"Interfaith" Alinsky-ites? Let's Define "Moral"

There is no little irony in the fact that "WISDOM" is Alinsky-ite, yet brimming with 'people of faith.' Old Saul Alinsky dedicated his book to Satan, the father of lies.

Think Rev. Ellwanger knows that? More important, does he understand why it's important?

More than 100 people gathered outside Our Savior's Lutheran Church on Friday, and led by a veteran of the civil rights movement, raised their voices in a prayer for the passage of health care reform.

"We pray that the people of this nation have the energy and strength to see this through," said the Rev. Joseph Ellwanger, who sees access to health care, like racial equality, as a matter of justice.

..."It's our belief that it's not just a political and economic issue, it's a fundamental moral issue," said David Liners, state coordinator for WISDOM, an interfaith coalition of about 140 Wisconsin congregations working to advance health care reform.

Well, David, you're wrong, but you get style-points for propaganda. Or maybe for artful deception, which is a form of lying.

Let's look at a reliable dictionary (Fr. Hardon's Catholic Dictionary, Image Books, Doubleday, NYC). After all, there's a lot of Catholic money going into WISDOM.

Here we find the following:

MORAL LAW: The norm of human conduct, whether revealed or known by reason. The term is used to distinguish the law as binding in conscience, from mere statutes or directives intended to ensure good order.

Also pertinent:

MORAL ORDER: .....In ecclesiastical and civil law, the legally established body of rights and duties among human beings either in general or in a given society.

Both specifically reference "human" ('beings' and 'conduct') for a reason. "Moral law" or "moral order" applies to humans. While 'moral order' can be established in a society, such order cannot be exercised by the "society;" it can only apply to the humans within that society.

In other words, moral conduct is a property of humans, not societies, nor corporations. Only people can act morally or immorally, since States, societies, (or corporations), cannot "act". States, societies, and corporations are merely structures. They are inanimate.

Therefore, making a State a "moral actor" is impossible.

The "moral obligation" argument is specious because one cannot positively legislate moral action to force people to "be (or do) good". One can only negatively legislate--punishing human actors who violate the moral law or norms.

The debate over health-care is far too important to argue with sloppy or deceptive terms, folks.