www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Russo-Orthodox archpriest: Bring back the Soviet times

This is one of the most convincing assessments of the need for less government and more Christian (and individual) intervention I have come across. Thank you.

Ah! The horror of some Americans that their taxes should be used to medicate and
heal someone, or to educate someone or to feed someone or clothe someone! The
American horror that the works of the Gospel should be undertaken by the
government.

Better to let the poor wither and die than expend a tax dollor to assist them!

A profoundly unchristian attitude! People are ignorant of our long tradition
and do not know the organised works of compassion undertaken for a thousand year
by the most Christian Empire of Constantinople, making use of taxation money.

May I re-present an older post. Apologies to those who have seen it before.

Dear Father - - - - - -,


May I be allowed to chime in with an old post of mine?

There seems little point that I should have any continuing involvement in this
debate since you are arguing it on American premises and not Christian ones.

I am speaking as an outsider, as one who is not American, and while you have
the notion that your principles on these matters are grounded in
Christianity, they are not. They are grounded in the mindset and ideas
peculiar to your local culture. What you write has no necessary connection
(apart from your membership of the Orthodox Church) with Orthodox
Christianity. It has every connection with the American mindset.

That is not meant to be an affront to you or to any other Americans on list.
After all, my own ideas on this are themselves grounded in my own New
Zealand culture which is derived from that of Great Britain, but I would
contend that my country's way of dealing with issues of poverty and the like
is a much better outworking of Christianity than the American way. In other
words Christian principles are more deeply embedded in New Zealand's social
and political structures than they are in the US.


This country, and many Commonwealth countries, is orientated towards the
common weal. We see the duty of Government as primarily that of managing
the country for the common good of the entire populace. In order to achieve
this common weal we cheerfully hand over our taxes. And while there is
nothing to prevent a man becoming immensely rich there is, thank God, a
government policy which protects a man from becoming obscenely poor.

But this is *not* the view of American government, at least among those who
hold to the original founding of the US. Your Declaration of Independence
specifically states, "...Governments are instituted among men to preserve
these rights..." In other words, you did *not* see government as managing
the country or imposing a blue print; you saw it as the means to guarantee
people liberty. It is a very different concept.

...........Neither concept of government is in and of itself Christian, but I would
argue that government established for the common weal is more Christian than
government focused on personal liberty.

It is a major mistake however to assume that the American abhorrence of
Government involvement and the even greater American abhorrence of
Government taxation (whether in general or for poverty relief) has anything
to do with Christian principles, and it is really very distressing to find
people
looking for scriptural and patristic argumentation to justify their own
culturally conditioned attitudes towards it. Perhaps a meditation on Romans
13 and Saint Paul's teaching on taxation would be useful?

Now the NZ and Canadian approach is all based on a legacy of English
church/state established relationships with a dollop of 19th century Methodist
good works
thrown in and this has spread out to the Commonwealth so I can see how the
American culture of separation of Church and State with the pot of wholesome
libertarianism thrown in (I always find your libertarian take on things
intriguing, and sometimes frightening - but always fascinating to read!) can
be horrified by the thought of actively putting someone on welfare.

But for us social security provision as a safety net to help the most needy,
and a free health care system for all is a Christian response and a
Christian use of our taxes.

Now as Church and State drift further apart it remains to be seen if that
partnership will continue but I still argue that we in New Zealand (and
perhaps slightly less now in the UK) enjoy a culture where people have
invested into the state the outworking of its Christian principles(getting
more and more diluted of course but still there) as the basis of its law and
care for its citizens.

In my experience, the people who extol the dignity and sense of self-worth
to be found in grinding labour for miserable pay, no health care
and no future have themselves experienced none of those things.

For days now we've been locked in this debate about economics,health,
welfare and the poor. But, as this is a site dedicated to Orthodox Christian
spirituality, I think both sides should make more reference to Scriptural
and traditional moral teaching on the topic. Do the principles and values
advocated by the Neo-classical Capitalists here (self-reliance,
entrepreneurship, success as the achievement of wealth, etc.) mesh with what
we read in Scripture, the Fathers of the Church and the Saints? Or do they
contradict the sources of our faith?

Can one be a true Christian and a social Darwinist?

Fr Ambrose

Slavophile, it distresses me to disagree with you, my brother, but I am obliged to.

As I have pointed out Orthodox Christians are the worst in the world, at least in your part of the world, in responding to the needs of the poor. They even leave their priests without adequate nutrition, without medical insurance, etc. See what Fr Lebedeff writes on the parsimoniousness of Orthodox Christians
https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0006A&L=ORTHODOX&P=R8636

> The fact is that with very few exceptions the clergy of the Church Abroad receive a salary that is so far below the poverty line, that all of these clergymen and their families would be easily eligible for welfare. <


To hope that they will rise up, organise themselves and create programmes
anywhere near adequate for social welfare needs is just unrealistic.

Hierom.Ambrose

Dear Slavophile, I apologise for confusing you with another person whose screen name also begins with Slavo-. I am told you are a UK citizen and so you have National Health available.

However my point still stands. Speaking as a man born and bred in a society which has invested in social and governmental policies a comprehensive care for the poor, the sick and the elderly, I really cannot imagine any other society. Indeed I would fight strenuously against those who wish to demolish this, and against those who hinder it, against those who would reduce aid to the poor to the inadequate efforts of Christians. No matter how good the intention, private chaity is not comprehensive enough to rearch every town and city and remedy the needs of the poor, the sick and the elderly.

I am glad to see the Hieromonk Ambrose back and feisty. I hope this means he is feeling better and his health is improving. My continued prayers for the healing of Father Ambrose and that God will grant us many more years of his company.

Amen! although I disagree with Father on the philosophy above.

Dear Ia, this is how free and universal healthcare works in this blessed land.

On 22 February I visited my regular doctor because of pains on the right ide of my stomach. There were suspicions about the state of my gall bladder.

Two days later I was given an ultra sound.

Three days after that I was given a CT scan.

On 29 February I was attended an interview with a "multidisciplinary team" of specialists - oncologist, my regular cardiologist, two surgeons, cardio-respiratory man.

"You have cancer in your gallbladder and probably part of your liver. We want you to have a PETscan (nuclear scan) to ascertain if there is cancer elsewhere in your body."

This was a total of 7 days from first reporting to the doctor to undergoing two scans to seeing a group of specialists. It cost me not one penny.

The PETscan took place 3 days later, on 3 March.

Admittedly it does not work as speedily for non urgent matters. But when things must
be addressed expeditiously the system is quite efficient.

Fr Ambrose
(who would still like your prayers for his health)

Bless Father,

Glad you are feeling better and I will remember you in prayer for continued health. When it comes to state run healthcare I believe you are forgetting that there are four million kiwis as compared to 300 million yanks. In my hometown we have half of New Zealand's population just in the metro area.

The smoothness that you experienced is in part due to the relative small population. It would never work in a country as large as the U.S. One needs to only look at our socialized military healthcare (tricare) to see what a gigantic failure socialized medicine is.

You are always in my prayers, Father, pitiful though they be.

I was more talking about the historical aspect, rather than present day politics (although I agree with Nelson Chase), when I said "philosophy," if nothing else than to avoid politics. However, given the OP, avoiding politics might be off topic on this thread.

For starters, St. Paul's teaching on taxation in Romans 13 is on law and order of the Stalinist type. Uncle Joe had all sorts of interesting ideas of justice, and he used hundreds of millions of human souls to play them out.

The Roman Empire did have a traditional of social welfare. It was also one based on noblesse oblige and private charity, not taxation to feed the welfare state. The Count of the Sacred Largesse and the Count of the Privy Purse were two different authorities in the Consistory. The only thing the systems have in common is both justify taxation as "largesse."

The idea of the welfare state comes from the socialists, coopted as electoral bribes during the course of the 19th century. It wasn't around in the British Commonwealth, for instance, for the Irish Potato Famine.

I'm afraid Father this is more a slavic thing, not true in general of the Greek Archdiocese and the Antiochians.

Countries with populations much larger than NZ provide comprehensive care for their unemployed, their sick and their elderly.

Here is a world map showing all the countries which provide Universal Health Care

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

We note that this is provided by virtually all Christian countries - except the United States.

If each of your 50 States made its own arrangements that would avoid the unwieldiness of one nationwide system

Of course the Soviet Union was able to handle an enormous population. “Education and health and other social services care were provided free and, with a guarantee of full employment, unemployment was unknown. For those unable to work there was an extensive system of invalidity and old age benefits, and for families with young children generous child benefits. Coverage of benefits was universal and almost every household was eligible for at least one. In addition to cash benefits there were numerous ‘benefits in-kind’ including free pre-school and child care, free or heavily subsidised holiday camps, subsidised housing and utilities, free cultural and sport facilities and generous maternity leaves.”
http://www.genderstudies.info/english/eng_text15.php

And an Arab thing. I see that the Melkite suffer in the same way as the Russians –

http://www.melkite.org.au/page46803913.aspx

“We have endured much, and, continue to do so, as we strive to keep or parishes and churches thriving, open and relevant. The problem is that we lack sufficient cooperation from our people – for example, the monthly envelopes are generally ignored. Those who do return them are less than 5% - the contribution of the Faithful in this regard is not worth mentioning. It is sad to say, but most of our sons and daughters have not yet received the grace of generosity. This unfortunate situation has forced the priest to become coordinators of hafles, collectors of money, beggars and financial administrators – and all this before we even consider the purpose for which they were ordained, - to be the Eucharistic and sacramental celebrant for their people, to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ, to be men of prayer, to be good and faithful pastors, to be the spiritual father of the families of the parish, the children, and, the youth.”

Christ is Risen! Good to hear from you again! And, believe it or not, not all Yanks are opposed to health care reform and universal coverage. Our system is the most redundant and most expensive in the industrial world on a per capita basis yet a full 40% of our adult population is uncovered. In spite of the costs of our system, the 'results' of our system do not support the argument that our citizens are treated to better care than those in other modern, industrialized nations like yours or Canada or Great Britain. The cost of providing care to the uninsured or under-insured is borne by whom in the USA? By the rate-payers of the insured for those costs incurred by those not eligible thereby spreading the costs on the insured for those services. As to those on government assistance the costs are picked up by taxpayers for those covered by said programs.


And as a 'PK' who grew up in a slavic jurisdiction, I can attest to the parsimonious nature of the salary and benefits of the clergy in the non-Greek and non-Antiochian jurisdictions in the USA.

That number is inflated, and includes those who deliberately opt out as well as those covered by a spouse's health insurance policy. The best non-partisan estimate is about 26 million adult Americans lack any form of health insurance. That's about 16%. Discount those who could get insurance but decline (mostly young, healthy twenty-somethings), it's more like 8%.