W
WillieWonka
Guest
It’s possible these people will have to ignore Christians so they can progress.
- Status
L
Langdell
Guest
Here’s some further perspective on the issue, from “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” published by the USCCB in 2007:
.
W
WillieWonka
Guest
I’d say the real market capitalist economies have come closer to that ideal than any other system in history.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Which ones specifically?
L
Langdell
Guest
W
WillieWonka
Guest
USA, UK, Japan.
M
mesurman
Guest
“conservatives complain…” A strong military protects our freedom to do what we are engaging right now…a free and open conversation. We should give the military more money to do their job. Your broad brush stroke about conservatives and welfare betray your leftist mentality. A true conservative knows that handing out money to people does not solve poverty it promotes it. A true conservative knows that by growing the economy in a free market capitalistic society promotes true opportunities for all people, if they are willing to work hard. Welfare encourages, no, promotes sloth. We should abolish all welfare and get Americans back to work. We can start creating jobs for Americans by removing all the “illegal” aliens from the welfare rolls and send them packing to their homeland. Welfare is not supposed to be a lifestyle choice it is supposed to be a temporary hand-up. We have families in America that are on the third generation of welfare recipients. That is wrong.
We need to take America back from the Government. Don’t Tread On Me.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Taking Biblical quotes out of context always leads to bad interpretation. The Church has nothing against wealth in itself.
Also please acquaint yourself with your own Church’s history. Capitalism arose from Christianity. Again, read D’Souza’s What’s So Great About Christianity.
F
fish90
Guest
I must respectfully disagree with you in part. I think that Jesus said something to the effect that the poor will always be amongst you. Taking this truth into practice, I wish to assume that there will never be enough good paying jobs to satisfy demand, so I still believe some sort of welfare should exist in the longer term. When people do not have jobs, they cannot afford food, clean water or basic medical care. I believe welfare should be a part time deal, but society must remember not everybody will have a job.
We will never end poverty, yet we should do all we can in order to provide basic human necessities.
God Bless
W
WillieWonka
Guest
You would have to define poverty so it can be identified. Otherwise it can’t be recognized and you will not know if it is eliminated. Poverty has become a relative term. People with flat screen TVs and $100 sneakers are often considered to be living in poverty.
C
Contarini
Guest
If the U.S. had either not engaged in, or had lost, all the wars in which it has engaged historically, there is no conclusive reason to think that we would be any less able to have this conversation. The most plausible exception to this is WWII. Even there, though, I have no evidence that Hitler had any plans to invade the U.S. (Perhaps I wouldn’t be here, since I was born in England and all my grandparents were in the U.K. during WWII.) That’s not to say that Americans shouldn’t have put their lives on the line for Europe, but simply that WWII was not any more a war of self-defense than the other American wars.
You can of course argue that a strong military has had a deterrent effect apart from war. Maybe. But on the other hand I can point out that most of the great American wars began with the U.S. having a very *small *military and building up a huge war machine by mobilizing the powerful U.S. economy. That’s an argument for capitalism, certainly, but against the need for the kind of overgrown military that the U.S. has maintained since WWII.
Then don’t claim that you believe in “small government” or that you don’t trust the government with too much power. It’s hypocritical to say that the government can’t be trusted with health care but can be trusted with nuclear bombs.
I tried to avoid such broad brush strokes. I described what I have heard some “conservatives” say. I very carefully did not claim that conservatives as a whole believe this.
What part of my scare quotes did you not understand? I specifically avoided claiming anything about true conservatives–whoever they might be. And I tend to agree with what you are saying. Simply handing out money may sometimes be necessary, but it’s certainly never the best option.
Yes, I know that this is the mythology. And I don’t dispute that capitalism provides the greatest good for the greatest number. As a Christian, though, I’m called to care about the least and the few, and maybe even those who are sinful and lazy (like myself–I shouldn’t be on this forum so much, for one thing
). The idea that an unregulated economy really promotes opportunities for every single person is a superstitious myth (i.e., it’s a false myth–there are true myths of course). There will always be people who fall through the cracks.Not being an American citizen myself, I can’t be expected to sympathize with your highly selective sense of humanity. And as a Christian, you shouldn’t be sympathizing with it either.
Agreed. I’m very happy to see alternatives that do not involve these people starving in the streets or rotting in garrets or being sterilized in the interests of eugenics–the fate of the very poor, unfortunate, and undisciplined 100 years ago!
I would agree if you were willing to start by abolishing or drastically reducing the standing military forces of this country. Since you clearly aren’t, I have to conclude that you are using language in a highly selective and misleading way.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Jesus also did not have the apostles launch a violent revolution against any of the corrupt, tyrannical rulers of the day. Does that mean that you think that what Bush did in Iraq was contrary to Jesus’ example?
You and other “conservatives” continually denounce government “coercion” when it’s peaceful and directed toward people who are actually subjects of the U.S. government, but not when it’s violent and directed toward people of other countries. Don’t you see a problem with this?
The fact that Jesus didn’t have the disciples “tackle the rich man” is no more of a model for how governments should behave than the fact that Jesus didn’t attack Herod Antipas’s castle. (I think that the Iraq war was wrong, but I do not base my opinion on Jesus’ “failure” to do such things.)
Furthermore, Jesus asked the rich man to give all his money to the poor, not to do his bit to help out the poor (there is no reason to think that he wasn’t doing this already).
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Prosperity is always good, in your opinion?
Why is that your standard for good?
That’s a good thing in your opinion?
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Well no, it’s not. The passage you seem to have in mind from the preamble says this:
Or do you have some other passage in mind?
Furthermore, I did not ask about the Constitution, but about Christianity. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the two may not be identical.
Edwin
W
WillieWonka
Guest
Prosperity is always good.Prosperity is always good, in your opinion?
Why is that your standard for good?
That’s a good thing in your opinion?
Edwin
I said capitalism brought prosperity. I note people choose prosperity over poverty. It is their choice.
I didn’t define a standard for good.
I don’t know if blathering on computers if good. I leave that decision to the blatherers.They obviously have chosen it over all other available alternatives.
C
Contarini
Guest
It may mean only one thing to you. If so, why don’tyou say what that one thing is?
I don’t scorn members of the military. That’s the old canard trotted out by militarists for centuries, and it holds no water.
The bravest thing to do is to neither engage in nor support violence, but to put one’s own life on the line between perpetrators of evil and their victims.
The second bravest is to put oneself on the line by participating in the military (or the police force) in order to defend the innocent.
The third bravest is to refrain from violence and to do what one can to ensure that violence is not used on one’s behalf.
The least brave option is to get others to engage in violence on one’s behalf.
To claim that those of us civilians who do not want violence to be used on our behalf, and who support government policies that will not use violence on our behalf (thus exposing ourselves to danger, if what you say is true), are less brave than civilians who happily profit from the sacrifice of others, is simply illogical.
That’s not to say that this last option is necessarily wrong. If it’s not wrong to engage in violence, it’s not wrong to support a military force (especially when made up of volunteers) who will do so on my behalf. And of course a person who takes that last option would be contemptible if they then did not respect and support those who put their lives on the line.
But the fact is that I never asked anyone to “die for my freedom.” To take a specific case–I opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. I am not responsible for the fact that governments chose to act on my behalf against my wishes (I say “governments” because I’m a British citizen living in the U.S.). Those governments and their supporters (such as yourself) have no right to call me a coward or a hypocrite because I express my willingness to do without the “protection” supposedly afforded by their aggressive behavior.
Furthermore, I’m not convinced that any of the wars fought by the United States have actually kept Americans any freer than they would have been had the wars not been fought. My position doesn’t rest on that supposition. But your rhetoric actually rests on assumption rather than evidence. American warfare has almost always been aggressive, not defensive.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
W
WillieWonka
Guest
An economy encompasses the aggregate of all individual tastes and preferences. There will always be a difference in tastes and preferences among people. Those who don’t choose to translate their prosperity into luxury items will choose an alternative.
F
fish90
Guest
I would define poverty as the inability to pay for food, water, shelter, clothing and basic medical care. Not being able to afford steak with food stamps and then buying a big screen TV. Our society must understand luxury versus necessity. The bare minimum should be given to the less fortunate. I want everybody to have the most, but that is impossible.
Socialism has its good points and bad points. The good is that it allows a social safety net. All Christians should be interested in helping the less fortunate in our society. The bad is that if there is too much the country experiences horrible repercussions. The socialism in this country has hurt our nation. We expect hundreds of trillions of dollars in debt. Politicians cannot run anything that involves business, because all they want is to get re-elected and answer their constituents who always wants the most. The only successful government program is that of our military. Then again, generals lead while the politicians give them money. (I do not mean that government should not referee the economy.)
Postal service= billions in lost revenue
Medicare=bankrupt
Medicaid=bankrupt
Social Security= bankrupt
I would argue that socialism should only be used for the less fortunate in our society. Socialism does work for helping people with disabilities, helping the poor and helping the elderly. No one can argue that completely. The problem with socialism is that the people come to depend on government. Once again, we must remember necessity over luxury.
To anyone that may make a false argument, basic health care must be given to all. Everyone should be allowed to live from conception to natural death. Socialism is just not the complete answer.
Socialism has its good points and bad points. The good is that it allows a social safety net. All Christians should be interested in helping the less fortunate in our society. The bad is that if there is too much the country experiences horrible repercussions. The socialism in this country has hurt our nation. We expect hundreds of trillions of dollars in debt. Politicians cannot run anything that involves business, because all they want is to get re-elected and answer their constituents who always wants the most. The only successful government program is that of our military. Then again, generals lead while the politicians give them money. (I do not mean that government should not referee the economy.)
Postal service= billions in lost revenue
Medicare=bankrupt
Medicaid=bankrupt
Social Security= bankrupt
I would argue that socialism should only be used for the less fortunate in our society. Socialism does work for helping people with disabilities, helping the poor and helping the elderly. No one can argue that completely. The problem with socialism is that the people come to depend on government. Once again, we must remember necessity over luxury.
To anyone that may make a false argument, basic health care must be given to all. Everyone should be allowed to live from conception to natural death. Socialism is just not the complete answer.
T
TEPO
Guest
Socialism to me seems similar to a ranch. All the cattle stay well fed, and are treated equally. The only problem is, I’m not a bull. I expect more out of life than this. Capitalism, on the other hand, offers those who want to exceed a chance. That chance might end up as a whole new idea which helps humanity. Look at the automobile, electric grids, computers. I think almost all innovations which have helped humanity were born from capitalism, and pure freedom. Unfortunately, the freedoms we used to have are diminishing. One may argue that all these innovations have proven destructive. But if they are, why did God allow them?
Capitalism is seemingly competative, and those who are mentally or physically challanged should be helped. Everyone else seems to survive o.k. What more could we ask for?
Capitalism is seemingly competative, and those who are mentally or physically challanged should be helped. Everyone else seems to survive o.k. What more could we ask for?
- Status