America's 'soul' at risk over immigration, Archbishop Gomez warns

[Prodigal_Son1]

Perhaps the materialism of the capitalist right which seeks cheap labor through illegal immigrants could be thought to be secular: at least in practice. However, anyone with intellectual honesty would admit that it is on the modern left that secularism finds itself most at home. While some leftists may give lip service to faith in God, their true faith is in the state. The soul of America is becoming increasingly dominated by the state. There isn’t room for an almighty, all encompassing state and an authentic faith in God.

Ishii

Source?

I know there’s no source. One cannot defend either political party as 100% righteous, with all in that party to be believers. God has no political party. Partisanship is of men, by men.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Source?

I know there’s no source. One cannot defend either political party as 100% righteous, with all in that party to be believers. God has no political party. Partisanship is of men, by men.

Of course neither party is 100% righteous. Few would claim that.

But one can’t ignore the fact that one party supports abortion on demand, oppressing religious convictions and homosexual marriage, virtually without exception, while the other does not. One cannot truthfully say there is no significant difference between them.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Of course neither party is 100% righteous. Few would claim that.

But one can’t ignore the fact that one party supports abortion on demand, oppressing religious convictions and homosexual marriage, virtually without exception, while the other does not. One cannot truthfully say there is no significant difference between them.

That is true. I see irony when one complains of ‘state’ when one political power exists, and then promotes another political power over ‘state’ as more ‘righteous.’ All the issues you list has support in both parties, and opposition. We even see switching back and forth from partisans, of both major political parties on issues, making it difficult to evaluate by numbers alone. What does it say about a politicians ‘convictions’ when they change views on issues, after an election?

God does not change.

 

[ishii]

Source?

I know there’s no source. One cannot defend either political party as 100% righteous, with all in that party to be believers. God has no political party. Partisanship is of men, by men.

Source? How about opening your eyes? And please don’t distort what I said: I didn’t say the GOP or our side is “100% righteous” i said the secular left which seeks to undermine traditional values we get from religion, finds its home in the modern Democrat party. Examples of this is the campaign to redefine marriage and force insurance coverage for abortions. Gays and abortion: that is what the modern Democrat party stands for. Instead of distorting my posts why don’t you explain how you justify your support for the party of a oration and gays.

Ishii

 

[Ridgerunner]

That is true. I see irony when one complains of ‘state’ when one political power exists, and then promotes another political power over ‘state’ as more ‘righteous.’ All the issues you list has support in both parties, and opposition. We even see switching back and forth from partisans, of both major political parties on issues, making it difficult to evaluate by numbers alone. What does it say about a politicians ‘convictions’ when they change views on issues, after an election?

God does not change.

Sure, there are outliers in the Dem party (none on the national scale, it seems) who oppose abortion on demand. There are also outliers in the Repub party who favor abortion on demand.

But the existence of small numbers of outliers does not make the parties equivalent when it comes to the moral issues.

As to “switching back and forth”, the votes of the various politicians are easy to look up. If one does, one finds that virtually every Dem on the national level has voted favorably to abortion and consistently so, and virtually no Repub has.

 

[SamH]

Sure, there are outliers in the Dem party (none on the national scale, it seems) who oppose abortion on demand. There are also outliers in the Repub party who favor abortion on demand.

But the existence of small numbers of outliers does not make the parties equivalent when it comes to the moral issues.

As to “switching back and forth”, the votes of the various politicians are easy to look up. If one does, one finds that virtually every Dem on the national level has voted favorably to abortion and consistently so, and virtually no Repub has.

Agreed. Which party has abortion on demand as part of its platform?

“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.”

Read more: foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/04/democrats-draw-criticism-for-no-exceptions-abortion-platform/#ixzz2PQXjmQpM

I like the “no place for politicians or government to get in the way” line, but they demand that government get involved by paying for it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Source? How about opening your eyes? And please don’t distort what I said: I didn’t say the GOP or our side is “100% righteous” i said the secular left which seeks to undermine traditional values we get from religion, finds its home in the modern Democrat party. Examples of this is the campaign to redefine marriage and force insurance coverage for abortions. Gays and abortion: that is what the modern Democrat party stands for. Instead of distorting my posts why don’t you explain how you justify your support for the party of a oration and gays.

Ishii

There appears to be a misunderstanding. I don’t support any political party and only stated the irony in seeing ‘state’ complained about while specifically directing the complaints to one party, and upholding the ‘state’ under another party. I read an article about some democrat senators opposing gay marriage, and I’ve seen several speaking of republicans changing their views in support of gay marriage. I assume that’s what you meant when you said support for ‘gays.’

To correct the misunderstanding, I am not pro gay marriage. I just don’t believe we’ll see much difference from either political party.

I apologize for my part in any misunderstanding.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sure, there are outliers in the Dem party (none on the national scale, it seems) who oppose abortion on demand. There are also outliers in the Repub party who favor abortion on demand.

But the existence of small numbers of outliers does not make the parties equivalent when it comes to the moral issues.

As to “switching back and forth”, the votes of the various politicians are easy to look up. If one does, one finds that virtually every Dem on the national level has voted favorably to abortion and consistently so, and virtually no Repub has.

My point was, and is, we cannot trust men to correct our moral problems in this country. The numbers aren’t important in my opinion. We need to hold individuals accountable and quit being pandered to for the sake of votes, by party affiliations. I don’t care if it’s half and half, or one way or the other, if we can accomplish our moral goals.

 

[rlg94086]

My point was, and is, we cannot trust men to correct our moral problems in this country. The numbers aren’t important in my opinion. We need to hold individuals accountable and quit being pandered to for the sake of votes, by party affiliations. I don’t care if it’s half and half, or one way or the other, if** we can accomplish our moral goals**.

So…we can’t trust men to correct our moral problems, but we need to keep individuals accountable to accomplish our moral goals. Got it. :whacky:

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So…we can’t trust men to correct our moral problems, but we need to keep individuals accountable to accomplish our moral goals. Got it. :whacky:

Good catch, but the point is made. We can’t trust partisan men, with vested interests in blocs of voters. We need men of conviction, and I don’t really care what party they represent, if we can achieve a moral good. As it is right now, both sides point fingers, nothing gets done, and it’s a partisan blame game of who is the problem.

I’m not quite halfway through a 24 hour shift, and tired already.

 

[Ridgerunner]

My point was, and is, we cannot trust men to correct our moral problems in this country. The numbers aren’t important in my opinion. We need to hold individuals accountable and quit being pandered to for the sake of votes, by party affiliations. I don’t care if it’s half and half, or one way or the other, if we can accomplish our moral goals.

You have many times equated the parties. You acknowledge that the Dems are supportive of abortion on demand, yet accuse the Repubs of being no different because they don’t manage to overcome the Dems.

Perhaps the real problem is failing to support those who oppose it and failing to actively and effectively oppose those who promote it, and encouraging despair in the minds of those who really do want to oppose abortion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You have many times equated the parties. You acknowledge that the Dems are supportive of abortion on demand, yet accuse the Repubs of being no different because they don’t manage to overcome the Dems.

Perhaps the real problem is failing to support those who oppose it and failing to actively and effectively oppose those who promote it, and encouraging despair in the minds of those who really do want to oppose abortion.

They have had many times of overcoming the democrats. Since Roe vs Wade, we’ve had more republican administrations, and a majority of supreme court justices appointed by republicans.

 

[SamH]

.

Perhaps the real problem is failing to support those who oppose it and failing to actively and effectively oppose those who promote it, and encouraging despair in the minds of those who really do want to oppose abortion.

Wouldn’t that put the fault on Prodigal Son1?

 

[rlg94086]

Good catch, but the point is made. We can’t trust partisan men, with vested interests in blocs of voters. We need men of conviction, and I don’t really care what party they represent, if we can achieve a moral good. As it is right now, both sides point fingers, nothing gets done, and it’s a partisan blame game of who is the problem.

I’m not quite halfway through a 24 hour shift, and tired already.

I’m glad you took my smiley with the mirth intended.

I agree with you regarding men of good conviction, regardless of party. That said, the Republican Party platform and more Republican politicians than Democrats more closely align with my positions as a Catholic American. They aren’t perfect, but no one is.

 

[Ridgerunner]

They have had many times of overcoming the democrats. Since Roe vs Wade, we’ve had more republican administrations, and a majority of supreme court justices appointed by republicans.

Yes, the Obama supporters never tired of asserting that old canard during the election. Had a majority not voted for Obama in 2008 or felt too elevated to vote for his opponent, abortion on demand would be seeing its sun set, and we wouldn’t even be talking about homosexual marriage. And we most certainly would not be forced into the HHS mandate.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes, the Obama supporters never tired of asserting that old canard during the election. Had a majority not voted for Obama in 2008 or felt too elevated to vote for his opponent, abortion on demand would be seeing its sun set, and we wouldn’t even be talking about homosexual marriage. And we most certainly would not be forced into the HHS mandate.

It was more than just Obama supporters that asserted those facts.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

It was more than just Obama supporters that asserted those facts.

Do we need to repost the facts about the restrictions passed on abortion under Republican administrations? How about the fact that Obama’s WH is refusing to defend DOMA, even when challenged in court? Or about Obama’s HHS mandate that has the Church and various businesses suing to protect their religious freedom? Or the reopening of the Mexico City Policy on day one of Obama being in office?

Under Reagan we had the following:

Scalia - great conservative justice
Day O’Connor - moderate who was unreliable on Catholic social issues
Kennedy - should have been the fantastic Robert Bork, but thanks to Catholic democrats like Ted Kennedy, we got stuck with another moderate who is unreliable on Catholic social issues.

Bush 1 gave us:

Thomas - solid Catholic supporter
Souter - waste of a justice, he’s gone

Clinton gave us:

• Ginsburg, terrible on social issues
• Breyer - terrible on social issues

Bush II gave us:

Roberts - historically been good, but failed on the Obamacare ruling. Otherwise solid on social issues.
Alito - solid Catholic vote

Obama gave us:

Sotamayor - poor Catholic voting record
Kagan - 'nuff said. Terrible justice.

So while Republicans are not perfect, rest assured the Democratic president ALWAYS inserts a far left justice who has a worldview that is opposite the Church on most major social issues.

At least with a conservative, you have a chance at making real progress. With a Democrat, the track record says there is 0% chance you’ll get a justice who rules properly on social issues.

You have to look at these things in terms of progress. We didn’t fall into Gehenna in 1973 over night, and we didn;t get close to the precipice of telling God he made a mistake on the 6th day by legitimizing gay “marriage” over night. To demand a republican undo decades of damage in aa single blow is an unfaor standard, and shows an unwillingness to do the hard work in taking prossive steps back to where God wants us.

Anyone who wants to argue there is little difference is simply trying to justify their vote, or their ambivalence.

 

[ishii]

Do we need to repost the facts about the restrictions passed on abortion under Republican administrations? How about the fact that Obama’s WH is refusing to defend DOMA, even when challenged in court? Or about Obama’s HHS mandate that has the Church and various businesses suing to protect their religious freedom? Or the reopening of the Mexico City Policy on day one of Obama being in office?

Under Reagan we had the following:

Scalia - great conservative justice
Day O’Connor - moderate who was unreliable on Catholic social issues
Kennedy - should have been the fantastic Robert Bork, but thanks to Catholic democrats like Ted Kennedy, we got stuck with another moderate who is unreliable on Catholic social issues.

Bush 1 gave us:

Thomas - solid Catholic supporter
Souter - waste of a justice, he’s gone

Clinton gave us:

• Ginsburg, terrible on social issues
• Breyer - terrible on social issues

Bush II gave us:

Roberts - historically been good, but failed on the Obamacare ruling. Otherwise solid on social issues.
Alito - solid Catholic vote

Obama gave us:

Sotamayor - poor Catholic voting record
Kagan - 'nuff said. Terrible justice.

So while Republicans are not perfect, rest assured the Democratic president ALWAYS inserts a far left justice who has a worldview that is opposite the Church on most major social issues.

At least with a conservative, you have a chance at making real progress. With a Democrat, the track record says there is 0% chance you’ll get a justice who rules properly on social issues.

You have to look at these things in terms of progress. We didn’t fall into Gehenna in 1973 over night, and we didn;t get close to the precipice of telling God he made a mistake on the 6th day by legitimizing gay “marriage” over night. To demand a republican undo decades of damage in aa single blow is an unfaor standard, and shows an unwillingness to do the hard work in taking prossive steps back to where God wants us.

Anyone who wants to argue there is little difference is simply trying to justify their vote, or their ambivalence.

Well said. Also, we need to remember the difference betweent the Democrat party and the GOP at the local level: votes to restrict abortion generally fall along party lines. North Dakota efforts to protect the unborn are courtesy of the GOP members and largely in spite of Democrat efforts. In Washington state, the drive to require that all insurance plans provide abortion coverage had most of its support from Democrats. Most of the opposition came from Republicans. There is a difference between the parties - to deny this is to deny the facts.

Does this make the the GOP all saints and the Democrats all evil? No. However, for a Catholic living in this country today, its pretty clear that the Democrat party deserves no support at all.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

That is true. I see irony when one complains of ‘state’ when one political power exists, and then promotes another political power over ‘state’ as more ‘righteous.’ All the issues you list has support in both parties, and opposition. We even see switching back and forth from partisans, of both major political parties on issues, making it difficult to evaluate by numbers alone. What does it say about a politicians ‘convictions’ when they change views on issues, after an election?

God does not change.

No, Prodigal Son, you misunderstood my point. When I complain about the power of the “state” I’m referring to those in power right now - i.e. the Obama crowd - who want to increase the power of the state exponentially - so that it replaces traditional institutions such as the Church. Now I realize that the GOP has mainly been successful in slowing down this process (and in some cases adding to it - such as George W and the prescription drug benefit) but the Obama crowd is liberalism/statism on steroids.

For the record, I complain about the “state” when the GOP is in power and does stupid things, but increasing the power of the state is not the philosophy and theme of the GOP. It is, however, the philosophy and theme of the Democrat party: the answer to every problem is… more government programs and spending and higher taxes. They don’t get it of course.

Neither, apparently, do you.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Good catch, but the point is made. We can’t trust partisan men, with vested interests in blocs of voters. We need men of conviction, and I don’t really care what party they represent, if we can achieve a moral good. As it is right now, both sides point fingers, nothing gets done, and it’s a partisan blame game of who is the problem.

I’m not quite halfway through a 24 hour shift, and tired already.

I would say Marco Rubio and Rand Paul are men of conviction - and there are many more. My favorite is the brain surgeon Dr. Ben Carson. I plan to support them in the future. There is much partisanship of course, but the whole " we need people to get in there and get things done" mentality is to deny the reality of politics and deny that our country is divided between:

1. those who would like traditional institutions to remain and thrive, have some fiscal sanity

And,

1. those who believe in taking this country to the brave new world of statism modeled after Europe.

It shouldn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out which side deserves our support and which side deserves to be opposed.

Ishii