Not really. That sounds more like YOU making the morally decent thing the enemy of the right of the duly elected party to govern.Ender:
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.
Yes, happens to be a Catholic forum after all.
But the quote immediately below this part of your post does not actually say that.
(bold added by me)
Total straw man.
Just for the sake of argument, “censoring conservative voices on social media” is the only one of these things that even begins to have any sort of moral coloration. The rest of these tactics are, in themselves, morally neutral. There are no immoral “means” to have to justify in the first place.
HomeschoolDad:
In the present economy, where many men who would make fine Catholic husbands and fathers otherwise, cannot ever hope to make enough money to support a family, and many women cannot “win the husband lottery” by finding a man who could support a family, perhaps monasteries and convents could act as a “safety valve” to allow these unfortunates to have rich, fulfilling lives and give great glory to God while so doing.HomeschoolDad:
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.
I think you’re right. Many contemporary faithful Catholic women are very circumspect about finding husbands who can provide them with absolute financial security, not for any “golddigger” reasons, but to know that they can have several children without having to worry about how that family will be supported, and without being forced out into the workplace themselves. That’s a reasonable thing to consider, but — and there is no delicate way to put this — some women just do not have the attributes that would make them the most eligible partners for these men, whereas another woman would have those attributes. (Physical appearance is the least part of it, I refer more to personality, intelligence, resourcefulness, and personal charm.) Which one’s he going to pick?
If by control state power you mean win elections, that is, democracy, okay? Since I kind of still believe that legitimate government derives its power from the will of the people, I do not really object to knowing the will of the people.
I will? I just like the idea of democracy, as well as balance of power. The Constitution was a great idea, perhaps needs updating, but I am concerned it may soon be moot. I never thought I would here the day when a sitting president would not concede an election of if he lost.
While in law school, my son was proposed to by more than one young female law student. They were sort of like “grazers”, going from one guy to the next and if they didn’t hit it off big right away, they went on to another guy.
I don’t follow politics regularly, so I’m not aware of the pro-life claims you imply Trump has made. I am, however, familiar with his actions which have been significant. It is his actions that reveal him to be a very pro-life president.
Does the erosion/removal of the implementation of inalienable rights embedded in the Constitution not count as morally problematic? Are rights to private property, freedom of expression and association, the presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial, the rights of citizens to be represented in government, etc., not fundamentally moral issues?HarryStotle:
Just for the sake of argument, “censoring conservative voices on social media” is the only one of these things that even begins to have any sort of moral coloration. The rest of these tactics are, in themselves, morally neutral. There are no immoral “means” to have to justify in the first place.
HRC didn’t exactly concede in 2016. Then again she wasn’t a sitting president.HarryStotle:
If by control state power you mean win elections, that is, democracy, okay? Since I kind of still believe that legitimate government derives its power from the will of the people, I do not really object to knowing the will of the people.
I will? I just like the idea of democracy, as well as balance of power. The Constitution was a great idea, perhaps needs updating, but I am concerned it may soon be moot. I never thought I would here the day when a sitting president would not concede an election of if he lost.
I submit that they are possibly actions he has taken to reach out to a certain segment of the electorate rather than from actual conviction. He has a tendency to say what he thinks his audience, or his base, wants to hear.
Those are actions he has actually taken, and whether he has done it to garner votes or because he truly believes it should be done is immaterial to me. What I care about is what does; I have no basis on which to judge why he did it, nor is it appropriate for me to do so.
So it’s good to do something with a good result (ends) for bad reasons (means). Okay, if that’s what you think.
But that is not what was said, so that appears to be an inappropriate remark. The whole statement is making assumptions.
The are real reasons against Trump, but this isn’t one. The laws that he passes have a larger scope than his own personal beliefs, besides most major politicians do the same thing.
It was a paraphrase, not a quote.