Beck: Help us restore traditional American values

[CMatt25]

And I agree with that. The “voluntary” part is key.

But what is currently in place, and what is proposed by many politicians is not voluntary. It is in fact compulsory, under penalty of imprisonment and fines.

Let me rephrase. We should voluntarily love to pay our income taxes to help the poor under penalty of fines and imprisonment or both. And if someone is in a higher income bracket then they should cheerfully do the same and pay more. Not even a flat tax for me Suudi. Progressive all the way.

In all seriousness Suudy you seem extremely into means and ends. Well the means used up till now have not brought good ends to people without health insurance. Or to those who have been shut out from it due to unaffordable premiums. Their assets may be just too high for Medicaid and they are not eligible for Medicare. And faith groups can’t do it all themselves. Or the means used to deny people coverage for pre-existing conditions certainly did not bring justifiable ends. It brought a good end for the insurance corporations though. As it certainly increased their means. Peace.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

“Sometimes a man’s character can best be judged by seeing who his worst enemies are.
When it comes to Beck, sure, some people find him off-putting because of his style. Some don’t like his religion. But his ideological opponents; the ones who castigate him the most, and the most viciously, are some of the most unappetizing people in this society”

True. Liberals, particularly the skinny ones, taste a bit gamy. Need to add butter or olive oil to help cover the taste. Watch how long you roast, because they can be overdone in a minute. Don’t add garlic. Big mistake. Took forever to air out the kitchen.

Conservatives however are juicy! Throw them on grill with onions and peppers and you can have yourself a nice meal in minutes. They stew in their own juices. No need to marinate. Quite tender after a few minutes on the flame. Goes well with potatoes and a green salad. And a big glass of good red wine!

Moderates are neither here nor there. Tastes sometimes like chicken, sometimes like fish. Doesn’t take to seasonings well. Too bad because they are rather bland. Serves best with boiled potatoes and lima beans. Some sort of middling white wine goes well.

Anyone got some recipes?

DD

This post reminds me of what I was thinking when a poster stated liberals were unappetizing. I thought of the Twilight Zone’s " To serve man " and had a laugh. You, too?

 

[CMatt25]

Don’t you love babies?

yes

 

[CMatt25]

You never seem to have time to defend why you think killing babies is something Jesus agreed with.

You just repeat “Read Matthew 25” “Read Matthew 25” like some robot.

Since you state I “think killing babies” is something Jesus agreed with, I have no other way to take that other than you are calling me a baby killer.

Are we allowed again to talk about others?

 

[ishii]

Since you state I “think killing babies” is something Jesus agreed with, I have no other way to take that other than you are calling me a baby killer.

Are we allowed again to talk about others?

CMatt, I would like you to respond to these questions by Suudy:

What good is the feeding the hungry if they have no right to life?
What good is the sheltering of the homeless if they have no right to life?

You keep rationalizing your pro-choice stance (which is in opposition to Church Teaching) by saying that in a pluralistic society we have to respect that there are others that hold different views from us, etc. (if I am wrong in this assessment of your views, let me know). However, when you are challenged by the question, "what if the society was in favor of racism against blacks (which is was a short time ago)? Or what if the society allowed children up to age one be killed ala infanticide? Would you stand by and allow a racist society to continue? Or stand by and allow the babies to be killed? I guess what I’m asking is at what point would you act to change immoral laws? What do you think of freedom riders and marchers in the south who worked to change the jim crow laws? Were they imposing their morality on society? Please address these questions.

Ishii

 

[po18guy]

Can you expand your thoughts. I find it hard to understand your logic. It’s just me.

Both of the terms “tolerance” and “diversity” did not originate with the Church, but rather were introduced by the secular world. As good as they sound and as pure as the originator’s motives might be, both words have come to support various types of aberrant behavior and lifestyles. In the secular world, no judgment is made regarding the morality or wisdom contained in any of the unusual behaviors that these terms encompass. Thus, we have today a push for “tolerance” of such poor souls as transsexuals, who genuinely need compassion, but also need therapy and direction away from their ultimately dissatisfying lives. “Diversity” is another code word for the acceptance of clearly aberrant and/or sinful behaviors. It is also a code word for certain types of discrimination. Thus, tolerating such behaviors without applying the eternal standards as taught by the Church leads to eventual acceptance of perversity, rather than brotherly correction or evangelization.

As to their use, certain segments of the population which are enamored of these terms use them frequently, but tend toward the hypocritical when asked to tolerate views other than their own. It does not always, but can take the form of promotion of dissent, and excluding the majority view - regardless of the morality of the situation.

 

[CMatt25]

CMatt, I would like you to respond to these questions by Suudy:

What good is the feeding the hungry if they have no right to life?
What good is the sheltering of the homeless if they have no right to life?

You keep rationalizing your pro-choice stance (which is in opposition to Church Teaching) by saying that in a pluralistic society we have to respect that there are others that hold different views from us, etc. (if I am wrong in this assessment of your views, let me know). However, when you are challenged by the question, "what if the society was in favor of racism against blacks (which is was a short time ago)? Or what if the society allowed children up to age one be killed ala infanticide? Would you stand by and allow a racist society to continue? Or stand by and allow the babies to be killed? I guess what I’m asking is at what point would you act to change immoral laws? What do you think of freedom riders and marchers in the south who worked to change the jim crow laws? Were they imposing their morality on society? Please address these questions.

Ishii

You are only partly correct. I say that on this issue because a woman’s right, when life becomes human, cases of rape or incest, or the life of the mother are all grayer in our democracy and society of plural beliefs on this subject. Women do not choose abortion lightly. Many pray to God and consult their consciences and their doctors in their decision process. As a Catholic and Christian I have struggled a lot on the issue. Weighing my personal beliefs against living in a democracy of plural beliefs on this issue. Our Catholic Vice President Joe Biden can probably explain this position for a plural democracy better than I. I recall hearing him explain his position during the 2008 campaign. The cases you present are all after a human has been born. This is one reason why I oppose killing human beings on death row whether innocent or not. So see I feel no need to respond to Suddi’s apples when I am talking an orange. Now before you or anyone else get all bent out of shape and out of sorts and start asking if I support choice under any circumstances or for any reason up until the very moment of birth, actually read about Roe.

My point anyway is we have been on this subject for nearly 40 yrs. We can continue the same old battles. Or we can move on and if the law of the land is safe and legal, lets begin to make it even rarer. And rededicate ourselves to Christ’s other issues, issues He actually addressed, and elevate those issues of the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the sick and war and peace. At least to the level at which the Church has elevated this one issue.

I truly hope this helps. I understand your view and I hope you will try to understand mine. And I pray we can now end this debate and move on.

God bless you always on your faith journey with Him and may His peace abide within you always.

 

[Gift_from_God]

I often perceive Glenn Beck as being anti-Catholic. He says social justice is code for Communism and Nazism.

Restore honour? What honour? When did America lose honour? Where was Glenn Beck when Bush disregarded the fourth amendment?

 

[Darryl1958]

I often perceive Glenn Beck as being anti-Catholic. He says social justice is code for Communism and Nazism.

Restore honour? What honour? When did America lose honour? Where was Glenn Beck when Bush disregarded the fourth amendment?

Thankfully, Obama has shut down Guatanamo now and has totally repudiated all of what Bush did.

 

[Suudy]

Let me rephrase. We should voluntarily love to pay our income taxes to help the poor under penalty of fines and imprisonment or both. And if someone is in a higher income bracket then they should cheerfully do the same and pay more. Not even a flat tax for me Suudi. Progressive all the way.

Ok, we are back where we started. Again, I implore you to read Centesimus Annus by Pope John Paul II. The proper role for the government is not to provide these services.

I also want to be clear that I do not think we should refuse to pay our taxes. You know, render under Caesar. However, we should demand that the government utilize its tax receipts in a manner consistent with the proper role of government.

Finally, I would be more inclined to agree with you if the discussion were about local governments. The federal government should not be paying for social programs because 1) it is contrary to the proper role of government and 2) it violates the principle of subsidiarity.

In all seriousness Suudy you seem extremely into means and ends.

You use extremely as if it is a bad thing. Of course I am into means and ends. What else is there. Focusing on one to the exclusion or diminishing of the other is problematic.

Focus too much on the means, and you get the ultra conservatives. They focus so narrowly on the means, such as small government, individual responsibility, freedom and liberty, that they lose sight of the ends, i.e. solidarity.

Focus too much on the ends and you get the extreme liberals. They focus on the ends so much that they ignore the means. This is where communism and socialism lie. They are so focused on making sure that everyone has a bed, food, clothing, and a job, that they forget out the liberty and freedom that is a right of every person.

I think, though, that we must keep both in sight. We must keep an eye on solidarity, but we can only get there through licit means. A good end (such as feeding the hungry) should only be achieved through morally licit means. The example I gave of communism saw the forced confiscation of personal property and denials of freedoms (such as worship) all to achieve an end where all were equal. The end may be good, but the means were not.

Finally, I want to make it clear that means and ends are meat of Catholic ethics. You cannot legitimately achieve a good end without morally licit means. And morally licit means, without an intended good end, is meaningless. Read up on Catholic ethics (a good starting point is Kreeft’s Making Choices: Practical Wisdom for Everyday Moral Decisions).

Well the means used up till now have not brought good ends to people without health insurance. Or to those who have been shut out from it due to unaffordable premiums. Their assets may be just too high for Medicaid and they are not eligible for Medicare. And faith groups can’t do it all themselves. Or the means used to deny people coverage for pre-existing conditions certainly did not bring justifiable ends. It brought a good end for the insurance corporations though. As it certainly increased their means. Peace.

I think you are confusing means, as in ability to achieve an end, with means as in the route by which we achieve an end. There certainly has been the ability to achieve the good end we all seek (at least here in the United States). There is no doubt those means exist. The issue, however, is the how we are to actually achieve those ends, not whether they are possible.

 

[Darryl1958]

Restoring honor, it would seem is a turning to God both publically and in our private lives, and especially in our families, which is the wellspring of our continuing life as a people.

Therein lies the ecumenical message that all Christians ought to be able to relate to. Beck may not be non-partisan, but that message of 8-28 certainly is.

 

[ishii]

You are only partly correct. I say that on this issue because a woman’s right, when life becomes human, cases of rape or incest, or the life of the mother are all grayer in our democracy and society of plural beliefs on this subject. Women do not choose abortion lightly. Many pray to God and consult their consciences and their doctors in their decision process. As a Catholic and Christian I have struggled a lot on the issue. Weighing my personal beliefs against living in a democracy of plural beliefs on this issue. Our Catholic Vice President Joe Biden can probably explain this position for a plural democracy better than I. I recall hearing him explain his position during the 2008 campaign. The cases you present are all after a human has been born. This is one reason why I oppose killing human beings on death row whether innocent or not. So see I feel no need to respond to Suddi’s apples when I am talking an orange. Now before you or anyone else get all bent out of shape and out of sorts and start asking if I support choice under any circumstances or for any reason up until the very moment of birth, actually read about Roe.

My point anyway is we have been on this subject for nearly 40 yrs. We can continue the same old battles. Or we can move on and if the law of the land is safe and legal, lets begin to make it even rarer. And rededicate ourselves to Christ’s other issues, issues He actually addressed, and elevate those issues of the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the sick and war and peace. At least to the level at which the Church has elevated this one issue.

*Why does "being on this subject for 40 years mean anything? If there is a grave injustice, does the passage of time mitigate the moral gravity of the situation? If the civil rights advocates had given up because “we’ve been on the subject for nearly 40 years” where would we be now with civil rights for minorities, e.g.? I come back to my and Suudy’s original questions which you still haven’t answered:

What good is the feeding the hungry if they have no right to life?
What good is the sheltering of the homeless if they have no right to life? I would like to add another question: Why is it that you feel compelled to “weigh your personal beliefs against living in a democracy of plural beliefs on the issue” on the abortion issue, yet you have no problem emphatically stating your opposition to capital punishment, for example? Why do you elevate the other issues above the sanctity of life from conception to natural death as the Church teaches? I would like you to try to give straighforward answers to these questions. You may want to “Move on” but the fact is, the right to life is the foundation for all other rights that have an effect on the hunger/homeless/war issues which you seemingly would rather focus on. Again, as Mother Theresa said, “if a mother can kill her baby, then I can kill you and you can kill me”. *

I truly hope this helps. I understand your view and I hope you will try to understand mine. And I pray we can now end this debate and move on.

*If you believe the unborn baby to be a human being, then I don’t understand why you would take the pro-choice position. I don’t really expect to change your mind right now on this thread, but it is my hope that these questions will cause you to rethink your positions. If you don’t really have a good answer to them, then it should cause you to re-examine your position. Again, I am eager and waiting to hear your direct answers to my questions or even just a couple of them if that is all you have time for right now. Ishii *

God bless you always on your faith journey with Him and may His peace abide within you always.

 

[Darryl1958]

We ought not mistake paying taxes with either charity or helping the poor. The main benefactor of a bigger tax burden is a bigger government.
Insurance companies benefited greatly from the health care program for example which forced people to pay into it. Bankers were the main benefactors of the trillions of the stimulus, car companies of the cash for clunkers. Then there is of course the teachers unions, the trial lawyers, the government workers, and all the usual people that fund liberal political machines and get their rewards.

In the meantime, homelessness in New York has increased 50 % in the last year.
But there day will come, as promised, just like Guatanamo…

And this is the ‘social justice’, that was an adequate payback for the Catholic voter to keep the abortion mills humming along in well-funded, tip-top shape?

 

[Suudy]

You are only partly correct. I say that on this issue because a woman’s right, when life becomes human, cases of rape or incest, or the life of the mother are all grayer in our democracy and society of plural beliefs on this subject.

No, no, no. That is the entire point I’ve been trying to get across. The right to life does not change with the circumstances. It is not a matter of personal choice. No matter the evil that caused a pregnancy, that unborn child is still an innocent, human person with a right to life. Why punish that child for the sins of the parent(s)?

What is intrinsically different between a child conceived in a violent act and one conceived in love? Are they different types of humans? Does one have rights, but not the other?

Women do not choose abortion lightly. Many pray to God and consult their consciences and their doctors in their decision process.

Nobody has suggested they do. And nor should they. But if it is morally licit, why should it be such a hard decision? If there is nothing wrong with it, why is it so hard to choose? Because women know it is wrong. They struggle with it because they know deep down that what they are choosing is somehow flawed, disordered, contrary to the natural law.

As a Catholic and Christian I have struggled a lot on the issue. Weighing my personal beliefs against living in a democracy of plural beliefs on this issue. Our Catholic Vice President Joe Biden can probably explain this position for a plural democracy better than I. I recall hearing him explain his position during the 2008 campaign.

You keep injecting the word “belief”. We aren’t talking about beliefs, we are talking about rational, reasonable positions. These aren’t a matter of taste, like choosing flavors of ice cream. These are real world, serious issues. Truth is not subject to the opinions of a pluralistic society. Either abortion is an evil or it isn’t.

The cases you present are all after a human has been born. This is one reason why I oppose killing human beings on death row whether innocent or not.

What exactly has changed at the moment a child is separated from his mother? Before the child is completely free of the mother’s womb, what magical transformation occurred that changed whether that child had the same rights as other people? The birth itself?

So see I feel no need to respond to Suddi’s apples when I am talking an orange.

What do you mean? All human life is sacred. And innocent life is especially deserving of protection. So how is this apples and oranges? I’m for the protection of all life, born and unborn. If you didn’t notice before, I am opposed to capital punishment.

Now before you or anyone else get all bent out of shape and out of sorts and start asking if I support choice under any circumstances or for any reason up until the very moment of birth, actually read about Roe.

Yeah, Roe talked about “viability” and arbitrarily chose 26 weeks. But children have been born as early as 22 weeks. So what changed in the last 37 years? Did the change in medical technology suddenly change when an unborn child becomes a person?

My point anyway is we have been on this subject for nearly 40 yrs. We can continue the same old battles. Or we can move on and if the law of the land is safe and legal, lets begin to make it even rarer.

And this point was addressed before. Slavery was legal for more than 40 years, should we have just moved on? Should we have made sure that it was safe and legal, and work to make it even rarer? Would you have been one of those “well, I’m personally opposed to slavery, but I would never want to impose my beliefs on others” in the 18th and 19th centuries?

And rededicate ourselves to Christ’s other issues, issues He actually addressed, and elevate those issues of the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the sick and war and peace. At least to the level at which the Church has elevated this one issue.

Been there done that. You still haven’t address the point made by myself and others. I’ll post ishii’s again for you:

What good is the feeding the hungry if they have no right to life?
What good is the sheltering of the homeless if they have no right to life?

The issue of feeding the hungry has no meaning if they aren’t even allowed to live. For what dead person eats? The issue of sheltering the homeless is pointless if they aren’t allowed to live. For what dead person needs shelter?

I truly hope this helps. I understand your view and I hope you will try to understand mine. And I pray we can now end this debate and move on.

It doesn’t, because it is just a rehash of what you wrote before. It doesn’t get any deeper. It doesn’t explain why you hold fast to these ideas. Myself, and others, continue to challenge you on these points because you have failed to provide reasons to support them.

 

[iamrefreshed]

And again, another toxic statement saying the same thing. Do you know how hurtful these statements are?

When someone tells me Jesus didn’t condone abortion I have to challenge that thought.

Frankly, a Catholic teaching that heresy to non-Catholics is terribly damaging to both Catholicism and the pro-life movement.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Since you state I “think killing babies” is something Jesus agreed with, I have no other way to take that other than you are calling me a baby killer.

Are we allowed again to talk about others?

I never said you performed the act.

You said Jesus didn’t explicitly condemn abortion so you thought abortion was OK.

You said Jesus didn’t explicitly condemn embryonic stem-cell research so you thought it was OK.

Since Jesus didn’t explicitly condemn euthanasia do you find euthanasia acceptable?

 

[Black_Rose]

Been there done that. You still haven’t address the point made by myself and others. I’ll post ishii’s again for you:

What good is the feeding the hungry if they have no right to life?
What good is the sheltering of the homeless if they have no right to life?

The issue of feeding the hungry has no meaning if they aren’t even allowed to live. For what dead person eats? The issue of sheltering the homeless is pointless if they aren’t allowed to live. For what dead person needs shelter?

Even if abortion is permissible, wouldn’t people still have the right to life after they born? Again, I do not see any necessary correlation between the treatment of fetuses and embryos and those already born. Why does the termination of life in the womb automatically mandate a lack of concern for the homeless and hungry?

To answer the question about what good would feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless would accomplish, I will post a simple answer. Their hunger and their needs for shelter would be satisfied, and they would have at least immediate protection from material privation, if they are feed and sheltered, regardless whether they are regarded as “morally insignificant” in their mother’s womb.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Let me rephrase. We should voluntarily love to pay our income taxes to help the poor under penalty of fines and imprisonment or both. And if someone is in a higher income bracket then they should cheerfully do the same and pay more. Not even a flat tax for me Suudi. Progressive all the way.

In all seriousness Suudy you seem extremely into means and ends. Well the means used up till now have not brought good ends to people without health insurance. Or to those who have been shut out from it due to unaffordable premiums. Their assets may be just too high for Medicaid and they are not eligible for Medicare. And faith groups can’t do it all themselves. Or the means used to deny people coverage for pre-existing conditions certainly did not bring justifiable ends. It brought a good end for the insurance corporations though. As it certainly increased their means. Peace.

It would be interesting to see what it’s like if our taxes actually did go to help the poor instead of being used to buy votes from the middle class and contributions from big business. But I’ll not be holding my breath waiting for it.

Trying to think outside the box for a moment, in all this talk about the costs of healthcare and health insurance, it strikes me as remarkable that nobody seems to consider the effect of interest rates; something that affects health insurance costs very dramatically.

Insurance companies work out their potential liabilities and fund them in two ways. One way is through premiums. The other way is through the income generated by the investments into which it puts those premiums. Insurance companies prefer fixed income investments in order to “match” the liabilities their actuaries have worked out. We have been (unwisely in my opinion for most of it) in a very low interest rate environment for years now. Bernanke tried to get them up a bit, but the balloon was too full and he popped it and felt compelled to bring them back down again. The leverage of rate changes on fixed income investments is tremendous. If interest rates are half or less what they would be in ordinary times, the insurance companies have no alternative but to cut benefits and/or raise premiums. I have seen some of the numbers on coverage of future medical costs, and interest rates matter tremendously.

Had Greenspan allowed interest rates to be considerably higher than he did, we would almost certainly not have had a housing bubble or the increases in health premiums that we did. Neither party is blameless, since both Clinton and Bush re-appointed him. But right now, we’re looking at all sorts of “remedies” for both problems that are either untried or, having been tried, have failed. Because of some of those “remedies” (or purported remedies) businesses won’t expand or hire and people won’t spend.

I don’t expect this ideology-driven government to back off from its ideological prejudices. But at some point, perhaps, they will lose absolute power and those who hire and invest can again “know the ground rules” without constantly being in fear of lurches to the left. Should the left lose power, and should business then react favorably, it may well be possible for the Fed to raise interest rates to more reasonable levels. It won’t help housing for a long, long time. But it will definitely moderate health insurance rates; something the government can’t attain by fiat, and knows it can’t attain by fiat.

(yes, I leave aside all the other points, for now, about actually reducing healthcare costs, about which much can be said)

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

You keep injecting the word “belief”. We aren’t talking about beliefs, we are talking about rational, reasonable positions. These aren’t a matter of taste, like choosing flavors of ice cream. These are real world, serious issues. Truth is not subject to the opinions of a pluralistic society. Either abortion is an evil or it isn’t.

That you and I believe that abortion is an evil doesn’t mean that everyone else has to agree with us. If it were so obvious that abortion is an evil, who could support it?

Truth is what we believe to be the truth. Can one determine what is truth without interjecting one’s own point of view of it? I accept what the Church teaches, so I need not go any further for myself. Another man’s truth may not necessarily be the Catholic Church’s take on truth, however. Faith has so much to do with what Truth is, that I don’t think one can otherwise objectively and unquestionably determine what constitutes Truth.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

That you and I believe that abortion is an evil doesn’t mean that everyone else has to agree with us. If it were so obvious that abortion is an evil, who could support it?

Truth is what we believe to be the truth. Can one determine what is truth without interjecting one’s own point of view of it? I accept what the Church teaches, so I need not go any further for myself. Another man’s truth may not necessarily be the Catholic Church’s take on truth, however. Faith has so much to do with what Truth is, that I don’t think one can otherwise objectively and unquestionably determine what constitutes Truth.

1. People ignore and distort the existance of evil.
2. Truth is independent of people’s beliefs on it. We can preceive Truth differently, and God gave us the faculty of reason to sift through the extraneous and erroneous information to get to THE truth. Truth is Truth. It isn’t subject to man’s whimsical and imperfect nature.