanks. You are correct: bringing abortion into a discussion of Starhawk's beautiful article is simply uncalled for. You are also correct, IMHO, in your views on abortion. I support choice, reluctantly, as the lesser of two evils.

Also, I am humbled that you have done more hands-on good works than most of us Christians (including me). Churches do good works, just not enough of them. And too many are just concerned with thousands of members and the resulting bigger cash flow. I would not come within a mile of a 'church' with an ATM in the lobby.

Arminius

Barena raises a good point, and it applies to a realm far broader than abortion. She says that "Women who have chosen to have an abortion live with regret, guilt and sometimes profound psychological pain." I know firsthand that she is right, but it is the same with many other acts that some call morally wrong.

What I'm getting at is this: Starhawk insists that it is a "moral imperative" for us, or the government, or both, to support government-funded health insurance for children. Now if a Christian believes that, and still opposes it -- let's say out of sheer selfishness, and not prudential judgment -- if a Christian refuses to obey a "moral imperative," he commits a sin.

Now the Christian, recognizing his sin, might well "live with regret, guilt and sometimes profound psychological pain." She might long for forgiveness. And, the Christian firmly believes, Christ came to forgive, and to save, sinners.

So my question is, does (or can) the Goddess worshipped by Wiccans forgive sin?

Barena raises a good point, and it applies to a realm far broader than abortion. She says that "Women who have chosen to have an abortion live with regret, guilt and sometimes profound psychological pain." I know firsthand that she is right, but it is the same with many other acts that some call morally wrong.

What I'm getting at is this: Starhawk insists that it is a "moral imperative" for us, or the government, or both, to support government-funded health insurance for children. Now if a Christian believes that, and still opposes it -- let's say out of sheer selfishness, and not prudential judgment -- if a Christian refuses to obey a "moral imperative," he commits a sin.

Now the Christian, recognizing his sin, might well "live with regret, guilt and sometimes profound psychological pain." She might long for forgiveness. And, the Christian firmly believes, Christ came to forgive, and to save, sinners.

So my question is, does (or can) the Goddess worshipped by Wiccans forgive sin?

Terra and Lep,

Oaken staves would be great, drums too. And mead? Wow! Yer talkin' my language!

Barena, good on you for fostering. I myself am a social worker in direct residential care and I know that the government doesn't make things easy for those in need of its benefits. I don't, however, think that gets them off the hook. Not that I think that your point. It's always going to be a matter of holding their feet to the fire to do the right thing. Efficiency might be asking for too much. Democracy is work, and I’m not even convinced that we’re going to have one for much longer.

To Chris and all....I am hoping that some of the people responding to Starhawk's article regarding children's healthcare AND the abortion debate going on here(which is totally a separate issue from Starhawk's piece) have some REAL LIFE and PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE obtaining healthcare for children in need and understand how difficult that can be EVEN with the government funded programs. Surely you do not think that the government makes it easy to get such benefits? If you do, you have never spent any time in a government social service office, have never fought for seriously needed services through Medicaid/Medicare for needy children and/or adults. Having fostered over 30 children , I can speak from experience. Without that funding, some of my kids would be dead and/or living life as very sick individuals. As far as abortion goes, UNTIL YOU ARE THE ONE making that decision on a personal level...BACK OFF. Abortion is never an easy decision, should never be used as a means of birth control...but unless you are the one making a decision to birth a severely damaged child, a child of rape or incest, a child giving birth to a child, or risking your own life to birth...you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Furthermore, again speaking from experience, parents with sick children live in fear and move in faith. Women who have chosen to have an abortion live with regret, guilt and sometimes profound psychological pain.It's not a pleasant choice or experience...I have spent many years studing Christianity and did practice it as my spiritual walk for many years. I was a Christian counselor to many. I can quote Scripture better than Jimmy Swaggert could before he "fell from Grace"...I RETURNED TO WICCA when the CHURCH failed miserably to perform the MOST BASIC of Christ's tenets....feed the poor. Dude, you want to get a food basket from your local church?? You'd better get in line, fill out the forms, be ready for the righteous to belittle you with a smirk on their face and a grimace at your clothing ...while they hand you a box of food
and pat themselves on the back because they are so "compassionate". But then again...nowadays, you had probably better attend a couple services first...just in case the disciples decide that they only can help those of their own congregation. I am WICCAN. Jesus was AWESOME. It's a real shame that his own people are missing the mark. Man, if your heaven does exist...Jesus is going to ream you all a new place to eliminate your bodily wastes. AMEN. MERRY MEET.

To Chris and all....I am hoping that some of the people responding to Starhawk's article regarding children's healthcare AND the abortion debate going on here(which is totally a separate issue from Starhawk's piece) have some REAL LIFE and PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE obtaining healthcare for children in need and understand how difficult that can be EVEN with the government funded programs. Surely you do not think that the government makes it easy to get such benefits? If you do, you have never spent any time in a government social service office, have never fought for seriously needed services through Medicaid/Medicare for needy children and/or adults. Having fostered over 30 children , I can speak from experience. Without that funding, some of my kids would be dead and/or living life as very sick individuals. As far as abortion goes, UNTIL YOU ARE THE ONE making that decision on a personal level...BACK OFF. Abortion is never an easy decision, should never be used as a means of birth control...but unless you are the one making a decision to birth a severely damaged child, a child of rape or incest, a child giving birth to a child, or risking your own life to birth...you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Furthermore, again speaking from experience, parents with sick children live in fear and move in faith. Women who have chosen to have an abortion live with regret, guilt and sometimes profound psychological pain.It's not a pleasant choice or experience...I have spent many years studing Christianity and did practice it as my spiritual walk for many years. I was a Christian counselor to many. I can quote Scripture better than Jimmy Swaggert could before he "fell from Grace"...I RETURNED TO WICCA when the CHURCH failed miserably to perform the MOST BASIC of Christ's tenets....feed the poor. Dude, you want to get a food basket from your local church?? You'd better get in line, fill out the forms, be ready for the righteous to belittle you with a smirk on their face and a grimace at your clothing ...while they hand you a box of food
and pat themselves on the back because they are so "compassionate". But then again...nowadays, you had probably better attend a couple services first...just in case the disciples decide that they only can help those of their own congregation. I am WICCAN. Jesus was AWESOME. It's a real shame that his own people are missing the mark. Man, if your heaven does exist...Jesus is going to ream you all a new place to eliminate your bodily wastes. AMEN. MERRY MEET.

Terra,

There's a liquor store near me that actually carries a decent mead. I'll pick up a bottle or four.

So now the Church is buying stock in Healthsouth,
or what, here? If you want healthy kids, shut
the TV off, and get em outside, working, moving,
doing, you don't need 40 billion dollars OR
religious literature to get that done, and
most kids already have coverage under their
families' plans. I think the healthcare 'crisis'
is just as much an artificial shortage as the
oil story. Political fakery to slice off another
slab of promissory debt is just more fraud.
The Church also has a lot of money, why don't
they drop some of that building some more of
those St./Our Lady of/Sister places? There
must be a lot of lettuce that moves through
the pews these days, especially with the ATM
in the lobby, um, do they have those VISA
wave things yet? If not, doubtless someone
will be along to get that installed as of this
writing...

How much did the HMO guy pay you to write this,
anyway? Hmmm...

Let's have more transparency and accountability
not ONLY in the healthscare field, but also
in the Church, please. No more building stuff
on Other People's Money. Hospitals would also
cost less if they left out the 25 million dollar
fountains and the 24-hour on-call ice carver
banquet guy...

Oh and I can contribute a drum and fire wood...any one got mead??

terra

I don't have a claymore or woad...but I have a good oak staff and some ink... ; )

terra

Lep, you said,
"Oops - my Southern is showing again - I made the Willie Nelson connection before I made the William Wallace connection."

That is an absolute classic, and got a grand chuckle here. A pity so few would understand.

Arminius -

Oops - my Southern is showing again - I made the Willie Nelson connection before I made the William Wallace connection.
I've got the Guinness. Now where's my cane knife?
;)

Chris,
Re: your post November 4, 2007 1:38 PM

Only legislation has put in place the moral pillars necessary to make a moral society.

The religions have been a complete failure since the invention of "faith".

Witness that the "good christians" in Southern States stopped lynching blacks as laws were enacted to exact a price IN THIS LIFE for immoral behaviour.

Note that even the "good christian" mormons toed the line when the Great Society legislation was enacted. Now black males can "hold the priesthood". (well as long as they pay their money).

Nooses?

They have never been out of style among the hypocritical, southern and midwestern, "good christian", rednecks; but, Blacks are now protected from these "good christians".

The point.
Legislation is responsible for raising the bar of morality, i.e. conservatives are forced to be moral via threat of prosecution.

Health Care?
"good christians" have done nothing to provide for children's health care except as it has provided a tax deduction for the wealthy.

The "inconvenient truth"?

The churches use donations to further their existence, not for charity as Jesus encouraged.

Sadly, an immoral society tends to vote for immoral candidates, e.g. George Bush and the majority of republicans.

Nevertheless, little by little, we achieve a more moral society via legislation (FDR, JFK, LBJ) - not faith (we also lose morality via legislation Hitler, Lenin, Reagan, Bushes 1 & 2).

Oh, c'mon, Lep! You are right, of course, but join in the fun. Anyway,the plan is for everyone to show up in costume, anointed with woad, with a weapon (plastic swords are fine), and bearing food and drink. It is to be singing and dancing, in celebration of the Creation.

Wiccan sure as hell is on the woad again. I, the Liberal Christian support, am sharpening my claymore and trying to figure out where the hell I put that blue stuff.... A Bellandaine!

Athena:

The life I love is making magic with my friends...

I think that Wiccan is on the woad again. Just can't wait to get on the woad again... ;)

Chris, you are "pro-life". I assume that this means that you want abortion to be outlawed, correct? This means that the Government has a vested interest a woman bearing a healthy baby that will someday be a productive member of society. How would you like your taxes to be raised so that all of these mothers will have adequate pre-natal care, so that their babies will be healthy? If not, how much of your tax dollars are you willing to spend to fund indefinite stays in neo-natal care units, for those babies who aren't born perfect and at nine months? Are you willing to pay for infant child care so that these (presumably) unwed mothers can return to work/school after they give birth? Are you willing to pay for improvements to the adoption and foster care system? How about educating all of them? Oh, let's just dump them into the public school system and hope that they'll learn something. And, of course, if those children don't grow up to be productive members of society, are you willing to pay extra tax dollars for prisons, juvenile detention facilities, the court system, homeless shelters, drug rehab facilites, etc.?

I didn't think so. Come back to me with your anti-choice arguements when we live in a perfect society.

Chris,
You talked of China's one child policy. Well that policy has been ignored lately...But the reason behind it was for the welbeing of the people in China. They were over populated and the children alive were dieing of starvation and disease. Disease that is caused by too many people and not enough land.

It reminds me of when my mother was very ill...she had a brain tumor, surgery caused a bleeder, a stroke and coma followed. After 7 months she woke...not my mom any more. But to make a very long story short...7 years later the doctor tells me that I have a decision to make. Either take her off antibiotics now ( that is what was keeping her alive) or remove the feeding tube later. Ok what to do? She was dying day by day, being kept alive by chemicals, by machines, by the magick of tecnology. I chose.

China's people were dying, day by day...not enough land to grow food. Too many babies that would grow up to have more babies, babies that would suffer and die. So a limit was imposed that is now being lifted. Now that they understand about family planning and limits being neccessary for the life of those alive and the future.

So those folks who use China in their talking points need to educate themselves in the reasons behind hard decisions that have to be made.

Chris, why can not those who spout the guff think first. You all like to think you are more moral and better then others. That is ego and pride..last I heard a sin.
terra

There is no rational avenue to a decision not to provide health care to children (SCHIP) and, indeed, to the citizens of America. Governments are formed for the common good---at least OURS was, way back then. So how is it, really, that withholding needed medical care for any American helps to make this great country endure?

If Christianity stands for anything it's this:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Jesus was and is the Hope of the World. And this includes things like health insurance for children.

Well Chris, I can't help but wonder why in this great charitable Christian nation of ours the subject of healthcare is even an issue. I'm sure it has something to do with the Liberals not allowing the Christians such as yourself to provide for the needy. By the way, since it is obviously the duty of charitable Christians, and not our tax dollars or government, to provide healthcare for those who can not afford it, I'm sure you will have no problem with providing your phone number so that anyone reading this who can not afford health care can call you up for a charitable donation?

Short of that perhaps we should tax the snot out of churches and use the money for universal healthcare.

(Of course, most pagans would agree with you that America's foreign policy is murderous and obscene, and that the current government is corrupt and tyrannical. But then, the rest of the World thinks that too.)

Chris:
Well, that would be just about every strawman from "Compassionate Conservatism" then. I don't know what made you think Wiccans are automatically 'liberals' or pro-abortion, but since I'm from the UK and therefore automatically to the left of you, let's take some of those fallacies in turn:

Taking away social security and relying on charity has been tried, briefly. People starve. Opposition tends not to come from "you're not letting me practice true morality' but from 'the government shouldn't be taking my money'. Organised social security through taxes doesn't neutralise the true meaning of it, it just makes it organised and guaranteed. Feel good when you pay them.

Immigration is a big issue in the UK right now, so research has been done. Immigrants pay contribute MORE tax, work harder, and fill the gaps in our low-paying jobs that no-one else wants to do. Uncontrolled, illegal immigration is a problem, but is not the cause of overpopulation.

I'm interested to see you're in favour of personal choice, but only when it comes to keeping money. I don't think you'd enjoy being called "pro-choice".

Single parent families have been shown to be exactly as healthy for children as two-parent families (where the parents are straight or gay). The difference it seems, is money. Education, personal well-being: all depend on money and not number of parents. Its much healthier for children to be with a loving single parent than a couple who are abusive, or permanently arguing, or trapped in a loveless marriage, or both out working double jobs anyway and not seeing the kid. It's NEVER about 'single' or 'both', it's about a *relationship*.

>>"Abortion is only one of many attacks on the seamless garment of life. "

I'm interested to hear what else makes up this seamless garment. I have a funny feeling it involves Christian morality and the nuclear family being the best building-block for society. Since that model didn't exist before the industrial revolution (when the father could support a whole family for the first time and everyone else could stay at home), this has been shown to be a fallacy too.

NONE of which has anything to do with paganism, wicca, or Starhawk. I don't know why you assume pagans are pro-abortion, or pro-single parents, or left-wing. Starhawk is arguing for socialised *healthcare*, which is one area where charity is often too infrequent and inadequate to provide for the poor. She is still an individual and the umbrella of 'paganism' is much larger than wicca. (Some Asatru I've met have been much more conservative, for example.)

(Puts down pot of woad and admires application.)

Chris-

First, please tell me you live in Kentucky. Or any other state but our fair Commonwealth of Virginia. It sounds like you're coming from way outer space.

Let's see: "And so, I reiterate: true morality is exercised only in freedom. Coercion destroys freedom and vastly curtails free choice."

So because members of the community have agreed that certain actions are immoral (murder, robbery, theft, etc.), and to protect the commonwealth (I love that word) of their community that these actions are proscribed, and that sanctions will be passed upon those members of the community that commit these actions, (takes deep beath) we cannot make truly moral choices because of these proscriptions and their sanctions? (Henry James, can you imagine trying to diagram that sentence?)

"I asked about the unborn not only because they are the most innocent and helpless among us, but also because the courts have insisted that **only** personal choice can apply there -- and so, for my money, that's where real morality is most tested. (Who is it that said, "morality is what you do when nobody's looking"?)."

First, your statement assumes that the only moral choice would be not to have an abortion. I do not have enough information about the reasons each woman who has had an abortion used to make her choice, so I cannot make that assumption. (Neither do you.) I've tried to find out if any state in America allows completely unrestricted abortions until the day before birth, but have been unsuccessful. However, by your reasoning, since at least some states have restrictions on abortions, the women in those states who chose not to have an abortion were incapable of making a moral choice because of those restrictions. Wonder what they would think of that.

"Abortion is only one of many attacks on the seamless garment of life. Those politicians who are promising you "choice" have already spent your (and my) Social Security payments, Wiccan, and they're just printing money out of thin air to dole out the monthly payments. I tried to opt out from my first job and save for myself - but it was MANDATORY (are you getting the message yet?).

So I'll just take back what I put in, adjusted for inflation and no interest, and yes, I'll give up all my rights to future "benefits."

Oh, but that would be terrible -- it means individual CHOICE !!"

History:
A limited form of the Social Security program began as a measure to implement "social insurance" during the Great Depression of the 1930s, when poverty rates among senior citizens exceeded 50%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29

Well, here I can feel your pain. The community decided it was immoral to have over half of their elders impoverished, and, as directed by the Constitution: "to provide for the general welfare", voted to tax themselves to make provisions for the aged poor. Since then, provisions have been made for children and the disabled. Social Security was never a retirement plan, it was to ensure the basic welfare of these unfortunates. Now, this takes money from your pocket, and because you have been coerced, you have been robbed of your chance to make a moral choice of whether or not to help them. By YHWH, how could they?

"Ah, contradiction." I quite agree.

"And if we're interested in repairing the damage to children's health, especially poor children, let's admit (the evidence is overwhelming) that the majority of children in poverty live in single-parent households. Now THAT is a situation that all of us, however we feel about abortion, can address, right? Without the government getting involved at all?"

By Bright Brigid, with the charity you have shown in your posts, I truly fear how you would address that situation.

Ave, Wiccan!

Don't have the woad handy, alas!, but I can lay my Celtic hands on a two-handed sword real fast!

Starhawk positively oozes compassion, and dovetails well with the Christian message of love. These ideas Chris seems to have missed.....

Arminius

Thanks for all the feedback, folks. I note with interest that, while everybody here is interested in humanity and children, nobody wants to face the music and define either term. And once you start letting the government define certain living persons (and not only the unborn) out of the human race because of their temporary or even permanent condition, you are inviting disaster - and slaughter.

When we grow old and feeble, some of us might not want to "be a burden." Fine. Well, what if you don't mind growing old gracefully, but the **government** doesn't want you to be a burden, and cuts off your medical care? Or what if your retarded or autistic child is considered unworthy of government expenditures when government pays all our insurance bills (and writes the regs)?

With regard to the comment observing that churches are devoted mostly to their own membership, I disagree. Many religious congregations exercise tremendous charity (worthy of the name because it is VOLUNTARY not MANDATORY), and the clincher is, **nobody draws a salary.** They are all volunteers, and they know their neighbors in need, and no government bureaucrat is in the middle calling the shots. I know of one small parish in Kentucky with fewer than 200 families that sustains over 300 poor families (not members) in the community. THAT is true charity in action. No government need apply.

And so, I reiterate: true morality is exercised only in freedom. Coercion destroys freedom and vastly curtails free choice. I asked about the unborn not only because they are the most innocent and helpless among us, but also because the courts have insisted that **only** personal choice can apply there -- and so, for my money, that's where real morality is most tested. (Who is it that said, "morality is what you do when nobody's looking"?).

Any other beefs? Oh, overpopulation. Have you noticed that the US population of 1970 and its progeny are at exactly the same level today as they were then? The additional 130 million are from immigrants, legal and illegal, and their progeny.

The sufferings of people in the rest of the world are not due to overpopulation, but to coercive, tyrannical, and often murderous governments, dozens of which have been on the take from US foreign aid (your money) for decades (with bipartisan support, I might add).

China's forced abortion policy (one child only is permitted per family) means that children grow up with no siblings and even no cousins! This assures millions of isolated, unconnected talent that the state can easily control.The vibrant, intact family is always the first target of a budding dictator.

Abortion is only one of many attacks on the seamless garment of life. Those politicians who are promising you "choice" have already spent your (and my) Social Security payments, Wiccan, and they're just printing money out of thin air to dole out the monthly payments. I tried to opt out from my first job and save for myself - but it was MANDATORY (are you getting the message yet?).

So I'll just take back what I put in, adjusted for inflation and no interest, and yes, I'll give up all my rights to future "benefits."

Oh, but that would be terrible -- it means individual CHOICE !!

Ah, contradiction.

And if we're interested in repairing the damage to children's health, especially poor children, let's admit (the evidence is overwhelming) that the majority of children in poverty live in single-parent households. Now THAT is a situation that all of us, however we feel about abortion, can address, right? Without the government getting involved at all?

Keep'em coming, God bless you all, happy Sunday!

ResponsetoChrisInwein-

Excellent post; much better than mine. Chris seems to have his "abortion goggles" on. And his "I'm more moral than you" suit. Twit.

Hail, Arminius!

Pompous bleep-bleeps like Chris bring out my bad side. How dare he judge Starhawk by words she did not say? Another post like his last one and I'm getting out the woad.

Chris Inwein,

Your ideology apepars to be to proclaim suffering as not "important" -- what matters most is whether one passes an individual "test" of morality to get to heaven. Reality is just the temporary "game" we play in the mean time.

Churches are not structured to help the poor in a significant way. They more often focus helping "their own local base of believers" (and sometimes not even that) plus proseltyzing to add believers to their base -- than truly helping the poor.

Christianty also teaches that you don't have to do good works -- you must only "believe" the correct doctrine at the moment before you die to get into heaven.

I see you care more about abortion and
"Potential Humans" (Translation: souls) than real human beings. You ignore the fact that there is already a very serious overpopulation problem in the world that is causing a huge strain on the Earth's resources and environment at an accelerating rate (and which will impoverish future generations even worse than this one.)

Get out as many souls on the planet as possible, and then tough luck after that -- starve or die of lack of medical intervention -- who cares! is your ideology. The results are not important since life is just a game.

My ideology is to strive to make the world a better place for future generations. In my view, your belief system does the OPPOSITE of this -- makes the REAL world a worse place for future generations.

Which one of our systems is more moral? It would appear to be based on the definitions of the word moral -- is it based on making this world better for future generations -- or a hypothetical world of heaven than no one has any hard proof really eixsts!

Wiccan,

Sometimes you can be scary! But you are absolutely correct. Keep it up, I'm with you. I was thinking of replying to poor Chris, but you did it better.

And, oh yeah - Chris, I am Christian.

Arminius

Chris-

Your post is so full of straw you could make a scarecrow. Actually, you did. If you can show me where Starhawk has advocated abortion in her post I will shut up. You seem to be saying that if the citizens of the US decide, through their representatives, to fund programs where PRIVATE NOT GOVERNMENT insurance is made available to parents in need, we are not acting morally. The best I can make from your post is that if the government helps to fund private insurance the parents can no longer make moral decisions about their child's care, and that only in the case of abortion do we have the capacity to make a moral choice.

Let's take her essay paragraph by paragraph.

>>Our spiritual tradition sees the sacred as The Goddess, the Great Mother of all, and there can be no greater moral imperative than to care for the young and to nurture the next generation. Not just for our own biological children—but for all, and for the health of the environment that supports life, for we are all interconnected and interdependent

You say: "To support government health care for children is a "moral imperative." To oppose it is, apparently, unthinkable and vile."

No mention of "government" health care being morally imperative. Because "we are all interconnected and interdependent" Starhawk believes is a "moral imperative" for us to care for and nurture all children and the environment they grow up in.

>>No one gets through life without loss and sorrow, without times when grief overwhelms our ability to cope, without some instances of bad luck, injury or disease. It is our responsibility as a community to share the burdens, not to let them fall on individuals or isolated families, and especially, not to let them fall on children who have the least resources with which to meet them

You say:

"Would it be immoral for us to neglect our children, including their health care, whether the government promised to do it for us or not?"

Where do you get this? Starhawk talks of helping others when they can't help themselves. Ever heard of the phrase "Am I my brother's keeper"? The God of the Christians seemed to think so.

"Once a government program commences, our voluntary participation is over: it is now mandatory, required by law. At that point, our ability to make a moral decision (in freedom and in harmony with the natural law or the harmony of the universe and the music of the spheres) is severely diminished."

So if the government says that something is moral, we may no longer decide whether that something is moral? I think the war in Iraq is immoral, and came to that decision even though the government wants to pursue this insanity.

>>Something is terribly wrong with our values and priorities when we spend billions of dollars to kill and begrudge the cost of healing and care for children, and for adults.

You say:

"A government by definition forces us to do things we would not do voluntarily, say the libertarians. Tell me Starhawk, would we take care of our children without government programs? Should we? Or is it morally preferable to be required to do so by public law?"

Pure straw. We are already required to do so by public law. Obviously, enough citizens willingly decided that taking care of our children IS moral, and to the public's benefit, to encode this into law.

>>And if you ask, “Why should I provide health care or education for other peoples’ children?” consider this:
You are caring for the future doctors and nurses who may someday care for your children and grandchildren. You are caring for the farmers, the teachers, the truck drivers, the inventors of new technology, the employers, the workers, the scientists, the artists, the dancers, the engineers, the ambulance drivers, and those who will elect the public servants and vote on the laws that will shape the world your children and grandchildren live in.

Here's where you try to leap over the Grand Canyon by saying that only in the area of abortion do we have the capacity to make a moral decision, and you fail as miserably as Evel did. Your argument fails here because the state governments already regulate abortion, and by your reasoning, have taken the capacity from their citizens to make a moral decision about abortion. Besides, why do you think that Starhawk (or any other Pagan) automatically supports abortion as a right?

So, Chris, your scarecrow is burning away merrily. May the Goddess bless you with some wisdom, or at least wit. By the way, I await your assurances that you will not avail yourself of Social Security and Medicare, since they are government programs and therefore immoral.

Starhawk,

I am not religious-- but I find you FAR more spiritual and moral than recent Christians guests posting here.

Thank you for your voice.

Thanks to all for your various gracious responses. I think I get the drift here: that government should take care of children is so fine a maxim that it is beyond rational discussion -- in fact, it deserves only high-flying and poetic praise like that in Starhawk's original post.

To support government health care for children is a "moral imperative." To oppose it is, apparently, unthinkable and vile.

It was Starhawk, not I, who introduced the concept of morality. I took her at her word. Morality is a concept, not a feeling. Concepts can be discussed. I took the blog rules at their word: "We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge" Starhawk's contributions.

A government by definition forces us to do things we would not do voluntarily, say the libertarians. Tell me Starhawk, would we take care of our children without government programs? Should we? Or is it morally preferable to be required to do so by public law?

Would it be immoral for us to neglect our children, including their health care, whether the government promised to do it for us or not?

Once a government program commences, our voluntary participation is over: it is now mandatory, required by law. At that point, our ability to make a moral decision (in freedom and in harmony with the natural law or the harmony of the universe and the music of the spheres) is severely diminished.

Ah, but for lovers of children -- and Starhawk is evidently an eloquent one-- there is one realm where we can still act morally, because the government does not force us to: that realm is the world of the unborn child.

The question follows quite logically: since government programs are by nature mandatory (to contravene them is illegal), what areas of activity are left to the individual, where his or her own moral decisions can prevail?

And the answer is, the unborn child. The government will let you bear it, and the government will not prevent you from ... "eliminating the products of conception" [killing it] -- right up to the moment before birth.

Aha! Here is a true realm of freedom for lovers of children and their health! Finally, in a world full of laws, it is up to -- US !!

That realm of freedom is where morality begins. And morality ends when actions are taken involuntarily (as in, being forced by government mandate).

And so, I asked (and I persist in asking, like the Little Prince, to get an answer to my original question), Starhawk, here is the true realm of freedom, where morality actually has a role, where freedom allows real choice. Your "moral imperative" regarding government health care was misplaced and, on inspection, also bad terminology: actually, you want a government mandate. But that coercion **removes** morality, it does not enhance it.

So Please tell me, Starhawk, now that we are in the truly moral territory of "choice," now that your individual moral decision can actually **affect** a child's health -- in fact, her very continued existence -- saving her from a death she did not chose and would fight against [the sonograms abound that show the babies fighting the abortionist's needle], will you now please take a stand where morality is truly at stake? Or will you continue to hide behind your government "imperatives" and dress them up with moral language that is, yes, self-congratulatory (and your readers have indeed saluted you), but also deceptive and, in the end, profoundly fraudulent?

I will stay tuned.

Continued blessings upon all of God's children,

Chris

Chris: If unborn children are valuable and important enough to override another human's right to decide who may or may not use her own body and body parts, then why aren't born children?
Are you prepared to declare that every child has the right to use his or her parents' organs, blood supply, and other body parts at any time of need, regardless of the parents' consent or of any consequences to the parents, including permanent mutilation or death?
If not, why do you believe that a child's value and worth diminish so sharply once that child is born? Or is it that an adult's worth and their rights over their body are worth considering only when male adults are involved? Or that organ donation, unlike pregnancy, can't be used by the self-righteous to punish women for having sex or being raped?

I'm still trying to figure out how he took Starhawk's words about health care for children and made the leap to abortion. Evel Knieval would have been proud of that leap.

Wiccan,
Mr. James is right...Barney Frank is a courages man and smart with a cutting wit, and you had the good sense to repeat his quote.

Chris is ignorant, it's not his fault...

He thinks that government is the probelem so he votes for folks that prove out his view.

He thinks that the 1950's when abortions were done in back rooms and women died, was a better time.After all that was when men were men and women wore pearls and heels while washing the dishes and scrubing the floor. Ahhh...and nothing was expected from men but that they bring home the bacon.Oink.

He's a bigot when it comes to religion and human dignity.

It's not his fault...he has been spiritually and politically stunted.

I also think he has a probelm with reading comprehension....poor man.
terra

Wiccan
I know how you feel. they are always attributing William's quotes to me.

But you had the taste to pass Barney's bon mot on to the rest of us.

cheers
hj

Henry-

I wish I could claim that phrase as mine. The Hon. Barney Frank is to be credited. I merely recognized their truth.

Press Release: The Henry James Literary Achievement Award Winner is Announced

and the winner is...

Wiccan

for the wickedly clever and insightful and powerful formulation of The Conservative Mantra (notice, Chris, that I capitalize Conservative":

": "The right to life begins at conception and ends at birth"."

The sentence literarily (sic) took my breath away.

Congratulations Wiccan. Above even your usual high standard.

Chris writes:
“Trying to make a government moral is like trying to make your garden grow without watering it.”
Thanks for settling the Waterboarding Torture question for us, Chris. No moral question there: no problem
(sound of painful laughter).

And then he gets to his real agenda: the abortion debate. Yes Chris, all of your disputants here are baby killers.

Your last two paragraphs do indicate that some psychiatric help would be useful to you. My brother William is a Psychology professor at Harvard: he could probably recommend a good practicioner for you.

Love
Henry

Chris-

You're the one who is schizophrenic:

"And don't call it human if you are willing to hand over to the government the health of future generations, and take money from other people (taxes), as well as their freedom of choice, to do so -- but think it's fine (no moral imperative there!) that something you might actually be able to do yourself -- save your unborn child's life -- is "odious and inhumane." Please, let us not enshrine schizophrenia on any altar, even if it's pagan."

It's a sin (socialism) if you support helping poor children to have health insurance, because it denies your countryman his freedom of choice about how to spend his money (taxes). Yet the personal decision to have a child is not covered by that same freedom of choice. And can you tell me how moral it is to have a baby and then not be able to provide him/her with basic health care?

I am totally against the war in Iraq, but the government has no problem spending the huge chunk of money they take from my paycheck on an unjust war waged for insane reasons. Where is my freedom of choice? Well, you did say that you could not make the governemnt moral. This is even more true with Bush and his cronies in charge.

Also, our esteemed Mr. James did not say saving an unborn child's life was odious and inhumane; he said your post was. Please don't misquote him. In fact, your whole post is a strawman arguement, calling Starhawk out for words she did not say.

If I may repost my words from Cal Thomas's thread:

The conservative mantra: "The right to life begins at conception and ends at birth".

It's as simple as this: We can accomplish more together than we can alone. You know, like "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, ...".

Seems to me that ensuring that every child has access to basic health care falls under "promote the general welfare". Or are those just pretty words to be trotted out every 4th of July and put in mothballs the rest of the time?

These days Pagan is a proper noun. Therefore it should be given such respect, accordingly. Or should we only capitalize Catholicism, Protestantism or Lutheranism but not christianity?

We get it. You use a book we do not. Please learn something about us before coming here and throwing bible quotes at us. It doesn't work. And Starhawk has said nothing about abortion but about taking care of the children that are currently around. And that is up to all of us.

Dear Terra, Henry, et al:

It is not Ms. Starhawk's grammar that I question -- rather, it's her logic. Her ardent prose exults: Everything is beautiful, so let the government run medicine. Folks, that is a classic non sequitur (although sentimentally indulged -- that is, with feeling, not rationality - so perhaps she insists it is permissible. After all, one cannot argue with a feeling).

Now don't blame me for raising the issue of morality. Ms. Starhawk already did. Her paean of praise tells us that the government's provision for the future children of the world is a "moral imperative."

Well, morality refers to personal decisions. Trying to make a government moral is like trying to make your garden grow without watering it. Now, Ms. Starhawk appears to base her "moral imperative" on the beauty and inherent, undeniable value of children. Correct? Or does she just love government?

I will accept that. So I rephrased Ms. Starhawk's emphatic embrace of future children in a way that reflects personal, and not distant government, morality. If her "moral imperative" is not to collapse into silly, self-indulgent, socialist sentimentalism, so must she.

Hence it is not only logical, but also imperative that I, so to speak, tap Ms. Starhawk on her shoulder and point out her non sequitur, and a possible path of reparation. Horrors!

Apparently Ms. Starhawk and her fans would rather keep moral questions far from home, so that can slap each other on the back about their mutual morality. Well, be my guest, but don't call that logical. Or moral.

And don't call it human if you are willing to hand over to the government the health of future generations, and take money from other people (taxes), as well as their freedom of choice, to do so -- but think it's fine (no moral imperative there!) that something you might actually be able to do yourself -- save your unborn child's life -- is "odious and inhumane." Please, let us not enshrine schizophrenia on any altar, even if it's pagan.

And oh, yes -- pagan is not a proper noun; Druid is. So is Himmler, whose elite military cadres secretly worshipped the Nordic gods. And so were the Athenian cults, whos gods Socrates rejected **because** of agape, that love which is reserved for THE Divine (and which does not allow for multiple divinities. Neither did the God of Moses: "I am the Lord they God. Thou shalt not have false gods before me." Maybe Moses and Socrates were on to something).

Socrates also pointed out how all men (not just Athenians) are brothers, and how they are erotically (eros) inclined by nature to reject false gods and embrace philosophy, the path of love of the Truth (and that IS a proper name: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" - John 1:1).

Blessings!

Chris

Chris

congratulations for posting just about the most odious and inhumane and Christian-Centrist entry on this site in weeks.

Ms Witch???

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Starhawk has been more sensible, loving, historically informed, and respectful of other traditions (whether they deserve it or not) or any commentator on this site over the past 5 months.

You are an embarressment to yourself and to your tribe, whatever it is.

Love
Henry

Chris,
Since the question was about Health care and not abortion that is what Starhawk wrote about.

As far as Caritas, charity was not invented by Christians. Agape, the ancient Pagan Greek word for divine disinterested love, is a favored word by the church.

You seem to look down on Pagans..can I ask you why?Do you know any?

As far as Starhawk being a trendy Pagan? LOL...well if we have become trendy, Great! Because it would be nice not to have people comeing to us and claiming they are better then we are...and fobbing their arrogance onto being of any certain religion. What makes you think we all believe the same thing? I happen to be Pro Choice...I have no idea how Starhawk feels about it. And the word is Choice.

And...The Washington Post and News Week came to Starhawk to join their panalists. Why? Because she has something to say..and says it beautifully with love and compassion.She is also a writer, an activist and one of many leaders in the Pagan community...so makes a good representative of the rest of us.

Oh and Chris, Pagan is a Proper Noun, so if you will at least capitalize it for the proper grammer if not in respect. There are commentors here of many different religions that fall under the umbrella of Pagan.

Thank you,
terra

Fascinating that a trendy pagan is so supportive of government health care ... and that she identifies our personal charity with government spending.

Well, Caritas is a Christian virtue, and she's a pagan, so ... well, let me ask, how would she react to a reading of her last paragraph thus:

"Please let your unborn baby live. Don't abort her. She may one day be the future doctor or nurse who may someday care for you, your children and grandchildren. She may someday be the the farmer, the teacher, the truck driver, the inventor of new technology, the employer, the worker, the scientist, the artist, the dancer, the engineer, the ambulance driver, the Sister of Charity (Mother Teresa's order), that will shape the world your children and grandchildren live in."

Now THAT is personal charity, Ms. Witch. Not fobbing it off on the government and being proud of yourself for getting into the Post.

Remember: they're babies. And they can do so many wonderful things if we let them live.

MMe. Hawk of the Star?

Of course it was you...! don't let William take credit, siblings are such pains sometimes.

I think I don't regret a single 'excess' of my responsive youth-I only regret, in my chilled age, certain occasions and possibilities I didn't embrace.
Henry James

That is a favorite of mine. It is so true.
terra

oooooooo Terra

your new-fangled internet

credits me with the quote 4 times on the first Google page

and credits *Brother William* 5 times.

!!!!!!!!!!!

Now I will have to go fight with William AGAIN,
this time for the credit.

It is so profound, it MUST have been me, not him.

Terra

now that I'm dead,
my memory isn't what it was,

but even I am stunned by the profundity
or my own words,
which I had forgotten.

Thank you for the gift of remembrance.

Peace,

Henry

Dear Starhawk:

You are a sane voice. Why should I care for other people's children?

They will answer my 911 call when I have a heart attack, if they have the training. If they don't, may (The) God(s) help me. No one else will know how.

Peace go with you in your travels.

Lord yes, the Bard. The Golden Age of the English language. Never surpassed, never equaled.

"Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows." (The Tempest.) I feel that way about some threads in On Faith, but not this one so far.

Henry James...
Do you remember this:
Be not afraid of life. Believe that life is worth living, and your belief will help create the fact.

Your own words...

Merry Meet, Merry Part...Merry Meet Again!

terra

Henry James,

The words of the Bard are certainly well met by us Pagans. The original Bards understood and made great use of the study of language and the power of words. Today-We love language- in all forms and colors.

I adore Shakespeare.. and Poe.. and so many others. Your own as well.

Blessed be. :)

a literary aside, if i may.

I note the greeting "merry meet". etc.

in Midsummers' Night Dream, the character Oberon, upon meeting his estranged lover at night at an inopportune momemt, says

"Ill met by moonlight, proud Titania"

(Titania is the Queen of the Fairies).

a lovely Paganistic resonance in that line, one of my favorites.

MMA Starhawk!

As always, right on the money. The way the politicians treat children in this country is abominable. To even have this debate about 'how many' and 'whose children' we should cover shows that they don't get it. If we are to have ANY hope for the future, then we have to protect our children. All of them.

Steve B: Agreed, and well put.

Blessed be!

Starhawk, well met!

Once again I am moved by the beauty and compassion of your message. As a Christian, I can say without doubt that there is a profound similarity in your words with the teachings of a guy called Jesus.

Or, as said by someone else:
"The foundation of civilization is: Women and Children first!"
- - Lazarus Long (see Heinlein)

Keep it up, and God bless,

Arminius

Merry meet, again, Starhawk!

You have a gift and you again shared it with us today.

I wholeheartedly agree with you! Your kind and generous nature is once again shining through.

Blessed be!

We don't even need the last paragraph's appeal to self-interest for the future. The real answer to

"Why should I provide health care or education for other peoples’ children?"
is

"Because otherwise you fail as a human being."

Pagans see nature as sacred, and that includes the life within it, and mankind. It stuns me sometimes to see people on US conservative forums ask "Why should I spend any of MY money? What do I get out of it?" on subjects like healthcare. We should do it because we are not separate from everyone else, and we only have the luxury of being unaffected by their suffering if we're sociopathic or criminally selfish.

Once again Starhawk's words contain more kindness and charity for others than the last 10 posts by Chuck Colson or Cal Thomas.

Breathtaking,
as Stars and Hawks and made to be

an exquistely humane and spiritual.

Greetings Starhawk,
I am so glad you joined in on this subject. I am rather nonplused on how any society can feel that the health of their children depends on the greed of others. I watched the debates about SCHIP on cspan... and i have seen the other side state the lies right from the floor...after reading the bill and knowing they were lieing.

How do we get past that?

You, as ever have balance and thought in your statement. We have to care about our children, they will one day, as you say,be our future...the foundation we are forming today we will be seeing and living in tomorrow.

My tradition has a motto that says it pretty good..
From the roots of the past we carry the seeds of future.

Blessed Be,
terra

Starhawk:

I love the last paragraph. Absolutely brilliant.