I have never quite understood undecided voters. Perhaps I am wrong, but I have always assumed that such people are simply inattentive or uninformed. I care too much about political subjects to be undecided. We live in a world where there are sharp differences on political and social issues. To me, such issues require some kind of decision. I do not know how one can be blasé about the Iraqi war, abortion, stem-cell research, global warming, health insurance, gun control, same-sex marriage, oil prices, and other such matters. The two major political parties take opposite sides on most of these issues. Candidates usually express themselves on these issues well before the election, yet many people say they cannot decide who to vote for until they go into the voting booth.
Now along comes Michael Bloomberg, the zillionaire Mayor, meeting with others to discuss whether to form an independent party; independent of what? Will an independent party take no position on the issues mentioned above? What will an Independent Party stand for; politeness, apathy, nothing? Bloomberg and his group claim that the two main parties are far too polarized. I suppose that if the Democrats and Republicans were neutral on the above issues, they would not be so polarized. I do not understand, however, how people can fail to take sides on such vital issues. It is easier for me to understand people taking conservative positions on these issues than it is to understand the neutrality of independents.
I may not know who to vote for in local elections or primaries, but I have never had any doubts about candidates for president. I am a news junkie. I read three newspapers a day, including The New York Times. I read two news magazines a week and watch the major news programs on television every night. I read several online news sources. Perhaps I am addicted to news and need to go into news rehab.
One group of citizens I don’t understand or at least do not esteem very highly is those who say: “I don’t like any of the candidates. I’m not going to vote at all.” These ostrich-headed civilians fail to understand that life is not always ideal and that sometimes it is necessary to choose the best, or perhaps the least offensive, from a slate of less-than-perfect aspirants to office. One of the reasons we have political parties is that candidates for office represent not only themselves; they also represent political principles. Parties define themselves according to where they stand on the liberal-conservative spectrum. If you don’t like a candidate, vote for his or her party.
I am baffled by the consistently low ratings given in the polls to the Congress. The ratings were low before the Democrats took over majority control in 2006 and continued to be low thereafter. Who is it that people dislike? There are two major parties in Congress. Do people dislike both parties? I don’t think that people know why they dislike Congress. They are just frustrated that Congress is not doing what they want. My question is: what do they want? Different people want different things. The problem is that neither party has been able to get a veto-proof and filibuster-proof majority. Thus, either party can stymie the legislation proposed by the other. If voters are frustrated by the inability of Democrats to pass legislation halting the Iraqi War, they should realize that President Bush has vetoed every bill setting a time limit on American participation in the war, and Republicans have upheld every veto. The only solution to this problem is to elect more Democratic congressmen and senators.
There is a type of citizen that I particularly despise. He can usually be found at the corner stool in a bar. He says: “They all stink. They should throw-out all the bums and put in a whole new government.” You can be assured that this savant is not endowed with a PhD in government. He is not offering the legitimate complaint that special interests have too much influence. He is not disturbed by the campaign-finance abuses. He is not speaking about the lofty promises broken by elected officials. His problem is that the world is not perfect and the cost of beer is too high. He doesn’t really know much about government and who the players are, so he just sits and drinks and kvetches.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama
I have never fully understood the animus held by many conservative Republicans toward Hillary Clinton. It seems to be much stronger than their dislike of other Democrats. From what I have read about her, she is a much nicer person than most people realize. One conservative writer wrote a book about her and concluded that she is a good person who is loved by her staff. Her main problem is that in public she projects a persona that seems cold and snobbish. Somehow, she has trouble flashing a genuine smile. I do not, however, understand why our presidents have to be warm and fuzzy. We need leaders, and right now we need a leader desperately. Hillary could be a fine leader.
I suspect that part of the problem people have with Senator Clinton is the uniquely American hang-up about powerful women. Many other countries in the world have had female leaders, but Hillary is the first American woman to mount a serious campaign for the presidency. When Bill Clinton said that if he was elected America would get “two for the price of one,” many people were outraged. They were used to first ladies being shadowy background figures who gave tours of the White House and spoke-out on innocuous issues like literacy and children’s nutrition. They were not used to having first ladies who were actually involved in governmental policy.
Hillary is on good grounds when she attacks Barack Obama for lack of experience. Some may ask, “what experience did Hillary get being the wife of the president?” The answer is-- plenty. Several books about the Clinton presidency make clear that Hillary was intimately involved in presidential decision-making. Unlike most first ladies who had their offices in the East Wing of the White House, Hillary had an office in the West Wing near that of the president. She frequently took part in major meetings. She guided many of the important decisions made by her husband. She tried to maintain a low profile, and her significant role in the Administration was never acknowledged. But she has had more experience than any candidate, Democrat or Republican, now running for office.
Barack Obama has many virtues. He is the darling of young people who usually do not like traditional candidates. Young people have no faith in the establishment. They want dramatic change. Obama has great charisma, charm, brains, and eloquence. However, compared with Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic candidates, he has not done much. He has spent two years in the Senate, yet I know of no great pieces of legislation attached to his name. Somebody has pointed-out, however, that the same thing could be said of Abraham Lincoln.
The biggest question about Obama is whether he would be the strongest candidate the Democrats could field. Many people would vote against him because of his inexperience, and, sad to say, others would vote against him because of his race. Conservative writers seem to like him because they hate Hillary. Some Republicans have crossed-over in the primaries to vote for Obama in order to stop Hillary. They probably wouldn’t vote for Obama if he was nominated. They voted for him because they think he is unelectable. I believe that he could win if he is nominated and I would like to see him become President of the United States. I would, however, like to see him get some seasoning and come back to run at a later date. We need his powerful appeal to all that is good in America.
This is an important election. Republicans have made such a mess of our country that Democrats now have a golden opportunity to seize the White House and elect a strong Democratic Congress. We need someone who will bring the bloody carnage of young Americans in Iraq to an end. We need someone who will bring health insurance to all Americans, who will repeal the odious Medicare Part D drug law and bring free medication to all senior Americans, who will sign-on to treaties and accords necessary to halt global warming, who will authorize funds for stem-cell research, and who will stop the appointment of ultra-conservative, anti-abortion Supreme Court Justices. We need a president who will cancel the huge tax cuts for wealthy Americans and stand-up to the powerful oil, tobacco, pharmaceutical, automobile, and insurance industries. We should not let this opportunity slip by.
I suspect that part of the problem people have with Senator Clinton is the uniquely American hang-up about powerful women. Many other countries in the world have had female leaders, but Hillary is the first American woman to mount a serious campaign for the presidency. When Bill Clinton said that if he was elected America would get “two for the price of one,” many people were outraged. They were used to first ladies being shadowy background figures who gave tours of the White House and spoke-out on innocuous issues like literacy and children’s nutrition. They were not used to having first ladies who were actually involved in governmental policy.
Hillary is on good grounds when she attacks Barack Obama for lack of experience. Some may ask, “what experience did Hillary get being the wife of the president?” The answer is-- plenty. Several books about the Clinton presidency make clear that Hillary was intimately involved in presidential decision-making. Unlike most first ladies who had their offices in the East Wing of the White House, Hillary had an office in the West Wing near that of the president. She frequently took part in major meetings. She guided many of the important decisions made by her husband. She tried to maintain a low profile, and her significant role in the Administration was never acknowledged. But she has had more experience than any candidate, Democrat or Republican, now running for office.
Barack Obama has many virtues. He is the darling of young people who usually do not like traditional candidates. Young people have no faith in the establishment. They want dramatic change. Obama has great charisma, charm, brains, and eloquence. However, compared with Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic candidates, he has not done much. He has spent two years in the Senate, yet I know of no great pieces of legislation attached to his name. Somebody has pointed-out, however, that the same thing could be said of Abraham Lincoln.
The biggest question about Obama is whether he would be the strongest candidate the Democrats could field. Many people would vote against him because of his inexperience, and, sad to say, others would vote against him because of his race. Conservative writers seem to like him because they hate Hillary. Some Republicans have crossed-over in the primaries to vote for Obama in order to stop Hillary. They probably wouldn’t vote for Obama if he was nominated. They voted for him because they think he is unelectable. I believe that he could win if he is nominated and I would like to see him become President of the United States. I would, however, like to see him get some seasoning and come back to run at a later date. We need his powerful appeal to all that is good in America.
This is an important election. Republicans have made such a mess of our country that Democrats now have a golden opportunity to seize the White House and elect a strong Democratic Congress. We need someone who will bring the bloody carnage of young Americans in Iraq to an end. We need someone who will bring health insurance to all Americans, who will repeal the odious Medicare Part D drug law and bring free medication to all senior Americans, who will sign-on to treaties and accords necessary to halt global warming, who will authorize funds for stem-cell research, and who will stop the appointment of ultra-conservative, anti-abortion Supreme Court Justices. We need a president who will cancel the huge tax cuts for wealthy Americans and stand-up to the powerful oil, tobacco, pharmaceutical, automobile, and insurance industries. We should not let this opportunity slip by.
Monday, December 17, 2007
There is no such thing as God
Now, during the Christmas season, I get a funny feeling that I am living in the wrong era. I feel like I am back in ancient Greece and Rome over 2000 years ago when people held celebrations in honor of various Gods. Some of them believed in the God Mithras and celebrated his birth on December 25. In Rome, during December, they celebrated the life of Saturn in their Saturnalia. They believed in their gods and were devout in their celebrations. They had songs and hymns sung in veneration of their gods. They brought trees into their homes and decorated them just as we do today. Yet today we universally assume that such gods did not exist. Why do we seem to believe that our choice of god exists and theirs didn't?
Richard A. Schweder, in an op-ed column for the New York Times, “Atheists Agonsties,” suggested that the world of the twentieth century was no better than the old world. “The big causes of all the death and destruction had rather little to do with religion.” He says: “A shared conception of the soul, the sacred and transcendental values may be a prerequisite for any viable society.” In other words, we are better off in a world with religion.
There are two problems with his argument. First, religion is the cause of almost every conflict in the world today. Thousands of people are killed every year because Moslems hate Jews, Sunnis hate Shiites, Moslems hate Hindus, Buddhists hate Moslems, Protestants hate Catholics, and so on. Religion is also the cause of most of the intolerance in the world. Gay people in today’s America are being assailed and insulted by shared religious values that our society could do without.
Second, and more important, religion is the worship of God, and there is no such thing as God. God is a figment of the human imagination. Should people go on believing in God even if he does not exist? He is no more real than the thousands of local gods, witches, and ancestor spirits worshipped by primitive tribes in remote areas of the Earth. He is no more real than the Loch Ness Monster, the Yeti, Arabian djinn, Greek satyrs, Hindu bluts, and other assorted demons. He is no more real than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
On September 11, 2001 an event occurred that should choke the faith of every civilized person. The President, the Mayor of New York, the Fire and Police departments, and the American people responded gallantly. But one aspect of that response puzzles me. People turned to God! The churches were packed. The President declared a national day of prayer. Memorial services were conducted by religious leaders in cathedrals and stadiums. Everybody prayed. Why?
If God is real, and if God can be prayed to, and if God answers prayers and acts on our lives, why did he let this happen? Does God favor the Muslim fanatics? Does God reward Muslims who carry out jihad against the infidels by sending them to Paradise? Or is God just a myth we create to give us some comfort in times of stress.
The fact is that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God. We can prove the existence of everything else on earth, but we cannot prove that there is a God. Unlike scientific theories, which are subject to verification, we cannot go into a laboratory or an astronomical observatory and conduct an experiment to prove that there is a God. He is conveniently invisible and unavailable.
Many people say you cannot prove the existence of God because there is something higher than mere human knowledge; call it grace, or inspiration, or being "born again." I believe we have to use our rational mind to know anything, and without common sense the rational mind is, well, irrational. It does not make sense to say we "know" that there is a God, but deny that the very faculty of knowing, the rational mind, is what you are using to “know” God.
The fact that we never see God and that God does not seem to answer anybody’s prayers should be taken as strong evidence for his nonexistence. But people want to believe in God so badly that they are willing to do so even when such belief is absurd.
Consider the various ways people worship God. There are many different religions and many different ideas about God. For some reason, most of these religions assume that they are the correct way to God. Which one is right? Are all of them right? Why should we assume that any of them are right? If there were a God, would he reveal himself only to the ancient Israelites, or to Mohammed, or to the Twelve Apostles? What about the beliefs of billions of Hindus, Janes, Buddhists, and Shintos? Have they been wandering blindly while only Christians, Jews, or Moslems have known the truth?
Most faiths presume that God is good and loving. The evidence would seem to the contrary. Is life on earth perfectly happy? No, the majority of people live in poverty, disease, war, famine, and misery. If a god was responsible for this he would have to be some detached, ruthless, amoral demon.
There is no rational, logical, or scientific reason to believe in God. Belief in God can be relegated to the realm of wishful thinking. When humans believe in God they violate every aspect of human consciousness. It is hard for people raised with religion and brainwashed by parents, relatives, and teachers, to critically examine these irrational beliefs. Humans created the concept of God to fill some deep needs.
Biologists and anthropologists believe that there are evolutionary reasons for the development of religion. Religion certainly assists humans in their fear of death. It promises a life after death. This is apparently a life in which we get together with the people we loved during our life on earth. In other words, we remember our life on earth and the people we shared it with. Death is not the absolute end of our existence. Rather, we go to live in happiness with God. It is certainly an inviting idea. The fact that we die to eternal oblivion is quite unappealing. Nevertheless, it is obviously true.We were in a state of nonexistence before we were born, and after death we return to such a state. Any other scenario is silly wishful thinking.
It is dubious indeed to argue that a shared conception of the soul, the sacred, and transcendental values may be a prerequisite for any viable society. The world would be a better place without religion. Atheists are more peaceable, tolerant, and intelligent than those who embrace religion. But more important, in a world where God does not exist, it is a violation of everything that makes us human to go on believing in fairy tales that should have been abandoned long ago.
Richard A. Schweder, in an op-ed column for the New York Times, “Atheists Agonsties,” suggested that the world of the twentieth century was no better than the old world. “The big causes of all the death and destruction had rather little to do with religion.” He says: “A shared conception of the soul, the sacred and transcendental values may be a prerequisite for any viable society.” In other words, we are better off in a world with religion.
There are two problems with his argument. First, religion is the cause of almost every conflict in the world today. Thousands of people are killed every year because Moslems hate Jews, Sunnis hate Shiites, Moslems hate Hindus, Buddhists hate Moslems, Protestants hate Catholics, and so on. Religion is also the cause of most of the intolerance in the world. Gay people in today’s America are being assailed and insulted by shared religious values that our society could do without.
Second, and more important, religion is the worship of God, and there is no such thing as God. God is a figment of the human imagination. Should people go on believing in God even if he does not exist? He is no more real than the thousands of local gods, witches, and ancestor spirits worshipped by primitive tribes in remote areas of the Earth. He is no more real than the Loch Ness Monster, the Yeti, Arabian djinn, Greek satyrs, Hindu bluts, and other assorted demons. He is no more real than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
On September 11, 2001 an event occurred that should choke the faith of every civilized person. The President, the Mayor of New York, the Fire and Police departments, and the American people responded gallantly. But one aspect of that response puzzles me. People turned to God! The churches were packed. The President declared a national day of prayer. Memorial services were conducted by religious leaders in cathedrals and stadiums. Everybody prayed. Why?
If God is real, and if God can be prayed to, and if God answers prayers and acts on our lives, why did he let this happen? Does God favor the Muslim fanatics? Does God reward Muslims who carry out jihad against the infidels by sending them to Paradise? Or is God just a myth we create to give us some comfort in times of stress.
The fact is that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God. We can prove the existence of everything else on earth, but we cannot prove that there is a God. Unlike scientific theories, which are subject to verification, we cannot go into a laboratory or an astronomical observatory and conduct an experiment to prove that there is a God. He is conveniently invisible and unavailable.
Many people say you cannot prove the existence of God because there is something higher than mere human knowledge; call it grace, or inspiration, or being "born again." I believe we have to use our rational mind to know anything, and without common sense the rational mind is, well, irrational. It does not make sense to say we "know" that there is a God, but deny that the very faculty of knowing, the rational mind, is what you are using to “know” God.
The fact that we never see God and that God does not seem to answer anybody’s prayers should be taken as strong evidence for his nonexistence. But people want to believe in God so badly that they are willing to do so even when such belief is absurd.
Consider the various ways people worship God. There are many different religions and many different ideas about God. For some reason, most of these religions assume that they are the correct way to God. Which one is right? Are all of them right? Why should we assume that any of them are right? If there were a God, would he reveal himself only to the ancient Israelites, or to Mohammed, or to the Twelve Apostles? What about the beliefs of billions of Hindus, Janes, Buddhists, and Shintos? Have they been wandering blindly while only Christians, Jews, or Moslems have known the truth?
Most faiths presume that God is good and loving. The evidence would seem to the contrary. Is life on earth perfectly happy? No, the majority of people live in poverty, disease, war, famine, and misery. If a god was responsible for this he would have to be some detached, ruthless, amoral demon.
There is no rational, logical, or scientific reason to believe in God. Belief in God can be relegated to the realm of wishful thinking. When humans believe in God they violate every aspect of human consciousness. It is hard for people raised with religion and brainwashed by parents, relatives, and teachers, to critically examine these irrational beliefs. Humans created the concept of God to fill some deep needs.
Biologists and anthropologists believe that there are evolutionary reasons for the development of religion. Religion certainly assists humans in their fear of death. It promises a life after death. This is apparently a life in which we get together with the people we loved during our life on earth. In other words, we remember our life on earth and the people we shared it with. Death is not the absolute end of our existence. Rather, we go to live in happiness with God. It is certainly an inviting idea. The fact that we die to eternal oblivion is quite unappealing. Nevertheless, it is obviously true.We were in a state of nonexistence before we were born, and after death we return to such a state. Any other scenario is silly wishful thinking.
It is dubious indeed to argue that a shared conception of the soul, the sacred, and transcendental values may be a prerequisite for any viable society. The world would be a better place without religion. Atheists are more peaceable, tolerant, and intelligent than those who embrace religion. But more important, in a world where God does not exist, it is a violation of everything that makes us human to go on believing in fairy tales that should have been abandoned long ago.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Who Was Jesus
As we approaach the feast of Christmas it might be useful to look at what scholars say about Jesus. Was he the "Son of God?" Was he divine? Was he the Messiah? Or was he just a holy man who tried to teach certain ideas about Judaism.
Jesus’ message, that the Kingdom of God is at Hand, was not new. It expressed the common hope of the Jews of his time. His exorcisms were a traditional function of the Pharisees. His use of parables was typical of the Pharisees’ method of teaching. His Sermon on the Mount was strictly in accord with Mosaic Law. His teachings expressed traditional Jewish beliefs. The Lord’s Prayer is derived from the Kaddish prayer of the ancient synagogue. His other teachings and behavior show that he was a devoted Jew who worshipped at the temple, abided by the Jewish Law, and believed that God dwelled in the Temple. He affirmed the widely influential exhortation in Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
The Gospels falsely portray Jesus as one who broke with the rigid and stale, even false, piety of the Pharisees. The Pharisees of Jesus' day were a highly respected sect of Jews. Jesus may have been a Pharisee. He appears to have followed the teachings of the great Pharisee Rabbi, Hillel. Although Jesus may have had disputations with certain Pharisees, they often had disputations among themselves.
Jesus did not found a new church naming himself as the Son of God. He was the leader of a group within Judaism. The few passages in the Bible that support the idea that Jesus wanted to start a new church are not based on anything Jesus said but on ideas that were developed after his death. Jesus wanted to renew Judaism, which already had a Temple, priests, worship, and sacrifices. Jesus believed that the Kingdom of God was at hand, and certainly did not wish to form a church which would last for centuries. To this extent, he was not very different from many other contemporary religious leaders. There were at least twenty-four Jewish sects in Jesus’ day, including the Essenes, the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and others. There were a number of people like Jesus who had small followings and who went about teaching, healing, and casting out devils.
The primary teaching of Jesus was that the "Kingdom of God" was at hand. It was either about to happen or was already present through him. Although Jesus did not explicitly describe what he meant by the “Kingdom of God,” the Jews of his day would have understood him to mean that that the reign of God would be established in Israel and that the kingdom of Israel and the twelve tribes of Israel would be restored. They believed that God would rebuild the temple, and that there would be a period of tribulation followed by a last judgment. It would be, in effect, the end of the world as they knew it. Needless to say, it never happened. If Jesus had been the Son of God, wouldn't you think that he could have predicted such an event?
Leander E. Keck, former Dean of the Yale Divinity School, says: “However universal the appeal of his teachings—at least some of them—the indissoluble fact is that they were addressed to his fellow Jews, a mission that fused teaching, healing and exorcism...it takes shape in a mission so thoroughly Jewish that the gospels report not a single word of criticism of constitutive elements of the religion he inherited and shared, such as the holy days Passover or Day of Atonement.”
It is ironic that Christianity became a Gentile religion in which Gentiles and Jews mutually rejected each other. Jesus never intended his teachings to apply to non-Jews. Jesus did not preach to the Gentiles or tell his disciples to go out and convert the Gentiles. He did just the opposite. He was critical of the Gentiles. In Matthew 10:5-15, Jesus says to his disciples: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Jesus made disparaging remarks about the Gentiles (See Matt. 5:47, 6:7, 6:22, 18:7, and Mark 10:42-43). In one case, Jesus implied that Gentiles were dogs (Matt. 15:21-26). In that encounter, a Gentile woman sought to have Jesus heal her demon-possessed daughter. Although he healed the daughter, Jesus said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Leander E. Keck points out that the gospels do not mentionJesus going to the homes Gentiles to perform healings. There is no record of his ever visiting the cities in Israel where there were heavy populations of Gentiles. Says Keck: “Although Gentiles later were attracted to him through the gospel, he was not attracted to them, nor was he the least interested in attracting them to him.”
Jesus did not refute the Mosaic Law or create a new law. He taught strict adherence to the Jewish Law. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus says: “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.”
In the New Testament, Jesus does not proclaim himself the “Son of God” in the divine sense. Although the Gospels, especially the Gospel of John, refer to Jesus as the Son of God in the divine sense, those passages are considered by scholars to be inauthentic later additions to the story of Jesus. In Jesus' day the term "Son of God" applied to all Jewish men and did not mean a divine being. Jesus repeatedly says that he is not equal to God (John 14:28 “…I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I;” and John 7:16 “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.” See also Luke 18:18, Matt. 19:17, Mark 13:32, 14:36, John 5:20, and Acts 2:22-24). Jesus calls himself the “Son of Man” which, scholars agree, meant only a “human being.” Reginald H. Fuller, Professor Emeritus, Verginia Theological Seminary, says: “It is not a title but means ‘human one,’ and is best understood as a self-effacing self-reference.”
Jesus was obviously a charismatic Hasid, or holy man. He probably thought that he was a prophet. When the people of Galilee criticize him he says: “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house” (Matthew 13:57, See also Mark 6:4, 8:28, and Luke 7:16, 13:33 ). There are several places in the New Testament where it is indicated that Jesus thought of himself as an Elijah-like prophet.
Saint Peter does not say that Jesus is God, but a man “raised up” by God (Acts 2:22). Reginald H. Fuller explains that when Jesus asks Peter, “who do you say that I am,” and Peter answers “the Christ,” (Mark 8:27-30) “it seems more likely... that Peter meant it in the sense of the anointed prophet of Isaiah 61.1.”
The earliest Christians did not look upon Jesus as a divine person, a “Son of God” in the Greek sense. Some believed that by his death he had been “appointed” the Christ, but not that he was the Christ when he lived. The Gospel of Luke implies that Jesus was raised up or promoted to divine status by God. Reginald H. Fuller explains in The Oxford Companion to the Bible:
The meaning is not that Jesus became
something he was not before, for example,
a divine person; rather, he was appointed to
a new office and function, that of being the
one in whom God would finally judge and
save the world(Acts 3.21; Thess. 1.10) and
through whom he was already offering sal-
vation after Easter in the church’s procla-
mation (Acts 2.38).
It was only later in the history of the Church that Christians began to believe that Jesus was a divine being, a god who had come down to Earth. Neither the suffering of the Messiah, nor his death and resurrection, appear to have been part of the faith of first-century Christians. The idea that Jesus was God seems to have developed over a period of time. It was not until the fourth century AD that the Church officially accepted the doctrine that Jesus was God in human form. At the Council of Nicea in 325 AD the leaders of the Church, encouraged by the emperor Constantine, declared that Jesus was a God, “of one substance with God,” not just a man.
Jesus’ message, that the Kingdom of God is at Hand, was not new. It expressed the common hope of the Jews of his time. His exorcisms were a traditional function of the Pharisees. His use of parables was typical of the Pharisees’ method of teaching. His Sermon on the Mount was strictly in accord with Mosaic Law. His teachings expressed traditional Jewish beliefs. The Lord’s Prayer is derived from the Kaddish prayer of the ancient synagogue. His other teachings and behavior show that he was a devoted Jew who worshipped at the temple, abided by the Jewish Law, and believed that God dwelled in the Temple. He affirmed the widely influential exhortation in Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
The Gospels falsely portray Jesus as one who broke with the rigid and stale, even false, piety of the Pharisees. The Pharisees of Jesus' day were a highly respected sect of Jews. Jesus may have been a Pharisee. He appears to have followed the teachings of the great Pharisee Rabbi, Hillel. Although Jesus may have had disputations with certain Pharisees, they often had disputations among themselves.
Jesus did not found a new church naming himself as the Son of God. He was the leader of a group within Judaism. The few passages in the Bible that support the idea that Jesus wanted to start a new church are not based on anything Jesus said but on ideas that were developed after his death. Jesus wanted to renew Judaism, which already had a Temple, priests, worship, and sacrifices. Jesus believed that the Kingdom of God was at hand, and certainly did not wish to form a church which would last for centuries. To this extent, he was not very different from many other contemporary religious leaders. There were at least twenty-four Jewish sects in Jesus’ day, including the Essenes, the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and others. There were a number of people like Jesus who had small followings and who went about teaching, healing, and casting out devils.
The primary teaching of Jesus was that the "Kingdom of God" was at hand. It was either about to happen or was already present through him. Although Jesus did not explicitly describe what he meant by the “Kingdom of God,” the Jews of his day would have understood him to mean that that the reign of God would be established in Israel and that the kingdom of Israel and the twelve tribes of Israel would be restored. They believed that God would rebuild the temple, and that there would be a period of tribulation followed by a last judgment. It would be, in effect, the end of the world as they knew it. Needless to say, it never happened. If Jesus had been the Son of God, wouldn't you think that he could have predicted such an event?
Leander E. Keck, former Dean of the Yale Divinity School, says: “However universal the appeal of his teachings—at least some of them—the indissoluble fact is that they were addressed to his fellow Jews, a mission that fused teaching, healing and exorcism...it takes shape in a mission so thoroughly Jewish that the gospels report not a single word of criticism of constitutive elements of the religion he inherited and shared, such as the holy days Passover or Day of Atonement.”
It is ironic that Christianity became a Gentile religion in which Gentiles and Jews mutually rejected each other. Jesus never intended his teachings to apply to non-Jews. Jesus did not preach to the Gentiles or tell his disciples to go out and convert the Gentiles. He did just the opposite. He was critical of the Gentiles. In Matthew 10:5-15, Jesus says to his disciples: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Jesus made disparaging remarks about the Gentiles (See Matt. 5:47, 6:7, 6:22, 18:7, and Mark 10:42-43). In one case, Jesus implied that Gentiles were dogs (Matt. 15:21-26). In that encounter, a Gentile woman sought to have Jesus heal her demon-possessed daughter. Although he healed the daughter, Jesus said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Leander E. Keck points out that the gospels do not mentionJesus going to the homes Gentiles to perform healings. There is no record of his ever visiting the cities in Israel where there were heavy populations of Gentiles. Says Keck: “Although Gentiles later were attracted to him through the gospel, he was not attracted to them, nor was he the least interested in attracting them to him.”
Jesus did not refute the Mosaic Law or create a new law. He taught strict adherence to the Jewish Law. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus says: “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.”
In the New Testament, Jesus does not proclaim himself the “Son of God” in the divine sense. Although the Gospels, especially the Gospel of John, refer to Jesus as the Son of God in the divine sense, those passages are considered by scholars to be inauthentic later additions to the story of Jesus. In Jesus' day the term "Son of God" applied to all Jewish men and did not mean a divine being. Jesus repeatedly says that he is not equal to God (John 14:28 “…I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I;” and John 7:16 “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.” See also Luke 18:18, Matt. 19:17, Mark 13:32, 14:36, John 5:20, and Acts 2:22-24). Jesus calls himself the “Son of Man” which, scholars agree, meant only a “human being.” Reginald H. Fuller, Professor Emeritus, Verginia Theological Seminary, says: “It is not a title but means ‘human one,’ and is best understood as a self-effacing self-reference.”
Jesus was obviously a charismatic Hasid, or holy man. He probably thought that he was a prophet. When the people of Galilee criticize him he says: “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house” (Matthew 13:57, See also Mark 6:4, 8:28, and Luke 7:16, 13:33 ). There are several places in the New Testament where it is indicated that Jesus thought of himself as an Elijah-like prophet.
Saint Peter does not say that Jesus is God, but a man “raised up” by God (Acts 2:22). Reginald H. Fuller explains that when Jesus asks Peter, “who do you say that I am,” and Peter answers “the Christ,” (Mark 8:27-30) “it seems more likely... that Peter meant it in the sense of the anointed prophet of Isaiah 61.1.”
The earliest Christians did not look upon Jesus as a divine person, a “Son of God” in the Greek sense. Some believed that by his death he had been “appointed” the Christ, but not that he was the Christ when he lived. The Gospel of Luke implies that Jesus was raised up or promoted to divine status by God. Reginald H. Fuller explains in The Oxford Companion to the Bible:
The meaning is not that Jesus became
something he was not before, for example,
a divine person; rather, he was appointed to
a new office and function, that of being the
one in whom God would finally judge and
save the world(Acts 3.21; Thess. 1.10) and
through whom he was already offering sal-
vation after Easter in the church’s procla-
mation (Acts 2.38).
It was only later in the history of the Church that Christians began to believe that Jesus was a divine being, a god who had come down to Earth. Neither the suffering of the Messiah, nor his death and resurrection, appear to have been part of the faith of first-century Christians. The idea that Jesus was God seems to have developed over a period of time. It was not until the fourth century AD that the Church officially accepted the doctrine that Jesus was God in human form. At the Council of Nicea in 325 AD the leaders of the Church, encouraged by the emperor Constantine, declared that Jesus was a God, “of one substance with God,” not just a man.
At this time of year when we are surrounded by beautiful decorations and music, it saddens me to realize that all of this is in honor of somebody who never existed. The real Jesus was not God or the Son of God. He did not want to start a new church. He was a Jew. That is all. All of the rest is the embellishment of two thousand years of imaginative fiction.
Friday, November 30, 2007
The Origins of Christmas
As the holidays approach, it might be useful to look at the historical background of Christmas. Christmas takes place during the winter solstice when the day is shortest and the night is longest. People celebrated the winter solstice long before the birth of Jesus. The concept of the birth, death, and rebirth of the sun became associated with the savior god of many cultures.
Thousands of years before Jesus, the Mesopotamians held a festival of renewal at the winter solstice designed to help the god Marduk tame the monsters of chaos for one more year. In ancient Greece, before the time of Christ, the winter solstice ritual celebrated the rebirth of the god Dionysus, who was deemed to have died and arisen from the dead. During the winter solstice, the ancient Romans celebrated the feast of Saturnalia in honor of the god Saturn. There were also ancient pre-Christian celebrations of the winter solstice by the Buddhists, Celts, Druids, Chinese, Tibetans, Indians, Koreans, Japanese, Native Americans, and others.
The reason so many cultures developed winter solstice celebrations was in order to cheer themselves up during the darkest period of the year. We often hear about people developing the blues during the Christmas season. This is because many people suffer from Seasonal Affect Disorder (SAD) and become depressed during the season when there is so much darkness. The gods celebrated in the winter solstice festivals were frequently gods of light or the sun.
Christians began celebrating the birth of Jesus on December 25th during the fourth century AD. The early fathers of the Christian Church did not know the date when Jesus had been born. December 25th was the birthdate of the Roman god Mithra. Mithraism developed in Asia Minor long before the birth of Christ. It may have come from ancient Persia. Mithra was the god of light, or the Sun, and was born of a virgin. His worshippers believed that Mithra promised resurrection from the dead and that he ascended into heaven. The worship of Mithra included forgiveness of sin by baptism of initiates and a communion of bread and wine to commemorate Mithra’s last meal on earth. The worship of Mithra presented a real problem for the Church fathers because of the similarities to the worship of Jesus. In around 353 AD, the Church fathers decided to combat Mithraism and other pagan holidays by celebrating the birth of Jesus on Mithra’s birthday, December 25. Merry Mithramas!
Scholars are in general agreement that the Bible story about Jesus being born in Bethlehem is probably fictitious. We know that Jesus came from Nazareth. The Bible says that Caesar ordered a census to levy taxes and that Joseph, as a descendent of David, had to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem, the city of David, to register for the census (Luke 2:1-5). This was written to fulfill the prophecy that the “Messiah” would be “from the house of David.” However, the Romans kept careful records of their censuses, and scholars know that there was no worldwide census at the time of Jesus’ birth.
The late Raymond E. Brown, S.S., a Catholic priest and former Professor of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary in New York, said in his magisterial The Birth of the Messiah, that “Luke’s reference to a general census of the Empire under Augustus which affected Palestine before the death of Herod the Great is almost certainly wrong….We have no evidence of one census under Augustus that covered the whole Empire, nor of a census requirement that people be registered in their ancestral cities.”
The Romans counted people at their place of domicile, not where their ancestors were born. They would not have required Joseph to travel to Bethlehem. They would have wanted him to stay in Nazareth and be counted where he lived. In addition, Caesar would not have taxed Judea while Herod was king. At the time of Jesus’ birth, Bethlehem would have been in an area that was exempt from Roman taxation.
The distinguished biblical scholar, E.P. Sanders of Oxford and Duke Universities, points out in his book, The Historical Figure of Jesus, that David lived 42 generations before Jesus. He asks, why would Joseph have to register for a tax in the town (Bethlehem) of an ancestor who lived 42 generations earlier? He describes Luke’s story of the Nativity as “Fantastic!” Another distinguished scholar, Bart D. Ehrman of the University of North Carolina, asks in his treatise, The New Testament: “Can it be possible that everyone in the empire was to return to the place their ancestors lived a thousand years earlier?”
John P. Meier of Notre Dame University, a Catholic priest who is considered by many to be the leading biblical scholar in the world, notes in his definitive work, A Marginal Jew, Rethinking the Historical Jesus, that, “Somewhere around 7-6 B.C. a Jew named Yeshua [Jesus], a shortened form of the Hebrew Yehoshua (Joshua), was born in the hillside town of Nazareth in lower Galilee. The Infancy Narritive traditions that locate his birth in Bethlehem of Judea (traditions isolated in chap. 2 of Matthew and Luke respectively) are probably later Christian theological dramatizations of the belief that Jesus was the royal Davidic Messiah.”
Thousands of years before Jesus, the Mesopotamians held a festival of renewal at the winter solstice designed to help the god Marduk tame the monsters of chaos for one more year. In ancient Greece, before the time of Christ, the winter solstice ritual celebrated the rebirth of the god Dionysus, who was deemed to have died and arisen from the dead. During the winter solstice, the ancient Romans celebrated the feast of Saturnalia in honor of the god Saturn. There were also ancient pre-Christian celebrations of the winter solstice by the Buddhists, Celts, Druids, Chinese, Tibetans, Indians, Koreans, Japanese, Native Americans, and others.
The reason so many cultures developed winter solstice celebrations was in order to cheer themselves up during the darkest period of the year. We often hear about people developing the blues during the Christmas season. This is because many people suffer from Seasonal Affect Disorder (SAD) and become depressed during the season when there is so much darkness. The gods celebrated in the winter solstice festivals were frequently gods of light or the sun.
Christians began celebrating the birth of Jesus on December 25th during the fourth century AD. The early fathers of the Christian Church did not know the date when Jesus had been born. December 25th was the birthdate of the Roman god Mithra. Mithraism developed in Asia Minor long before the birth of Christ. It may have come from ancient Persia. Mithra was the god of light, or the Sun, and was born of a virgin. His worshippers believed that Mithra promised resurrection from the dead and that he ascended into heaven. The worship of Mithra included forgiveness of sin by baptism of initiates and a communion of bread and wine to commemorate Mithra’s last meal on earth. The worship of Mithra presented a real problem for the Church fathers because of the similarities to the worship of Jesus. In around 353 AD, the Church fathers decided to combat Mithraism and other pagan holidays by celebrating the birth of Jesus on Mithra’s birthday, December 25. Merry Mithramas!
Scholars are in general agreement that the Bible story about Jesus being born in Bethlehem is probably fictitious. We know that Jesus came from Nazareth. The Bible says that Caesar ordered a census to levy taxes and that Joseph, as a descendent of David, had to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem, the city of David, to register for the census (Luke 2:1-5). This was written to fulfill the prophecy that the “Messiah” would be “from the house of David.” However, the Romans kept careful records of their censuses, and scholars know that there was no worldwide census at the time of Jesus’ birth.
The late Raymond E. Brown, S.S., a Catholic priest and former Professor of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary in New York, said in his magisterial The Birth of the Messiah, that “Luke’s reference to a general census of the Empire under Augustus which affected Palestine before the death of Herod the Great is almost certainly wrong….We have no evidence of one census under Augustus that covered the whole Empire, nor of a census requirement that people be registered in their ancestral cities.”
The Romans counted people at their place of domicile, not where their ancestors were born. They would not have required Joseph to travel to Bethlehem. They would have wanted him to stay in Nazareth and be counted where he lived. In addition, Caesar would not have taxed Judea while Herod was king. At the time of Jesus’ birth, Bethlehem would have been in an area that was exempt from Roman taxation.
The distinguished biblical scholar, E.P. Sanders of Oxford and Duke Universities, points out in his book, The Historical Figure of Jesus, that David lived 42 generations before Jesus. He asks, why would Joseph have to register for a tax in the town (Bethlehem) of an ancestor who lived 42 generations earlier? He describes Luke’s story of the Nativity as “Fantastic!” Another distinguished scholar, Bart D. Ehrman of the University of North Carolina, asks in his treatise, The New Testament: “Can it be possible that everyone in the empire was to return to the place their ancestors lived a thousand years earlier?”
John P. Meier of Notre Dame University, a Catholic priest who is considered by many to be the leading biblical scholar in the world, notes in his definitive work, A Marginal Jew, Rethinking the Historical Jesus, that, “Somewhere around 7-6 B.C. a Jew named Yeshua [Jesus], a shortened form of the Hebrew Yehoshua (Joshua), was born in the hillside town of Nazareth in lower Galilee. The Infancy Narritive traditions that locate his birth in Bethlehem of Judea (traditions isolated in chap. 2 of Matthew and Luke respectively) are probably later Christian theological dramatizations of the belief that Jesus was the royal Davidic Messiah.”
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Guns and Masculinity
A gun is like a pair of elevator shoes. It confers artificial stature. Despite the strong silent image that men would like to project, the truth is that most men are emotionally frail aggregations of self-doubt and vulnerability. The possession of a gun is like a tonic, adding an exhilarating sense of power to a sagging ego.
Following the bloody massacre at Virginia Tech University, there were predictable calls for further restrictions on guns. It seems that Seung-Hui Cho, a student with a history of serious mental problems, just walked into a Virginia gun shop on February 9 and picked up a Walther .22 caliber handgun which he had ordered online. On March 16, without submitting to any waiting period, Cho went into another gun shop and purchased a 9 millimeter semi-automatic Glock 19 and a box of 50 cartridges by showing some identification and undergoing an instant background check.
Gun control advocates believe that stricter gun control laws might have prevented the bloodbath. Astonishingly, there are other people who contend that the existence of gun control laws is what caused the slaughter! They say that if every student was allowed to carry a gun there would have been somebody to stop the gunman before he began the carnage.
I have tried to imagine what the campus at Virginia Tech would have looked like with lots of students and teachers packing heat. Would it be like Dodge City where you drew your six-shooter at the risk of being cut-down by a better gunman? Would America be a safer place if every university, college, technical school, high school, home, and workplace bristled with people armed to the teeth? No way.
Let’s face it, strict regulation of guns would obviously cut-down on these murders. Serious criminals will get guns whether they are legally available or not. But your ordinary people—angry spouses, disgruntled former employees, psychotic students, paranoid loners, and others-- who actually commit most of the murders, suicides, and accidental shootings, would be less likely to buy guns if they had to apply for licenses. The main danger from guns is not from career criminals. It is from regular people like you and me.
I would require written applications for licenses by all persons seeking to buy handguns. I would require a two-week waiting period. The purchasers would have to show compelling reasons for needing handguns, such as occupations as private detectives or security guards. They would have to recite their medical and psychiatric histories. They would have to list references. Gun licenses, like drivers licenses, should be subject to renewal every four years with the same background checks as the original licenses.
Hunting is, of course, a natural and acceptable use of guns by people. Humans have been preying upon their fellow animals for hundreds of thousands of years. Even though I am not a hunter, I have no problem with it. I do not think that it is necessary, however, to hunt with an assault rifle. The object of hunting is to kill the prey, not to obliterate it. I would allow rifles to hunters, but would require all such hunters to obtain a license and undergo a waiting period and background check. I would also restrict hunting rifle use to people over eighteen years of age.
Many men who buy guns do not do so in order to hunt, or to enforce the law, or for target practice. They do so to feel stronger. They will almost never have to use the gun to fend-off an intruder. Having a gun in the house may console them for their lack of actual power, but it can also be a real cause of danger. In 2004, there were 29,569 gun deaths in the United States. In a majority of those deaths people took direct aim at—themselves. That’s right, fifty-six percent of all gun deaths were by suicide. Forty percent were homicides. More than half of the homicides were domestic homicides--people like you and me shooting their wives, husbands, family members, neighbors, and friends. There were also many accidental shootings. The number of people who actually shot someone in self-defense was minuscule.
Bob Herbert of The New York Times reported on a Harvard study comparing firearm mortality among children in the five states with the highest rates of gun ownership versus those in the five states with the lowest rates. Respondents in all 50 states were asked whether any firearms were kept in or around their home. Children in states with the highest rates were 16 times more likely to die from accidental gunshot wounds, nearly seven times as likely to commit suicide, and more than three times as likely to be murdered with a firearm. The top quarter of states with the highest gun ownership had firearm homicide rates 114 percent higher than states within the lowest quarter of firearm ownership.
Putting handguns in the hands of any students in America who wanted them might have stopped the VT gunman, but it would have also armed thousands of other paranoid schizophrenics who harbor rages similar to those of Seung-Hui Cho. The last thing we need is more guns in schools, workplaces, and inner cities. As Bob Herbert put it, “only a lunatic could seriously believe that more guns in more homes is good for America’s children.”
Following the bloody massacre at Virginia Tech University, there were predictable calls for further restrictions on guns. It seems that Seung-Hui Cho, a student with a history of serious mental problems, just walked into a Virginia gun shop on February 9 and picked up a Walther .22 caliber handgun which he had ordered online. On March 16, without submitting to any waiting period, Cho went into another gun shop and purchased a 9 millimeter semi-automatic Glock 19 and a box of 50 cartridges by showing some identification and undergoing an instant background check.
Gun control advocates believe that stricter gun control laws might have prevented the bloodbath. Astonishingly, there are other people who contend that the existence of gun control laws is what caused the slaughter! They say that if every student was allowed to carry a gun there would have been somebody to stop the gunman before he began the carnage.
I have tried to imagine what the campus at Virginia Tech would have looked like with lots of students and teachers packing heat. Would it be like Dodge City where you drew your six-shooter at the risk of being cut-down by a better gunman? Would America be a safer place if every university, college, technical school, high school, home, and workplace bristled with people armed to the teeth? No way.
Let’s face it, strict regulation of guns would obviously cut-down on these murders. Serious criminals will get guns whether they are legally available or not. But your ordinary people—angry spouses, disgruntled former employees, psychotic students, paranoid loners, and others-- who actually commit most of the murders, suicides, and accidental shootings, would be less likely to buy guns if they had to apply for licenses. The main danger from guns is not from career criminals. It is from regular people like you and me.
I would require written applications for licenses by all persons seeking to buy handguns. I would require a two-week waiting period. The purchasers would have to show compelling reasons for needing handguns, such as occupations as private detectives or security guards. They would have to recite their medical and psychiatric histories. They would have to list references. Gun licenses, like drivers licenses, should be subject to renewal every four years with the same background checks as the original licenses.
Hunting is, of course, a natural and acceptable use of guns by people. Humans have been preying upon their fellow animals for hundreds of thousands of years. Even though I am not a hunter, I have no problem with it. I do not think that it is necessary, however, to hunt with an assault rifle. The object of hunting is to kill the prey, not to obliterate it. I would allow rifles to hunters, but would require all such hunters to obtain a license and undergo a waiting period and background check. I would also restrict hunting rifle use to people over eighteen years of age.
Many men who buy guns do not do so in order to hunt, or to enforce the law, or for target practice. They do so to feel stronger. They will almost never have to use the gun to fend-off an intruder. Having a gun in the house may console them for their lack of actual power, but it can also be a real cause of danger. In 2004, there were 29,569 gun deaths in the United States. In a majority of those deaths people took direct aim at—themselves. That’s right, fifty-six percent of all gun deaths were by suicide. Forty percent were homicides. More than half of the homicides were domestic homicides--people like you and me shooting their wives, husbands, family members, neighbors, and friends. There were also many accidental shootings. The number of people who actually shot someone in self-defense was minuscule.
Bob Herbert of The New York Times reported on a Harvard study comparing firearm mortality among children in the five states with the highest rates of gun ownership versus those in the five states with the lowest rates. Respondents in all 50 states were asked whether any firearms were kept in or around their home. Children in states with the highest rates were 16 times more likely to die from accidental gunshot wounds, nearly seven times as likely to commit suicide, and more than three times as likely to be murdered with a firearm. The top quarter of states with the highest gun ownership had firearm homicide rates 114 percent higher than states within the lowest quarter of firearm ownership.
Putting handguns in the hands of any students in America who wanted them might have stopped the VT gunman, but it would have also armed thousands of other paranoid schizophrenics who harbor rages similar to those of Seung-Hui Cho. The last thing we need is more guns in schools, workplaces, and inner cities. As Bob Herbert put it, “only a lunatic could seriously believe that more guns in more homes is good for America’s children.”
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
A Single-Payer Health Insurance System
The number of Americans without health insurance has now risen to 47 million and because of the rising cost of such insurance, the number of uninsured will probably top 50 million in less than two years. This includes millions of children. I’m sure that this does not bother George Bush and his gang of die-hard right wingers, but it does bother the rest of us.
In recent polls by ABCNEWS/Washington Post and CBS News/The New York Times, Americans by a 2-1 margin preferred a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. These results are in line with previous polls over the past decade which have shown large majorities of Americans favoring government-provided health insurance. So why don’t we have it? We don’t have it because health insurance companies with enormous power and money have blocked it by corrupting, strong-arming, and strangling the Republican Party and President Bush.
How would governmental health insurance work? Under a single-payer system the government would provide health insurance for all citizens in America. People ask: “How would we pay for a single-payer health insurance system? Wouldn’t it cost more and mean higher taxes?” The answer is no. Even if you are covered by your company’s plan, a single-payer system would cost you far less than the system we now have.
The Cambridge Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Public Citizen Health Research Group did a study in 2003 of health insurance costs and found that if we switched to a single-payer system we would save hundreds of billions of dollars. The study said that private insurance companies in the U.S. waste about $400 billion a year on administrative costs. The waste results from the elaborate, overlapping, and redundant bureaucracy, enormous executive compensation packages, employee salaries, benefits, separate facilities, advertising, marketing, profits, and other expenses of dozens of competing insurance companies. Who is paying for this waste? You are. What would happen if we had a single-payer system in which the government was the insurer of record? The waste would be eliminated.
You pay for the $400 billion in waste through extremely high premiums and other costs connected with private insurance. Your employer pays money for health insurance which it might, in part, be paying you as salary. It also deducts a substantial amount of money from your salary for health insurance premiums. In addition, you have co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs. The cost of health insurance goes up dramatically each year, and each year companies shift a higher and higher share of the costs of health insurance to their employees. Many companies are completely eliminating health insurance coverage.
According to a study done by The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose by an average of 9.3 percent per year for the past three years. Premiums have increased much faster than overall inflation (3.5 percent) and wage gains (3.8 percent).
Each year the average employee pays over $3,000 just for his or her contribution toward premiums for company-provided family health insurance. In addition, most workers must meet certain deductibles before their health insurance kicks-in. Deductibles for family health plans are as much as $1,715 per year. Workers may also have to pay additional deductibles for hospital stays and outpatient procedures. Most employer plans have co-pays and other out-of pocket expenses. Thus, the average employee winds-up paying over $6000 per year for health insurance and health care that is supposedly covered by his or her employer. Health insurance for people whose employers do not provide coverage is over $13,500 per year.
How would a single-payer system be paid for? (PNHP) Physicians for a National Health Program explains that the public financing already funneled to Medicare, Medicaid, and other government health insurance programs would be retained. The difference or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health insurance system could be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7 percent) and an income tax on individuals (about 2 percent). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket payments.
A 2 percent income tax is dramatically less for most people than the amount they now pay for employer-provided health insurance. If you have an adjusted gross income of $60,000 per year, your tax would be $1,200. That’s about $4,800 less than you now pay for company insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-pays. The plan proposed by Hillary Clinton could make the tax even lower. She would pay for her health plan by eliminating the Bush tax-cut for people making over half a million dollars per year.
Right-wing demagogues like Bush will argue that a single-payer program is “socialized medicine.” That is mendacious nonsense. A single-payer system would not do away with private doctors. People would be able to choose their own doctors, specialists, clinics, and hospitals. People would be allowed to buy their own supplemental health insurance for additional treatments and benefits just as they are allowed to do in European countries. A single-payer system would save lives and expand the rights and choices of millions of people who are trapped today in a miserable, corrupt, faulty system of costly, restricted, wasteful private health insurance.
In recent polls by ABCNEWS/Washington Post and CBS News/The New York Times, Americans by a 2-1 margin preferred a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. These results are in line with previous polls over the past decade which have shown large majorities of Americans favoring government-provided health insurance. So why don’t we have it? We don’t have it because health insurance companies with enormous power and money have blocked it by corrupting, strong-arming, and strangling the Republican Party and President Bush.
How would governmental health insurance work? Under a single-payer system the government would provide health insurance for all citizens in America. People ask: “How would we pay for a single-payer health insurance system? Wouldn’t it cost more and mean higher taxes?” The answer is no. Even if you are covered by your company’s plan, a single-payer system would cost you far less than the system we now have.
The Cambridge Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Public Citizen Health Research Group did a study in 2003 of health insurance costs and found that if we switched to a single-payer system we would save hundreds of billions of dollars. The study said that private insurance companies in the U.S. waste about $400 billion a year on administrative costs. The waste results from the elaborate, overlapping, and redundant bureaucracy, enormous executive compensation packages, employee salaries, benefits, separate facilities, advertising, marketing, profits, and other expenses of dozens of competing insurance companies. Who is paying for this waste? You are. What would happen if we had a single-payer system in which the government was the insurer of record? The waste would be eliminated.
You pay for the $400 billion in waste through extremely high premiums and other costs connected with private insurance. Your employer pays money for health insurance which it might, in part, be paying you as salary. It also deducts a substantial amount of money from your salary for health insurance premiums. In addition, you have co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs. The cost of health insurance goes up dramatically each year, and each year companies shift a higher and higher share of the costs of health insurance to their employees. Many companies are completely eliminating health insurance coverage.
According to a study done by The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose by an average of 9.3 percent per year for the past three years. Premiums have increased much faster than overall inflation (3.5 percent) and wage gains (3.8 percent).
Each year the average employee pays over $3,000 just for his or her contribution toward premiums for company-provided family health insurance. In addition, most workers must meet certain deductibles before their health insurance kicks-in. Deductibles for family health plans are as much as $1,715 per year. Workers may also have to pay additional deductibles for hospital stays and outpatient procedures. Most employer plans have co-pays and other out-of pocket expenses. Thus, the average employee winds-up paying over $6000 per year for health insurance and health care that is supposedly covered by his or her employer. Health insurance for people whose employers do not provide coverage is over $13,500 per year.
How would a single-payer system be paid for? (PNHP) Physicians for a National Health Program explains that the public financing already funneled to Medicare, Medicaid, and other government health insurance programs would be retained. The difference or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health insurance system could be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7 percent) and an income tax on individuals (about 2 percent). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket payments.
A 2 percent income tax is dramatically less for most people than the amount they now pay for employer-provided health insurance. If you have an adjusted gross income of $60,000 per year, your tax would be $1,200. That’s about $4,800 less than you now pay for company insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-pays. The plan proposed by Hillary Clinton could make the tax even lower. She would pay for her health plan by eliminating the Bush tax-cut for people making over half a million dollars per year.
Right-wing demagogues like Bush will argue that a single-payer program is “socialized medicine.” That is mendacious nonsense. A single-payer system would not do away with private doctors. People would be able to choose their own doctors, specialists, clinics, and hospitals. People would be allowed to buy their own supplemental health insurance for additional treatments and benefits just as they are allowed to do in European countries. A single-payer system would save lives and expand the rights and choices of millions of people who are trapped today in a miserable, corrupt, faulty system of costly, restricted, wasteful private health insurance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
