R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Voting for killing because the other guy is irritating. No moral balance there.
Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court Justice
- Thread starter HomeschoolDad
- Start date
- Status
I am more optimistic than that.
The last few elections have been very close.
If those that cannot vote republican were to abstain or write in, the election would not be so close.
Think of it this way…
Those that have issue with voting republican, won’t anyway, and vote democratic.
If they don’t vote, or write in a candidate, the only side to lose votes is the pro death side.
PaulinVA:
R
Rau
Guest
One priest per 3 persons? Would make priests fairly expensive to support for the remainder!
Last edited:
Responding to oneself might be sort of tacky, but I have just finished watching the “debate” (that is a very precise rhetorical term, these quadrennial verbal slugfests are not “debates”), and if Biden does have some sort of condition, it wasn’t in evidence tonight. They were both very much on top of their game.
Medieval society wasn’t nearly as money-oriented — money barely even existed! — as today’s society is, and in a largely agrarian, cooperative society where the Church and the maintenance of her ministers was a top priority, I have no doubt they would have found some way to make it work. Keep in mind, too, that many monks work as farmers, and perform animal husbandry.HomeschoolDad:
One priest per 3 persons? Would make priests fairly expensive to support for the remainder!
And the ideal was one priest or religious per three persons, not simply “one priest”. There would very likely be far more monks and nuns than priests. But I wouldn’t mind seeing there be one priest per, let’s say, every one hundred or two hundred Catholics. The priest could indeed be a hands-on spiritual father, with ample time for both spiritual direction, and as much time in the confessional as every penitent needs. I find “be brief, be bold, and be gone” to be, quite frankly, a little off-putting, but it’s probably a necessity where you have confessions one hour a week with 20 people in line. Try to imagine what it would be like, if everybody went to confession often… or maybe more vocations would blossom, eh?
Last edited:
Too expensive. The sticker itself is reasonably priced, but shipping costs much more than the sticker itself. I can’t afford $10-$11 for a bumper sticker. And I won’t steal the maker’s intellectual property to make my own sticker — it would be easy to do (Snipping Tool) but that wouldn’t make it right. Like contraception, sterilization, or using nuclear weapons to annihilate millions of civilians, the technology exists (to make a copy of the maker’s image) but that doesn’t make it right.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
So you are okay with Amy Coney Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, then? Good to know.
Except the outcomes are startlingly different.
The outcome for the Republicans is originalism or textualism for the most part. Rendering judgements according to the way the writers of the Consitution intended it to be read.
The outcome for the Democrats over the past couple of decades has been to reinterpret the Constitution to make it fit the latest progressive cause.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
But you are okay with packing the SC, making DC and Puerto Rico states in order to name four more Democrat Senators, getting rid of the electoral college, opening borders, ballot harvesting, vote by mail, having non-citizens and 16 year olds vote, censoring conservative voices on social media, allowing convicted felons to vote, etc., because the “ends don’t justify the means?”
All 10 of these “means” have been entertained by leading voices in the Democrat Party.
Can you provide a meaningful list of 10 significant “means” suggested by Trump or leading Republican voices that you think cannot be justified by the “ends.”
While you are at it you might specify what the ends are that the Democrats have in mind when they suggest such means - besides political power, I mean. That one is painfully obvious.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
My math would reckon one in six - one sixth would be priests.HomeschoolDad:
One priest per 3 persons? Would make priests fairly expensive to support for the remainder!
One third marry (2/6), one third single (2/6) and one third priests OR religious (2/6). So if half of the one third (2/6) that follow a religious vocation are priests that would be half of one third or 1/6th.
Wait until the Democrats expand government bureaucracy, provide “free” college tuition, provide “free” health care to everyone including undocumented aliens, tax the wealthy until they leave, and initiate all the terms of the green new deal.
Things will truly be “expensive to support for the remainder.”
Good thing they are enacting $15 minimum wage laws.
That will surely make things livable.
Last edited:
P
PaulinVA
Guest
I don’t know why you would think I support these things.
Well, I do support vote by mail and don’t believe the voter-suppressing Republican narrative. I don’t believe being convicted of a felony means you lose your right to vote forever.
P
pnewton
Guest
No
Yes
Yes
…to name a few. I would not mind importing a little of the democracy we claim to export. Packing the court is a terrible idea, as that would mean it could expand indefinitely, based on political power. Citizens of the United States being represented in the Senate should be a no-brainer, but we are more about politics than intelligence in this country, and the electoral college may explode the country this year, so maybe it is time to let that go.
Most of what you said doesn’t bother me, or excite me. I do not think any of it is an evil, so the end not justifying the means does not apply.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I will just make the observation that both of the replies to my post ignore completely the fact that all items on the list are means that the Ds have in mind to attain one end alone - control of state power. The fact you don’t mind the means in question does not counter my original objection. It is not the Republicans who are putting the republic in jeopardy - @PaulinVA’s claim - the Dems are doing that precisely because their means of attaining power will fundamentally turn the republic into a socialist state. The fact you think you will enjoy the change does not change the fact that the Dems are far worse means to enders with far worse ends in mind then the Republicans.HarryStotle:
No
Yes
Yes
…to name a few. I would not mind importing a little of the democracy we claim to export. Packing the court is a terrible idea, as that would mean it could expand indefinitely, based on political power. Citizens of the United States being represented in the Senate should be a no-brainer, but we are more about politics than intelligence in this country, and the electoral college may explode the country this year, so maybe it is time to let that go.
Most of what you said doesn’t bother me, or excite me. I do not think any of it is an evil, so the end not justifying the means does not apply.
Of course, they are depicting their end state as the embodiment of the Kingdom of Heaven, albeit absent God entirely - and with far more child sacrifice - in order to entice support. However, that Michael Moore is playing the role of John the Baptist in this version of the story ought to give you pause. Locusts and wild honey are definitely not on his menu, which is far more extensive than the desert life permitted the true prophet of God.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I don’t know about the 1/3. Seems excessive to me. However, I am sure the monastic orders were very large. Their buildings testify to that. Also, some of the orders saw it as part of their vocation to go to wastelands and turn them into good land, fit for farming. Then they would distribute it to peasants and move on to another place.
So, many of them were net contributors to the economy, not net consumers.
W
whatistrue
Guest
Of course not.
When you asked what I wished, you kind of did.
Of course not.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Apparently, the “changes” the Democrats are trying to make are not approved when those changes are applied to them.
Ergo, sovereign immunity applies to the degree you believe yourself “above the law” in this new iteration of the “Republic,” according to Dem logic.
Ergo, sovereign immunity applies to the degree you believe yourself “above the law” in this new iteration of the “Republic,” according to Dem logic.
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
Actually a good point. Kind of like accepting every failure and lie and incompetent action based on a claim of being pro-life and making some SC nominations that tend in that direction.
W
whatistrue
Guest
I don’t recall seeing anything about voting based strictly on pro-life in the Catechism. Care to provide a reference so I can be educated?
V
Victoria33
Guest
No, I’ve done my part. Now you are changing the topic.
Except now, we have the addition of infanticide by a number of Democrats to the Democrat position, Obama to Butigieg. If people are comfortable voting for this, that’s their choice.
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
I didn’t bring up the Catechism in this context, you did.
- Status