Some years ago, a young Frenchman who was staying with a neighbor while studying at the School of Mines in Golden, walked over to my house as I worked in the yard. He was proud of his country. Health care was nationalized; education was free; women had the right to abortion; France, he proudly announced, was not a slave to religion: in his enlightened homeland, faith had nothing to do with politics.
The poor young man did not know that he had walked into a buzz saw. I asked him: “So, religion has no role in society?” “Not in the public square, no. God has no place in politics.” I continued: “And what are your laws based upon?” “Upon justice.” I insisted: “Who says what is just? Who decides what is right and what is wrong?” The young man looked down at me from his superior height and proudly announced: “The philosophers.” I’m not so easily silenced, so I persisted: “Which philosopher?”
After all, I DID study philosophy in college, and know that each philosopher has a different notion of what is right and wrong; and variations on the same theme are infinite. Not only are they infinite, but each philosopher firmly believes that his theories encompass the best definition of what is right and wrong for mankind. Therefore, I was curious to see how my visitor would get out of his dilemma. Not surprisingly, the young man looked at me, metaphorically scratched his head and remembered that he had to go study for a test.
That young Frenchman is not the only one who has repeated the silly words: “Division of Church and state” without thinking of their ultimate meaning. Even those who do not believe in God have the ability to realize that without a solid moral base a civil society cannot exist!
Then, the other day, listening to KPIO 1570 AM Radio, I heard a speaker say: “If laws are separated from morality, the result is violence.” How true! Let’s think about it. The founding fathers of our Country knew that: unless a democracy is based on the moral law it gradually degenerates into a violent tyranny. A society that rejects God as the point of reference for what is right and wrong is headed for disaster.
During the last few decades, the voices that have cried: “Separation of Church and state! Keep religion out of the public square!” have become more numerous, more shrill, more pervasive and more vicious. Emboldened by success, they have managed to pass laws that have nothing to do with justice, and more are forthcoming. The 1973 decision of Roe vs. Wade manifested a symptom of a much greater disease: the separation of law from morality. In the name of justice, an entire class of human beings was deprived of “personhood,” and therefore was deprived of protection under the law, and an absurd division was set up between mother and child: the life of one became a threat to the life of the other. Our nation seems to have accepted this evil and violent law in the name of “freedom of choice” and “separation between Church and state.”
In the 36 years following that fateful decision, we have continued to walk down the road of separation between Church and state. Those of us who believe that laws can only be just if they do not contradict God’s commandments are scornfully called radical religious right, and ridiculed in the public square. How could we, in the 21st Century, still believe in an invisible God, say the “smart people” as they continue to challenge His laws in favor of the philosophy of the day.
As the chasm between law and morality becomes deeper and wider, another deadly law is coming our way. Under the noble name of “health care reform,” the law as currently proposed is setting up yet another absurd division: the division between the strong and the weak; the patient and the doctor; the hospital and the ill. This is what Betsy McCaughey, a patient advocate and former New York Lieutenant Governor said after carefully reading the proposed bill: “One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and ‘the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’ This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care.”
Health care is important, especially for those who need it! The Catholic Church has always been at the forefront of tending the ill; the hospitals founded by many of our saints were based on God and on Christian charity. These were the blueprints for our modern hospitals, and over 600 of them in the US are still in Catholic hands. Yes, we do need health care reform, but its provisions should not be decided by the philosopher of the day! The reform should be based on God’s design for us, His children. A design based on unity, and not division. On love, and not expediency!
8 Comments, leave your own!
Leave a Comment
Commenting Options
Enter your personal information to the left (i.e., * fields are required) along with a comment. Email information is not published. Also, you can create an avatar that will appear whenever you leave a comment on a Gravatar enabled blog like this one.
1. walter simons (August 7th, 2009)
There is no such provision in any of the proposed bills for healthcare reform and pure invention. Betsy McCaughey is lying. This has been debunked several times. Just check it.
2. Henry Tipton (August 7th, 2009)
There are good people that are not religious. Their intentions are good. They have forgotten or refuse to understand what is truly the ethical and moral codes are based upon. When we understand what our Heavenly Father has designed for us and understand that religious values do not change as good intentions change with the changing of leadership. We do not have to quote the bible during times of decision but must understand the will of God before defining the difference between right and wrong.
3. Dan Plunkett (August 7th, 2009)
Walter Simmons above is the one who is WRONG. The provision does exist (I checked) at the house.gov web site. I copied the following directly from the bill that resides on the House of Representative’s web site. This is only a partial as its too long (go there yourself if you like):
‘‘Advance Care Planning Consultation
‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner de9scribed in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph(3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following: ‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to. ‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses. ‘‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy. ‘‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal2 service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965). ‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title. ‘‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include— ‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes; ‘‘(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and ‘‘(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is un-able to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decision maker (also known as a health care proxy). ‘‘(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement
4. maryanne (August 7th, 2009)
i am french… it is the same with science… many french will beleive more in science then God, they reply that science is all proved… but again…they missed the all thing.
mary anne
5. walter simons (August 8th, 2009)
Once again, now with passion, for Mr. Plunkett: you left out the section that says this is all voluntary. As multiple sources have confirmed–and a complete reading of the section will tell you– “McCaughey incorrectly states that the bill would require Medicare patients to have these counseling sessions and she is suggesting that the government is somehow trying to interfere with a very personal decision. And her claim that the sessions would “tell [seniors] how to end their life sooner” is an outright distortion. Rather, the sessions are an option for elderly patients who want to learn more about living wills, health care proxies and other forms of end-of-life planning. McCaughey isn’t just wrong, she’s spreading a ridiculous falsehood. That’s a Pants on Fire.–and of course it has nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia. See: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/betsy-mccaughey/mccaughey-claims-end-life-counseling-will-be-requi/.
This is not the first time that McCaughey is caught spreading vicious lies: http://www.brianbeutler.com/2009/02/misinformation/
I am writing as the father of two children whose grave disabilities are NOT covered by private health insurance (“pre-existing conditions”). Yes, that wonderful world of private enterprise you folks love so much. Now we finally have a chance to correct this hideous situation which devastates thousands of families, but conservatives, mislead by the media, by people like McCaughey, and by MacKenzie’s post, are mindlessly doing the bidding of private insurance companies to vote the bill down. And no, the bills cannot provide public funds for abortion either.
Shame on you for lying.
6. Christian Jensen (August 8th, 2009)
Check this out for yourself. http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/euthanasia.asp
7. David Charkowsky (August 8th, 2009)
Can we explain this disorder with a personalism that is grounded in the capacity for preferences?
If I identify with my preferences, I naturally defend them against anyone (or any Church, or any God) who threatens their fulfillment and expression, because I center my life on their fulfillment and expression.
Those without the capacity for preferences (or the ability to express them) are automatically excluded from the community of persons. Those with preferences different from my own are on shaky ground.
8. Jean-Therese Delacroix (August 8th, 2009)
Kudos to you for writing this article! First, what disturbs me as a Francophile is this: they do not realize that the consequences of FULLY separating religion — or at least morality — from state (which is different from the PARTIAL separation in the U.S. Constitution) is causing people to be torn apart. Such examples include hijab-wearing being prohibited in public universities (which means that laws can be passed where a Catholic is arrested for wearing a golden cross-pendant to school).
Second, they have not turned to international precedent when defining the dangers of such a case. If anyone has studied Chinese history, one would recognize some Legalist philosophy in all of this. Now, the Legalist philosophy states that all people are bad at heart and must be subdued via laws and strict punishment (such as burying scholars alive in Emperor Qin’s day) in order to maintain order and stability. Having said this, the French system is, in many ways, different from the Chinese (i.e., rule of law is good but people aren’t necessarily bad at heart). However, if they do not keep this in mind, unimaginable excesses such as the example I mentioned can happen if left in the wrong hands.