The 4th Campaign

The Caduceus

In the last post (Am I Still A Republican?), I shared a discussion that took place separate from this forum.

I also noted at the end of the comments that I was hoping that Republicans would turn from the past and begin to cast vision for the future.

In an effort to do just that, I followed up with the following, addressed to an actuary in the group:

Can you tell me, mathematically speaking, if it is possible to set up an actuarial system for private insurers based on the following scenario:

1. Health Insurance is obtained six months from conception, and can never be canceled as long as premiums payments are made.
2. Premiums could be constant, or escalating over time, depending on the choice of the consumer.  But the premium obligation, once established at the time the policy is purchased, is known and remains unchanged throughout the life of the policy.
3. The maximum lifetime expenditure for any fetus entering the system in 2010 is $1M.  This cap for personal responsibility is re-established each year for new fetus’ entering the system.
4. Government assumes the risk once this maximum expenditure is reached.
5. Premium payments are deductible as straight expenses, not as part of a compensation package, by any company who wishes to offer payment of such premiums as part of a benefit package to a prospective employee.
6. Premium payments are deductible from actual taxes owed if paid by the individual.
7. Tax credits on actual amounts owed are enacted, capped at 25% of actual tax liability, for contributions made to charities specifically set up to help those who can’t make the premium payments they have obligated themselves to.

If not, what else would need to be defined to make the actuarial calculations possible?

See the following comment string for the discussion that ensued.

Rev. Richard John Neuhaus

Here is a link to the Founding Document for the Institute of Religion & Democracy, as authored by the late Reverend Richard John Neuhaus.

These seem to be people I can agree with, as these excerpts will indicate.

“Communal allegiance to Christ and his Kingdom is the indispensable check upon pretensions of the modern state. Because Christ is Lord, Caesar is not Lord. By humbling all secular claims to sovereignty, the Church makes its most important political contribution by being, fully and unapologetically, the Church.

While our first allegiance is to the community of faith and its mission in the world, Christians do not withdraw from participation in other communities. To the contrary, we are called to be leaven and light in movements of cultural, and economic change.”

And,

“The historic alternative to totalitarianism in the modern world is democracy………..

Democratic government is limited government. It is limited in the claims it makes and in the power it seeks to exercise. Democratic government understands itself to be accountable to values and to truths that transcend any regime or party. Thus in the United States of America we declare ours to be a nation “under God,” which means first of all, a nation under judgment. In addition, limited government means that a clear distinction is made between the state and the society. The state is not the whole of the society; it is one important actor in the society. Other institutions – notably the family, educational, economic and cultural enterprises, and churches – are at least equally important actors in the society. They do not exist or act by sufferance of the state. Rather, these spheres have their own peculiar sovereignty, which must be respected by the state.”

And,

“Finally, and perhaps most profoundly, democratic governance subscribes to a distinctive understanding of human rights. That understanding is that human rights are prior rights, that is, human rights are not established by the state. The state is bound to acknowledge and respect those rights which have their source in the transcendent dignity of the human person created by God.”

Lots of good stuff in this document.  Happy reading.

St. Michael the Archangel

I have spent a lot of time discussing the need to reference religion in our political life.  It should be a factor in our decision making, and a link to the values the country was founded upon.

At times, as I have reviewed the historical relationship between religion and politics in our nation, I have encountered opinions in one way or another equivalent to this:

“Religion is strong enough to survive whatever political assaults might be directed against it.”

This notion is prerequisite to the belief that religious establishment isn’t needed.  Religion can survive without governmental support.

I agree completely with this statement.

At the same time, I will insist the statement rests upon a dedicated and consistent vigilance on the part of religious believers.  Religion can thrive without governmental support but it could fail in the face of indifference on the part of individuals.  This blog is, among other things, action on my part on that front.

I get regular updates from a group called CatholicVoteAction.org.

An email they sent just before the Massachusetts election contained the following with regard to Martha Coakley.  Understand that the full context of this quote is a discussion on conscious rights as they relate to religion, and more specifically the ability of Catholics Nuns to freely exercise their religion within private hospitals they own and operate.

When asked by a Massachusetts radio host about the civil rights of hospital workers who would refuse to administer contraception or abortion inducing drugs, Martha Coakley said:

“You can have religious freedom, but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”

I am not in the business of verifying quotes.  I assume this is accurate.  If it isn’t, I think it nonetheless represents the thoughts of many on the left.

I would, in reference to this quote, like to point again to the idea the the First Amendment is “Two Sided”.  With respect to religion, it explicitly guarantees Americans the “free exercise thereof.”

The notion that the government ought to stop professed religious from exercising their conscious in a private hospital they own is such an egregious assault on the First Amendment and American Freedom that I can not begin to fathom how someone would reach the conclusion that it is good public policy.

But because many do, those of us who believe in both sides of that Amendment must, as I state above, remain vigilant.

Everything we hold dear, including the most precious gift of freedom as given us via Gods’ Grace, is dependent on that vigilance.

John Locke

Some time ago, I wrote a post entitled The Emerging Pattern which emphasized the role of God as the source of American Freedom by placing quotes from John Locke and Thomas Jefferson side by side in the text.

Reread those quotes, and then examine this from Madison’s Remonstrance.

“Because finally, “the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience” is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature:”

Nature refers to natural law.  Natural law refers to the fundamental way humans were created by their Maker.

Reference to Madison, with his outright statement that rights are “the gift of nature,” only serves to solidify that emerging pattern.

Seems like this post from my blog on prayer fits in this discussion as well.

Throughout this endeavor, starting with quotes from the Declaration of Independence itself, I have tried to point out that the founders of this country actually believed vehemently in God, and believed He was integral to the experiment they were undertaking.

The desire to promote Freedom of Religion was not a desire to engage in freedom from religion.

Here now is Madison’s take, directly from the Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments.

“It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.”

And later:

“12. Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind.”

So Madison believed that first allegiance was to God (before the State “both in order of time and in degree of obligation”), and that Christianity is “a precious gift” to be “imparted to the whole race of mankind.”

And he believed that the best way to ensure its spread was to guarantee Freedom of Religion.

Where, today, is the public man or woman who would state such a thing as part of an argument in favor of religious freedom?

Where, today, is the public man or woman who would state such a thing at all without fear of repercussions to his or her career?