Beck: Help us restore traditional American values

[CMatt25]

I agree. There is no moral obligation to vote Republican.

But I would argue there is a moral obligation to oppose pro-“choice” politicians. And usually that means voting for someone other than Democrats.

My informed and reasoned Christian conscience has a moral obligation to advocate issues on behalf of the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the sick who are without adequate affordable healthcare.

As a result I have an obligation to my Christian values and conscience to look beyond one issue. And beyond thinking Christ somehow advocated for a run amuck unchecked private market sector to solve all the life issues facing the groups mentioned above.

To not use every means possible we have available to help the poor, those who hunger for food and shelter, those who are ill without affordable healthcare is not within my Christian values.

Life does not end at birth folks. It has barely just begun.

God bless us all along our journeys. Peace

 

[ishii]

I do not believe there is any moral obligation for me to vote Republican. Conservative Republicans are able to cloak, although with a diaphanous veil, their economic reasons for voting for the Republican Party by assuming a superior moral position by opposing abortion.

You didn’t even address my point. You seem to want to take on world hunger/starvation (caused, of course, by those evil Republicans) first, and then later think about abortion? I have news for you: we do have a moral obligation to vote for the candidates who are pro-life and want to pass laws that reflect a believe in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death.

I am not going to directly respond this because of irreconcilable differences in our political values. Examination my rhetoric in thispost would confirm this. I am pro-life, but I am passionate about it.

Again, very revealing. You seem more passsionate about combating “neo-liberalism” than in combating abortion. Your answer reminds me of Barbara Boxer’s “I will not answer” response to the questions posed to her by Rick Santorum. Her non-answer revealed the moral bankruptcy and weakness of her position on abortion.

Interesting, it seems contradictory to a previous because above you advocated universal protection for the rights of the unborn:

We have to face political realities: unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, we’re not going to have much luck changing the laws at the state or local level. There is nothing contradictory at all, just an acknowlegement that in the country we live in we have a system that is slow to correct injustices. Now, if enough Catholics put their faith first and voted pro-life instead of voting Democrat first, we would likely have already overturned Roe V. Wade by now.

I only mentioned Prohibition as a brief tangent on unexpected consequences of coercive government policy, not an assertion that anti-abortion measures undertaken by the government would be futile or undesirable. Prohibition is an appropriate touchstone for speculating about potential consequences of an abortion ban such as back-alley abortions and people traveling to evade the restrictions, which would obviously happen if the issue of abortion is returned to the states as you advocated later since pregnant women can travel to a jurisdiction permissive of abortion. But, nevertheless, you would still advocate a restriction since you believe it cause a net reduction in abortions.

The “back alley” abortion argument is a tired old refrain from pro-abortion rights advocates. “we don’t want to go back to back alley abortions” We don’t want to go back to back alley rapes either, keep it safe and legal.

I suppose the degree of active enforcement of a statute should be proportional to the amount of societal harm that would happen if a declared activity was not restricted (such as alcohol consumption) and inversely proportional to its costs, such as easily quantifiable pecuniary costs and the opportunity costs of labor, or more intangible costs such as the infringement on the civil liberty of citizens. It seems that enforcing Prohibition does not have a cost/benefit ratio that justifies the statute.

Also, it doesn’t end with the law. Any society that values life needs to offer support for pregnant women so they don’t consider going to the back alley. There are now a lot of crisis pregancy centers and clinics that offer solutions that don’t include abortion. We need to put a greater focus on those services while working to end legal abortion on demand.

 

[dmelosi]

My informed and reasoned Christian conscience has a moral obligation to advocate issues on behalf of the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the sick who are without adequate affordable healthcare.

As a result I have an obligation to my Christian values and conscience to look beyond one issue. And beyond thinking Christ somehow advocated for a run amuck unchecked private market sector to solve all the life issues facing the groups mentioned above.

To not use every means possible we have available to help the poor, those who hunger for food and shelter, those who are ill without affordable healthcare is not within my Christian values.

Life does not end at birth folks. It has barely just begun.

God bless us all along our journeys. Peace

Life does not end at birth??? No one, not one person has said that it does. Those that promote abortion (killing of the most innocent human beings) try to ease their conscience because they are married to a party.

Abortion is killing the most innocent of human beings, that is not disputed.

 

[ishii]

My informed and reasoned Christian conscience has a moral obligation to advocate issues on behalf of the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the sick who are without adequate affordable healthcare.

As a result I have an obligation to my Christian values and conscience to look beyond one issue. And beyond thinking Christ somehow advocated for a run amuck unchecked private market sector to solve all the life issues facing the groups mentioned above.

To not use every means possible we have available to help the poor, those who hunger for food and shelter, those who are ill without affordable healthcare is not within my Christian values.

Life does not end at birth folks. It has barely just begun.

God bless us all along our journeys. Peace

If your “Christian conscience” gives you a moral obligation to advocate issues on behalf of the poor and the hungry at the expense of advocating for the innocent unborn, then your conscience is ill-informed and unreasonable. Those who are honest liberal Democrats would say they are more concerned about following their liberal political ideology than protecting the most innocent and vulnerable among us - the unborn. Democrat and liberal first, Catholic second.

What need does an aborted baby have of “affordable healthcare” and housing? I dare say that most individuals faced with the choice of “lack of affordable healthcare” or being snuffed out by a vaccuum, would choose the lack of healthcare and housing. Then again, presenting the issue as either/or (either advocating for the hungry or advocating for the unborn) is a false choice. If you don’t believe me, then go read up on the life of Mother Theresa.

And once again, protecting the unborn is not the “only” issue, but rather the first issue. The right to life is the right from which others proceed, such as healthcare, food, etc. First things first, Cmatt. Also, you say “life doesnt’ end at birth”. Well, ***for too many unborn, life doesn’t get to birth. because they’re aborted first. *** That’s what we’re trying to correct!

God

Ishii

 

[bbarrick8383]

My informed and reasoned Christian conscience has a moral obligation to advocate issues on behalf of the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the sick who are without adequate affordable healthcare.

As a result I have an obligation to my Christian values and conscience to look beyond one issue. And beyond thinking Christ somehow advocated for a run amuck unchecked private market sector to solve all the life issues facing the groups mentioned above.

To not use every means possible we have available to help the poor, those who hunger for food and shelter, those who are ill without affordable healthcare is not within my Christian values.

Life does not end at birth folks. It has barely just begun.

God bless us all along our journeys. Peace

I’d rather be born and live a life of poverty(not far from it), rather than die in the sanctuary of my own mothers womb.

 

[Catherine_D]

My concern about this issue extends beyond my concern for the vulnerable unborn. Of course that is the paramount concern, but it does not end there.

I also worry for my fellow Catholics that advocate abortion, or support pro-abortion candidates, since, in so doing, they are separating themselves from full communion with the Church, and, in so doing, are endangering their immortal souls.

 

[CMatt25]

I also worry for my fellow Catholics that advocate abortion, or support pro-abortion candidates, since, in so doing, they are separating themselves from full communion with the Church, and, in so doing, are endangering their immortal souls.

Do you mean endangering or do you mean the following judging despite Christ’s warning not to judge?

CCC 837 Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved.

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 14 Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved

Is not saved, could not be saved as in can not be saved, or did the Church merely mean to say might not and who else but our Lord and Savior knows for certain? Not even Brother Beck.

 

[PTL]

My informed and reasoned Christian conscience has a moral obligation to advocate issues on behalf of the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the sick who are without adequate affordable healthcare.

To feed the hungry and help the poor is everybody’s responsibility, the Bible teaches us to feed the hungry and help the poor. The capitalism American society has been doing these all along. It is not that only the “Democrats” are helping the poor. The Republicans are helping the poor, and respect life. The leftist Democrats kill lives both baby and seniors (in Obama care), and only feed themselves by limitless spending. Is that not a clear fact? Everyone witnesses this government’s limitless spending, can you deny this fact?

Plus, as a Christian who strongly believes in helping the poor as yourself, do you regularly donate part of your income to help the poor? Do you volunteer in a soup kitchen? Do you help the homeless? Since you are so concerned, if you don’t, why not??

On top of our advocacy, our own action really tells how concerned we are, talking about conscience.

 

[Catherine_D]

Do you mean endangering or do you mean the following judging despite Christ’s warning not to judge?

CCC 837 Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved.

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 14 Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved

Is not, could not as in can not, or did the Church mean might not?

The Church has been unequivocal on the issue of Life. It is, as others have said, the first issue. If Life is not respected, then nothing else matters.

I am not judging. I am worrying about the souls of my fellow Catholics.

The Church does not require, and in fact it rejects, Marxist policies of redistribution. The Church absolutely does support charity, and I sustain that. But the Church supports CHARITY, not forceable extraction of money by government edict.

In fact, Government extraction of funds from one person to give it to another person is not charity, it is a form of slavery. The Church unequivocally does not support that construct. Charity is VOLUNTARY. Taxation of one person to give to another is not. As such, it is a violation of church teaching.

On the other hand, the Church does require that we support life, from conception until natural death. Failure to do so, even if we are nominally Catholic, separates us from the teachings of the Church, separates us from God. Anyone who supports such is self-excommunicating and is no longer in full communion with the Church, they are barred from the Eucharist and many other things.

Yes, the death of all these babies concern me. But beyond that, the situation of the immortal soul of my fellow Catholics, who support abortion, also concerns me. And if all of us would unite in rejection of this horrible scenario of death, we could make it end, and no more babies would have to die.

 

[CMatt25]

To feed the hungry and help the poor is everybody’s responsibility, the Bible teaches us to feed the hungry and help the poor. The capitalism American society has been doing these all along. The leftist Democrats kill lives both baby and seniors (in Obama care), and only feed themselves by limitless spending. Is that not a clear fact? Everyone witnesses this government’s limitless spending, can you deny this fact?

Plus, as a Christian who strongly believes in helping the poor as yourself, do you regularly donate part of your income to help the poor? Do you volunteer in a soup kitchen? Do you help the homeless? Since you are so concerned, if you don’t, why not??

Your last question I need not answer because the answer to the inquiry previous to it is yes. To the rest, I’ve already stated I ignore any nonsensical stuff about anything remotely suggesting Obamacare death panels killing seniors. And capitalism without adequate checks and controls has done a good enough number on us by denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, higher and higher premiums, copays, deductibles and so forth.

Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

I am not judging. I am worrying about the souls of my fellow Catholics.

Church absThe Church does not require, and in fact it rejects, Marxist policies of redistribution. The olutely does support charity, and I sustain that. But the Church supports CHARITY, not forceable extraction of money by government edict.

In fact, Government extraction of funds from one person to give it to another person is not charity, it is a form of slavery. The Church unequivocally does not support that construct. Charity is VOLUNTARY. Taxation of one person to give to another is not. As such, it is a violation of church teaching.

On the other hand, the Church does require that we support life, from conception until natural death. Failure to do so, even if we are nominally Catholic, separates us from the teachings of the Church, separates us from God. Anyone who supports such is self-excommunicating and is no longer in full communion with the Church, they are barred from the Eucharist and many other things.

Yes, the death of all these babies concern me. But beyond that, the situation of the immortal soul of my fellow Catholics, who support abortion, also concerns me. And if all of us would unite in rejection of this horrible scenario of death, we could make it end, and no more babies would have to die.

Catherine, to the degree you and the Church are not judging nor judging who will be separated from God, great! Let us pray for another :grouphug: as the Apostle James taught us to do. May God bless you and peace be with you.

 

[Catherine_D]

To the rest, I’ve already stated I ignore any nonsensical stuff about anything remotely suggesting Obamacare death panels killing seniors.

Just so you know, a panel rationing care to those who are not producing members of society (the aged and the young) is part of Obamacare. It may not be called a “Death Panel”, but that may be the effect, by denying care.

Numerous panels, actually hundreds of them, are established via Obamacare and prior legislation (some things were sneaked in via the Obama stimulus package.) As Shakespeare said “a rose by any other name smells as sweet”. I

Equally so, if something is rotten, no matter what sort of pretty name is attached, it is still rotten.

The facts are these:

• Far more medical procedures have been denied by the government-run health care already in place (Medicare/Medicaid) than by any combination of private insurance companies. The big denier of care is the Federal Government and it is a form of hypocrisy for anyone in the government to criticize any company on this basis.
• Over 100 panels dictating medical care have been authorized by Obamacare. Call it what you will, but rationing, which will be necessary to allocate scarce medical resources to millions, as dictated by these panels, will result in denial of care to millions of people, most of them either very old or very young, because that is the construct under which these panels have already chosen to operate. Their “program” is to allocate resources to those in society who pay taxes. Old people and young people don’t pay taxes, so they will receive the least. So these panels may not be technically called “Death Panels”, but, effectively, that is what they will be, at least for the elderly. I know this from personal experience. My Dad is presently dying at the VA because of denial of care. That’s because of CURRENT government health care regulations. It will just get worse in the future.

 

[Catherine_D]

Catherine, to the degree you and the Church are not judging nor judging who will be separated from God, great! Let us pray for another :grouphug: as the Apostle James taught us to do. May God bless you and peace be with you.

I would never judge. I cannot judge.

But those who have separated themselves from the Church by their own actions are in mortal peril. I trust you do not object to my concern for their immortal souls?

 

[PTL]

Originally Posted by CMatt25
To the rest, I’ve already stated I ignore any nonsensical stuff about anything remotely suggesting Obamacare death panels killing seniors.

I assume you have parents and grand parents. If they are denied of treatment when they reach the age of 65, how would you feel? Would you applaud Obama care? Wouldn’t you think Obama care is evil? Would it be nothing to you to watch your parents or grand parents die due to the reject of treatment?

 

[Black_Rose]

I am not going to directly respond this because of irreconcilable differences in our political values. Examination my rhetoric in this post would confirm this. I am pro-life, but I am passionate about it.

I meant to say not passionate about being pro-life.

Regarding fighting abortion and neoliberalism, Anita Dunn gave a graduation speech offering advice from Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa. Mao Zedong said that “you fight your war an I’ll fight mine” when he was planning to take away control of the Republic of China from the Kuomintang and Chang Kai-shek, despite Mao facing insurmountable odds. I have my own battle to fight.

 

[CMatt25]

I assume you have parents and grand parents. If they are denied of treatment when they reach the age of 65, how would you feel? Would you applaud Obama care? Wouldn’t you think Obama care is evil? Would it be nothing to you to watch your parents or grand parents die due to the reject of treatment?

You assume wrong. But I was actually the primary caregiver for my mother who was on Medicare, was not denied treatment and she lived to nearly 90 yrs of age. Medicare if you don’t know is a government healthcare program for people age 65. I have older siblings on Medicare and they are not denied care either just because they are 65. I however am not 65 and have had to pay tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket for care in our lovely private sector system.

No one is going to be denied care at 65 because of their age. And anyone who makes such a statement is spreading falsehoods for politcal reasons and nothing more. And it is past time you are called on it and it past time for it to stop!

 

[bbarrick8383]

You assume wrong. But I was actually the primary caregiver for my mother who was on Medicare, was not denied treatment and she lived to nearly 90 yrs of age. Medicare if you don’t know is a government healthcare program for people age 65. No one is going to be denied care at 65. And anyone who makes such a statement is spreading falsehoods for politcal reasons and nothhing more. And it is time to stop.

Medicare denies more people than private insurance already.

There is no denying that it and other government programs are running in red or getting there.

What happens when they go bankrupt? Borrow more money from China? Increase taxes? Print more? When does it end for liberals, when we are all broke, with no job? It’s not sustainable and to pretend it is, is just plain foolish.

If you could look to the future and see that voting for socialist policies like single payer ended in a bankrupt government with everyone paying high taxes just to pay foreign debt off with money as cheap as pesos, would you still vote this way?

 

[CMatt25]

What happens when they go bankrupt? Borrow more money from China? Increase taxes? Print more? When does it end for liberals, when we are all broke, with no job? It’s not sustainable and to pretend it is, is just plain foolish.

If you could look to the future and see that voting for socialist policies like single payer ended in a bankrupt government with everyone paying high taxes just to pay foreign debt off with money as cheap as pesos, would you still vote this way?

Yeah increase taxes on the wealthiest and distribute the wealth. If by the wealthiest paying higher taxes in support of spending and the deficit you call that distributing the wealth. And yes I will continue to vote this way.

When I hear priests say in their homilies we must vote GOP because of 1 issue and another saying his answer to the poor is to get a job. And that people walk out on sessions with him because of what he says. If what he tells them in the worst recession since the Great Depression is his answer to the poor is to get a job, I’d walk out too when he is not following the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Sorry but I’ve had enough of this Catholic conservative politics. God bless and peace.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Yeah increase taxes and distribute the wealth. And yes I will continue to vote this way. Sorry but I’ve had enough of this Catholic conservative politics. God bless and peace.

Well, there you go folks.

Legalized theft.

I don’t recall Jesus preaching this. Even though this is the excuse liberal Catholics use to rationalize their vote away with. It’s the reason we will always have abortion, it’s the reason government will continue to grow and it’s the reason the number in poverty will continue to increase or stay the same.

Hey, Obama loves wealth redistribution, why hasn’t he done it? Why have the poor and minorities been given a bailout? With all this money he has spent he could have eradicated poverty in this country.

Keep wasting your vote my friend.

 

[CMatt25]

I don’t recall Jesus preaching this.

What I don’t recall is Jesus saying the private market is the answer to all. When individuals, the Church and the private markets fail or can not do it alone, the government can play a role to help. And the Jesus I believe in would want to help the poor, the sick without affordable healthcare, by every means possible. And that shall forever be a Christian value I dearly hold onto.