There was an interesting article in the paper this morning. First, I learned that there exists a group called "The Obesity Action Coalition." They are an interest group that advocates for the rights, and evidently, the dignity of the obese. Secondly, I learned that they are upset.
Recently, a man fell critically ill in Topeka, Kansas. An ambulance was called for. When the ambulance arrived, the medics discovered that the man would not fit inside the ambulance. Even if he would fit, they were unable to move him because he was too heavy. He weighed over 1,000 lb.s. They had to use a forklift to load the man onto the bed of a flatbed truck to get him to the hospital, where another forklift was used to unload him. It turns out that the growing obesity of Americans is causing some difficulties for the medical profession beyond simply providing for their care. Special ambulances are sometimes needed for their transportation. Once at the hospital, special beds, wheelchairs, walkers, and bathrooms may be required. The cost of these needed provisions and accommodations has caused medical providers to consider adding additional fees. They want to pass the costs of these accommodations along to the patients who require them. That is why the National Obesity Coalition is upset.
The National Obesity Coalition believes that since health care is a right, singling out the obese and requiring them to pay more for health care services is unfair, even discriminatory. They believe that the accommodations required for the care of the obese are no different than the accommodations required for the needs of any other patient and that it is the job of the health care system to provide them.
Proponents of the added fees point out that many obese patients welcome the special accommodations made for them and do not mind paying the extra fees if it means that they can receive needed care and save them the indignity of having to be transported to the hospital on the bed of a flatbed truck. Since obesity is a growing problem in the U.S., the cost of caring for the obese and making provisions for them is only going to increase. There is concern over who should be responsible for these added costs; the medical providers, the insurance companies, or the people who require those services. Naturally, no one wants to pay. But someone has to. If national health care is enacted, we might all have to pay; unless Congress decides to start taxing people by the pound.
The interesting thing is, there are cures for obesity.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Politics of the Bible
There was an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News concerning the struggle over the interpretation of the Bible and the political and social ramifications of the various interpretations. While the Bible has for many centuries been the subject of theological debate, it is now increasingly becoming the subject of political and social debate, and as a result, a common object of public scorn.
The question of who started this debate is a matter of opinion. Conservatives claim it was begun by liberals who chose passages and proffered interpretations perceived to support their social and political views. Liberals accuse conservatives of initiating the struggle and claim their response is simply an attempt to counteract interpretations they believe were chosen to support conservative views. Some point out that the debate over scripture dates back to the founding of the church. They are the correct ones.
Debate over scripture is nothing new. It dates back to the very founding of Christianity. Christ had barely risen before debate began regarding the significance and meaning of His life, His words, and His resurrection. Eventually, when the Gospels were collected, debate began began over their interpretation, and even which Gospels were to be included in the New Testament. Some were accepted. At least one was rejected. The establishment of the Church was not simply the movement of the early Christians to organize and tend to the faithful, but the result of the need to establish a coherent faith and doctrine, as well as to provide a way to resolve disputes over the interpretation of scripture when they arose.
What has changed is the context of the debate. In the years following Christ, there were a great number of arguments and disagreements over such things as which apostle was to be considered the greatest authority, and so given greatest weight, and how the Gospels should be understood and applied, how inconsistencies in the Gospels were to be reconciled, even which books and epistles should be included in the Bible. Similarly, there was debate over the proper understanding and interpretation of parables, epistles, and allegories. As importantly, there was debate over who should be allowed to participate in those discussions. Despite the disagreements and debates, there was agreement that the discussion should not be a matter of public opinion. The debate was restricted to theologians within the Church. It was believed that only pious men, steeped in theology and knowledgeable in the history and origins of the Church, should have any standing to participate in discussions over the interpretation of scripture.
Over the centuries, many of the greatest minds in Western civilization weighed in on the debate. Yet, where once learned and pious men such as St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom were looked to for insight into scripture, today, everyone feels enabled, and, in some cases, encouraged to have their own interpretations and opinions. It was inevitable that once the Church was no longer viewed as the arbiter of scripture and its authority was compromised, interpretation of scripture would fragment. And so it has. From one church, there were two. From two, we had three. Three led to four. And on it went until today there are hundreds, if not thousands of churches; each free to interpret and apply scripture as they see fit. Indeed, today it seems anyone can start their own church, and often does. A drive through the Texas countryside will reveal any number of odd and eccentric churches, each with its own theology and interpretation of scripture.
Given this, it is not surprising the public is disinclined to give great weight to the arguments of any church or religious figure, even the Pope, who pronounces on a theological or doctrinal issue. If a church has doctrine that one finds inconvenient or burdensome, one can simply find another church. If a liberal is confronted with a church that possesses a doctrine that they are uncomfortable with, they are free to find another. Conservatives are free to do so as well. The fragmentation of Christian beliefs, much to the amusement of many who hold religion in scorn, has marginalized Christianity in particular, and religion in general, as an authority on any issue of concern to the public. If churches and Christians in the U.S. find themselves marginalized and in disagreement over social issues and policy, they have only themselves to blame. It is they that have made themselves irrelevant.
Christ was not a liberal or a conservative. He was careful to avoid interjecting himself into the politics of His day. He spoke to individuals and addressed their souls individually. He called neither for political change or social reform. He endeavored to teach men and women how to live in a way that would bring them closer to God. He did not call upon them to right the wrongs of the world; only the wrongs in their own soul, because all good in the world flows from good souls; not good laws or good institutions.
The Bible as we know it was not given to us by God, it was given to us by the Church. The fragmentation of biblical interpretation is the direct result of the fragmentation of the Church. The fragmentation of biblical interpretation is the cause of the religious circus often on display in politics today.
The question of who started this debate is a matter of opinion. Conservatives claim it was begun by liberals who chose passages and proffered interpretations perceived to support their social and political views. Liberals accuse conservatives of initiating the struggle and claim their response is simply an attempt to counteract interpretations they believe were chosen to support conservative views. Some point out that the debate over scripture dates back to the founding of the church. They are the correct ones.
Debate over scripture is nothing new. It dates back to the very founding of Christianity. Christ had barely risen before debate began regarding the significance and meaning of His life, His words, and His resurrection. Eventually, when the Gospels were collected, debate began began over their interpretation, and even which Gospels were to be included in the New Testament. Some were accepted. At least one was rejected. The establishment of the Church was not simply the movement of the early Christians to organize and tend to the faithful, but the result of the need to establish a coherent faith and doctrine, as well as to provide a way to resolve disputes over the interpretation of scripture when they arose.
What has changed is the context of the debate. In the years following Christ, there were a great number of arguments and disagreements over such things as which apostle was to be considered the greatest authority, and so given greatest weight, and how the Gospels should be understood and applied, how inconsistencies in the Gospels were to be reconciled, even which books and epistles should be included in the Bible. Similarly, there was debate over the proper understanding and interpretation of parables, epistles, and allegories. As importantly, there was debate over who should be allowed to participate in those discussions. Despite the disagreements and debates, there was agreement that the discussion should not be a matter of public opinion. The debate was restricted to theologians within the Church. It was believed that only pious men, steeped in theology and knowledgeable in the history and origins of the Church, should have any standing to participate in discussions over the interpretation of scripture.
Over the centuries, many of the greatest minds in Western civilization weighed in on the debate. Yet, where once learned and pious men such as St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom were looked to for insight into scripture, today, everyone feels enabled, and, in some cases, encouraged to have their own interpretations and opinions. It was inevitable that once the Church was no longer viewed as the arbiter of scripture and its authority was compromised, interpretation of scripture would fragment. And so it has. From one church, there were two. From two, we had three. Three led to four. And on it went until today there are hundreds, if not thousands of churches; each free to interpret and apply scripture as they see fit. Indeed, today it seems anyone can start their own church, and often does. A drive through the Texas countryside will reveal any number of odd and eccentric churches, each with its own theology and interpretation of scripture.
Given this, it is not surprising the public is disinclined to give great weight to the arguments of any church or religious figure, even the Pope, who pronounces on a theological or doctrinal issue. If a church has doctrine that one finds inconvenient or burdensome, one can simply find another church. If a liberal is confronted with a church that possesses a doctrine that they are uncomfortable with, they are free to find another. Conservatives are free to do so as well. The fragmentation of Christian beliefs, much to the amusement of many who hold religion in scorn, has marginalized Christianity in particular, and religion in general, as an authority on any issue of concern to the public. If churches and Christians in the U.S. find themselves marginalized and in disagreement over social issues and policy, they have only themselves to blame. It is they that have made themselves irrelevant.
Christ was not a liberal or a conservative. He was careful to avoid interjecting himself into the politics of His day. He spoke to individuals and addressed their souls individually. He called neither for political change or social reform. He endeavored to teach men and women how to live in a way that would bring them closer to God. He did not call upon them to right the wrongs of the world; only the wrongs in their own soul, because all good in the world flows from good souls; not good laws or good institutions.
The Bible as we know it was not given to us by God, it was given to us by the Church. The fragmentation of biblical interpretation is the direct result of the fragmentation of the Church. The fragmentation of biblical interpretation is the cause of the religious circus often on display in politics today.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Corporate Blogging
There was an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News about the growing institutionalization of blogging. There is growing consensus that blogging has "become more corporate, more ossified, and increasingly indistinguishable from mainstream media." We are told that "the era when political comment on the Web (was) dominated by solo bloggers writing for free is gone." It is reported that many of blogging's most successful writers have been, and are continuing to be, "absorbed" by large, commercial sites.
Evidently, I am at risk of wasting my time since, according to the article, the interest in independent political bloggers is declining and is expected to continue to decline in the growing shadow cast by large, corporate sites. As if that weren't enough, it is said that the door is rapidly closing on the aspirations of independent bloggers to be hired by any large, professional, blog service since many of the best bloggers have already been snatched up. This is frustrating news for many of us Blog writers still aspiring to fame and fortune.
One result of independent bloggers being hired by large, professional sites, the article continues, is that political blogging is becoming increasingly standardized and indistinguishable from mainstream reporting. The importance and allure of the unorthodox, and sometimes quirky insights and opinions expressed by independent Bloggers is in jeopardy of being washed away in the growing swell of mainstream media's expansion in the Blogosphere. The good news is that there are still bloggers out there who do not write for fame and fortune, well, some anyway. I suspect many political bloggers, such as myself, write because they are dissatisfied with the coverage and reporting of "mainstream" media. Where this is the case, the allure of being hired by a large, professional site, is not quite as appealing as it might be to others.
I would certainly welcome being paid to write my Blog. But I enjoy the freedom of choosing what I want to write about, how to write about it, and, not least of all, when to write about it. I would not welcome having to conform my interests and tailor my opinions to suit the editorial tastes and market concerns of an employer. It is not that I am an idealist. It is simply that I hold my principals at a higher price than people have offered to pay for them.
Evidently, I am at risk of wasting my time since, according to the article, the interest in independent political bloggers is declining and is expected to continue to decline in the growing shadow cast by large, corporate sites. As if that weren't enough, it is said that the door is rapidly closing on the aspirations of independent bloggers to be hired by any large, professional, blog service since many of the best bloggers have already been snatched up. This is frustrating news for many of us Blog writers still aspiring to fame and fortune.
One result of independent bloggers being hired by large, professional sites, the article continues, is that political blogging is becoming increasingly standardized and indistinguishable from mainstream reporting. The importance and allure of the unorthodox, and sometimes quirky insights and opinions expressed by independent Bloggers is in jeopardy of being washed away in the growing swell of mainstream media's expansion in the Blogosphere. The good news is that there are still bloggers out there who do not write for fame and fortune, well, some anyway. I suspect many political bloggers, such as myself, write because they are dissatisfied with the coverage and reporting of "mainstream" media. Where this is the case, the allure of being hired by a large, professional site, is not quite as appealing as it might be to others.
I would certainly welcome being paid to write my Blog. But I enjoy the freedom of choosing what I want to write about, how to write about it, and, not least of all, when to write about it. I would not welcome having to conform my interests and tailor my opinions to suit the editorial tastes and market concerns of an employer. It is not that I am an idealist. It is simply that I hold my principals at a higher price than people have offered to pay for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)