By Marv McWherter

Guest Columnist

In Sunday's Chapel Hill Herald ("Health care is a religious issue), the Rev. Robert Seymour took the position that universal health care for all Americans is a religious issue, implying that anyone who did not want the federal government to dictate and control access to care was not truly religious or compassionate. Not only do I take some offense at his implication regarding my faith and compassion, I am astounded at his lack of understanding the difference between charity and federal government mandates.

Unfortunately, there are many in the progressive camp who share Rev. Seymour's position. They suffer from what columnist David Broder referred to when he wrote "the principle behind almost all liberal legislation is that there are certain values fundamental enough that they should be enforceable at the national level, even if a significant minority of voters or a certain number of states disagree." This sentiment is the basis for the continuing slide towards Marxism we are now witnessing at an increasingly rapid pace, as evidenced by the current health care initiatives.

Our Founding Fathers were very clear in the Federalist Papers that the overlying principle used in the "design" of our republic was the need for a very weak central federal government. Until the New Deal era, this principle was adhered to by all three branches of government. In fact, in 1930 none other than then-New York Gov. Franklin D. Roosevelt said "the federal government must not be encouraged to interfere in the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare, and a dozen other functions because it lacks the constitutional authority to interfere." He certainly changed his tune by 1933 when he became president!

The Supreme Court agreed with the limited powers of the feds up until 1937, when in the Helvering vs. Davis case, under FDR's threat to pack the court, they decided 5-4 that Social Security was constitutional under the General Welfare clause and opened the door for a host of other social programs which take the property owned by certain citizens and give it to others, with the threat of incarceration for those who refuse -- a truly Marxist philosophy.

If, as the Rev. Seymour stated, we have a moral duty to use the power of the federal government to redistribute wealth from one segment of society to provide for everyone's health care, then logically we have a duty to do the same for all of life's other necessities such as food, clothing and shelter.As righteous as this sounds, there is simply no provision for such activism in our Constitution.

Perhaps the current debate should center around an amendment to that critical document to allow for a government solution to what has historically been one of private charity, as the examples in Rev. Seymour's column illustrate. As a nation, the citizens of the United States have an unparalleled history of stepping up with personal charity to fund everything from health care to housing for the truly needy, both here and abroad.

In his final paragraph Rev. Seymour states, "If anyone claims to be religious, there is absolutely no justification for refusing to support health care reform."

I couldn't agree more! Except my reforms do not involve federal government mandates and control of nearly one-sixth of our economy. I wholeheartedly support removing barriers to competition in all states by the more than 1,600 insurance companies, tort reform to reduce malpractice premiums which must be passed on to someone, removal of restrictions imposed by states to the types of policies written, removal of mandated coverages for all buyers and a host of other reforms.

If we as a nation decide we have a moral responsibility to provide more assistance to those truly in need, then the appropriate course should be to work towards a constitutional amendment allowing federal government involvement, and legislation to implement it. To continue on the current path is merely another attempt to subvert the Framers' intent and to ignore the very basis upon which our republic was founded.

We already provide a significant level of assistance through hundreds of private charities such as St. Jude's, a network of dedicated providers I am proud to support with whatever resources I can. The key is that it is my decision to support them, not the federal government's.

Marv McWherter is a resident of Mebane.