R
rlg94086
Guest
Pro-Life requires support of afterschool programs? Since when?
- Status
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Seemingly since Christ. We are specifically called to promote the well being of others.
I believe that the point being made is that, using Catholic definitions, the distinction between social justice and pro-life is not clear.
Perhaps a better example would be the current battle over s-chip. No one disputes that the program is popular, surprisingly effective, and not terribly costly (the GAO has gone so far as to speculate that the program generates a long term net savings). A bipartisan group in congress wants to expand the program so it covers about 10 million children.
The White House objects. The ‘chaf’ is that it is reckless spending, but no one seriously believes that, the total cost is less than 41 days in Iraq and the current administration has already overseen 3 trillion in additional debt. Also, there are some talking points bandied about like it covering children from households making $80,000. But even republican senators have already acknowledged that this claim is false.
The real debate is ideology. The white house thinks that health care for the poor should be addressed via tax policy. Rather the current program is effective and popular is not the issue. The president is willing to use his power to kill the program altogether with a veto to try to force a choice on Congress. Congress can either have a smaller version of the program (dropping health care for about 1 million children over the life of the program from where we are now), or no program at all.
From a secular point of view, this is not a “pro life” issue, since “pro life” only means ‘changes to secular abortion laws’ (not even nec. the actual reduction in abortions). But from a theological point of view, the poor children effected have the same right to life as a fertilized zygote. So policy changes made that shorten their lives, particularly when the basis is competing ideological, not pragmatic societal concern, are also Catholic ‘pro life’ issues.
In other words, if you honor the zygote, but not the toddler, you may be a pro life conservative, but you apparently do not embrace the theological basis of the Catholic teaching on abortion.
R
rlg94086
Guest
So, your argument is that poverty must be handled by government programs? I disagree. As a Catholic, we are not required to support social programs headed up by the government. There is nothing particularly Christ-like in taxing everyone and redistributing that wealth. In fact, there is no need for a charitable heart, if the government takes money from everyone forcibly.
Y
YADA
Guest
From the article:
Religious liberals give at a rate of 72 percent and they volunteer at a rate of 52 percent.
Religious conservatives give at a rate of 91 percent and they volunteer at a rate of 67 percent. And religious people are 38 % more likely to be conservative than liberal.
ANd if you did not like th Hoover Institute [which was focused on Religious influences in giveing not just the political leanings, check out this CBS [a rather to the left news source]
cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/11/opinion/main1489914.shtml
Arther Brooks is a statistician who studied charitable giving for a book…surprise…conservatives were more giving than liberals…liberals more educated…
Just an aside and not a happy one…catholics habitually are the least generous in the giving category…this used to be attributed to the low economics but that is no longer the case…we [as a group] give less…
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Sorry, I know that is what you want it to say, but look at at the part of your original quote you highlighted:
(Emphasis added).
It is human nature to want to see what we already believe, but in this case the author didn’t do you any favors. Comparing secular in one group to non-secular in another is pretty missleading (and normally avoided in a scholarly work). However, at least the conclussion is consistant (since religion seemingly elliminated the giving disparity between secular conservatives and liberals).
Regarding Catholic giving, this has been of real concern to me for the last decade or so. In numbers, our parish is prospering, but in vocations and giving we have seemingly lost our way.
Edit: The Brooks article refers to a “General Social Survey” from 2004. Actually, your original citation decries the methodology used in this survey because of socioeconomic giving patterns, but that is probably another subject.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Actually, that wasn’t my point at all. But I am fascinated by your line of reasoning. Both on a secular and theological level.
For example, I am a high bracket payer of Federal taxes in a donor county, in a donor state (California pays more out in Federal tax dollars than it receives back in Federal expenditures). On the other hand, some states receive more in federal expenditures than they pay out in taxes. If this is a moral wrong (compulsary charity on my part), do you think it is important enough to alter the system of representation? In other words, should California’s representation in the US Senate be increased, or other states diminished?
And, on the theological side, if compulsion is wrong because it precludes ‘Christian behavior by choice’, do you object to efforts to alter secular laws about, say, abortion? After all, if the choice of life is not ‘free’, is it a true Christian act using your argument?
R
rlg94086
Guest
You are making strange arguments, but I will play along. There wouldn’t be “donor states” if the federal government cut back on the things it funds. States should be taking care of programs in their own state. The federal goverment should only take care of interstate matters (highway systems), common defense, etc. They should not be involved in education, welfare, etc.
Laws restricting evil are not the same as compulsary charity, so your abortion argument is non-sensical. I don’t believe there should be no law against murder, theft, etc, so why would I be against outlawing abortion?
Finally, I did not say compulsary charity is a moral wrong. I said it is not what Jesus’ message was about. His calls to act charitably and care for the poor were directed to individuals. The closer that activity is to the individual, the better it is IMO. When it comes to welfare programs, Catholics are free to be Democrat or Republican. The important thing is that they care for the poor. The method (private or government-run) is not as important.
E
Ender
Guest
It must be a wonderful gift to be able to know what is going on in someone else’s mind. It also might help others understand the controversy better if you explained that the current system provides health care for children of parents who make up to 200% of the poverty level and that the change proposed by the Democrats would expand it to the children of parents who make up to 400% of the poverty level. Let’s at least acknowledge that there may be very valid differences of opinion about where the cut-off line ought to be set and that 400% of the poverty level is getting pretty high.
Ender
Y
YADA
Guest
Yes, I meant to type secular liberal, I realize the hoover study was religious focused not politically…
Brooks looked at the political an religious…there are few studies [other than Brooks] that have looked at giving based upon the political leanings of those who give…
you can dismiss Brooks [because it does not fit your conservatives are evil, heartless and uncaring scenario] if you desire…but there is a correlation between charitable giving and religious practice. Most of those who are considered religious [ie attend church weekly or more] are identified as conservative and they give more than their secular [more liberal counter parts].
and catholics have long been idenitified with liberal politics in general and the democratic party in particular and as we both agree have dismal giving records [although I believe they do more good with less dollars than others!]
And I take exception to the generalizations about uncaring conservatives
My husband and I [conservatives both] give [parishes - yes two, the archdiocese, a local seminary, alma maters, the parish school, Father Taaffe’s Homes, Birth Right, Oregon Right to Life, Knights of Columbus, St. Vincent de Paul, etc] at rates far in excess of any group typically identified - we donate in excess of 10% of our gross income each year with a target of 15 - 20 %. We are not Bill Gates - our income is under six figures…
In addition, we volunteer hours for the parish, KOC, etc. I went on a medical mission to Guatemala last winter, etc…
I know many conservatives…they give and give…and they care about unborn children and the mothers who need assistance…They assist and aid these families consistantly before the children are born and after…
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Actually, I was taking White House advisors and the Republican politicians they are trying to convince at their word. It isn’t hard to find, just try sources like Roll Call and conservative think tanks.
No one disputes that, gasp, the program will effect children in households making nearly $19,000 a year now and that the proposed changes would make some households making about $39,000 eligible. It’s just the $80,000 a year that the president keeps repeating that politicians like Grassley (R-IA) point out is a whopper.
Similiarly, no one disputes that funding for the program for the entire scope of the bill would equate to 41 days of our current expenditures in Iraq (32 if the administration gets the massive increase it wants for Iraq in '08).
S
SoCalRC
Guest
With all due respect, are you even reading what I write? I merely pointed out that your citation asserted exactly the opposite of what you were saying. I also pointed out the origianal study Brooks was quoting and commented that the two studies use different methodologies. I did not dig deeper becuase there seemed little point in focusing on the fact that Brook’s quoted study includes numbers and findings that disagree with your two core assertions as well.
I’m sorry, none of your sources support this. Again, using your citations: Only about 10% of the population is self identified as “secular”. Liberals are underrepresented among self described Evangelical Christains, which is about 23% of the population (though surprisingly still account for up to about 1/3), but overall, liberals and conservatives identify themselves as religious at essentially the same rate (generally withing 1-2%). Both studies you provided use self identification for ‘religious’.
We can’t agree, because there is surprisingly little data to support this, certainly nothing in what you have posted so far. Catholic charitable giving used to be among the highest. We’ve seen a steady, significant decline over the last 30 years. During that same period, we’ve become increasingly Rublican. However, I would not assert that there is a causal link.
It also might change. In the US, we are currently about 25% of the population is Catholic. But as the nation becomes increasingly Latino, that is expected to rise to about 50%. The Latino population is overwhelmingly conservative on social issues, but the GOP is currently not making Latinos welcome.
First of all, I’ve done nothing more than point out what your citations say. If you want to take exception, take it up with the researchers you use.And I take exception to the generalizations about uncaring conservatives
My husband and I [conservatives both] give…
Second, Christain charity should be its own reward. If you are still feeling the need for recognition and affirmation I would humbly suggest that you consider volunteering. Financial contributions are worthwhile, but it invokes good works via proxy. Once you experience direct ministry to those Christ described as first among us, I don’t think you or your husband will care what anyone else thinks
Again, I’d say volunteer. You are certainly not the first person I have encountered who feels it extremely important to assert that Christianity is better represented by a particular political belief system. However, I think it is more fruitful to follow God first and figure out what, if any, earthly ‘club’ that puts you in second.
That is because I believe that Christ truly showed us a path to a better world. So it is not surprising that I do not find his words and deeds fitting comfortably into any current political structures we have now. Look at the disucssions in this forum (and this very thread). Here, I am pegged as a “liberal”, because I consider a modest healthcare program for poor children worthwhile. In another thread, I am the “conservative” because I have grave doubts about the application of double effect with regards to many abortions in Catholic hospitals.
In still another thread, I am labeled as a “bad” Catholic because I won’t support a particular GOP candidate. The reasons I won’t support the candidate, direct involvement in maintaining a system of human trafficing and mass forced abortions, and then profiting from it, are dubbed irrelevant, because of an argument something like yours - a certain political position is somehow inherently closer to God…
So, again, instead of spending a lot of energy trying to argue that God favors my chosen ‘tribe’, I try my best to just always follow God and not worry about what ‘tribe’ that puts me…
E
estesbob
Guest
The $80,000 is a correct figure in that one state has applied to cover those up to 350% of the poverty level. it is also indisputable that the program will result in millions of people who pay their own insurance dropping it and going on the federal dole. I already pay for my employees insurance-why should I have to pay for the insurance the children of people who can afford to pay for their own insurance?
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Actually, no. New York requested a waiver for areas of exceedingly high living costs, but it is not included in the bill. The highest possible income would be $61,000 for a family of four, and the criteria for this are steep. The vast majority of recipeints would fall under the $38,000 I noted (this figure is sometimes quoted as $41,000, but that figure includes ‘indirect benefits’ from other social programs).
Indisputable, unless you are, say, the General Accounting Office, or a bleeding heart liberal like Senator Orin Hatch (Republican, Utah). However, even if we take the the largest “crowd out” figure (families switching from private insurance to a public program)proposed - 2,000,000. We need to examine that in the context of the President’s counter proposal.
The worst case projection is that 1/3 of the recipients would be lower income, but insured. We could debate “can afford” vs. ‘manage to afford’, but there is no point. Analyists, including the CBO, still agree that the program will represent a net savings for tax payers.
On the flip slide, the Heritage Foundage, the Lewin Group, Citizens for Tax Justice, and others, all conclude that with the President’s counter proposal will direct 80% (4/5ths!) of its benefits to families which are already insured. Further, 50% (half!) the benefits would go to families with incomes of $75,000 or more.
I pay for my employees insurance as well - but by and large, that is not compulsary. I do so to help attract the best people and keep them highly productive, which turns out to be a huge net gain for the company, hence me.
Tax policy is a seperate subject. In this case we have a popular, modest cost, program with proven effectiveness. On the flip side we have another weird, seemingly ineffective program from the folks who pushed the fabulous ‘Plan D’…
D
dmelosi
Guest
This is mean spirited when you direct this to YADA. You don’t know who YADA is and you are making the assertion that he/she has to have recognition for good deeds in your statement above. You are baiting, then attacking.
Your posts indicate that you are personally very pro-life, good for you.
Pro-Life is the opposite of Pro-Abortion.
Pro-Abortion aka Pro-Choice sympathizers have tried to change what that label actually means. My problem with the democratic party is that they as a platform or Pro-Abortion. It is hard for me to believe much of what they say as I feel that they have sold their soul to the devil for power. It doesn’t mean I blindly follow the Republican party, but I tend to believe more of what they say.
It all comes down to what is a person’s most important issue and how do you know what to believe.
Y
YADA
Guest
I think it is you who need to read closer…I do not seek nor need recognition nor affirmation. I was just using that as an example of ‘conservative’ support…the accusation was made that conservatives do not support nor care for ‘children after they are born’ and that is a totally bogus and unsupported accusation…
As for your assertion that I need to ***‘experience direct ministry’ ***Well you, sir know nothing about me and whether I get my hands dirty and sweat!. I spent a week cold sterilizing dental equipment in Guatemala last January. I have made concrete by hand and poured by the wheel barrow load a concrete floor in a chapel/community hall in Mexico, served meals at a soup kitchen in a large US city, rocked a downs baby in the wee hours of the night at a NICU. I spend over 5 hours each week at my parish volunteering but hey…you just think I need ‘recognition’ from you on an anonimous forum…I do not
I am conservative in my philosophy…I vote for the candidate that respect life and promotes the common good. Candidates and issues that are socially responsible and that build up the family. Those issues cross political party lines…
Now Bush is an unpopular president…but on life issues he has made an impact that is positive. We have a partial birth abortion ban, unborn chilldren are recognized as victims and the Supreme Court is more disposed to respect unborn children than any court we have had for a long time.
As for Cathlic giving…I do not believe you can produce any statistics that show they have ever given more than any other christian denomination, I have never seen statistics that would support your contention: Here is a study that looked at that question specifically [though I am sure you will pick it apart]
emptytomb.org/cathgiv.html
In simple terms, this study concludes that Catholics give less because we are more economical than the protestants [more masses in one church - less churches, lower paid clergy - less overhead]. They determined that Protestants and Catholics basically contribute to their churches to ‘pay the bills’ and both groups are doing that…I think as Catholics we are called to do more and my parish contributes to and supports charitable causes and should do more…
As I said in my earlier post - we do more with less … I just wish we would do more with more…and this study did not cover the individual giving…I know from the statistics in my parish that there are some who do not give - financially nor with time. Others pick up that slack in the budget
S
SoCalRC
Guest
How, precisely, am I baiting and then attacking? YADA asserted an association between political belief and charitable giving. But the reports YADA posted state exactly the opposite.
I pointed this out, highlighting the exact points in the report. YADA then asserted that attacks and stereotypes were “resented” and, not for the first time, outlined personal activiities.
If there is resentment, (YADA’s words), there has to be a reason. If I had actually ever asserted anything beyond pointing out what YADA had, in fact, posted, then resentment for an ‘attack’ might be in order. But without an attack, the emotion must be stemming from somewhere else. This would seem to be in keeping with a need to ‘prove’ that conservatives are more giving that liberals, even if that means citing reports that state otherwise.
My response is simple. Look at our reading from Luke a few Sundays ago. Famlies torn apart, siblings fighting siblings… It is hyperbole, but the point is clear. It is also repeatedly stressed in the Gospels. If you put anything ahead of God, your priorities are wrong. And, any earthly construct is, at times, going to be at odds with God.
Now, look at YADA’s outraged reply. Again, stressing how I know nothing and how much she has done. Also, notice that the theme of morally better groups is still being pursued.
Just for the sake of discussion, let’s relate this to the parable we had just a few Sunday’s ago: Luke 15:11-32. Resentment appears twice in passages and we hear Jesus explain God’s response to both forms. Now, both you and YADA harbor some resentment towards me. In your opinion, do similiar emotions appear in those passages?
S
SoCalRC
Guest
This appears to be yet another subject. But, frankly, I’lm less than impressed with the administration’s pro life success.
The ‘partial birth abortion ban’ will, according to the Supreme Court, several Catholic pro-life groups, and even a fair number of people within Focus on the Family who helped propose it - stop 0 of the roughly 2,000 abortions each year it impacts.
The Supreme Court ruling itself reaffirms key points in Roe v. Wade and Casey in the majority opinion (signed by three Catholics). The concurring opinion, signed by two Catholics notes that the ban would have not been considered constitutional if the commerce clause (!) of the Constitution had been rasied.
Abortions, which declined fairly sharply throughout the 90’s, are declining at a much slower rate nationally under Bush, and some states are actually seeing increases. We are also seeing bad trends emerge in teen pregnancies, particularly among teens receiving abstinance only sexual education.
The GOP congress passed, and Bush signed, legislation that also makes it easier for hospitals to remove nutrition and hydration (which we Catholics consider direct euthanasia) for monetary reasons. I found this particularly disgusting after the direct involvement in the Teri Schivo case.
None of this even touchs gunning down pregnant woman at random checkpoints in Iraq. Or, the plethora of pro abortion candidates the GOP is trotting out for '08…
R
rlg94086
Guest
Originally Posted by YADA forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Now Bush is an unpopular president…but on life issues he has made an impact that is positive. We have a partial birth abortion ban, unborn chilldren are recognized as victims and the Supreme Court is more disposed to respect unborn children than any court we have had for a long time.
Really? What is the title of this thread again? I think YADA actually brought the thread back on-topic. 
Now Bush is an unpopular president…but on life issues he has made an impact that is positive. We have a partial birth abortion ban, unborn chilldren are recognized as victims and the Supreme Court is more disposed to respect unborn children than any court we have had for a long time.
Really? What is the title of this thread again? I think YADA actually brought the thread back on-topic.
D
dmelosi
Guest
Not sure what lines you are reading between to detect any resentment I am showing towards you.
I feel that you were out of line with what you said to YADA and stated that.
What you are doing is assuming, then restating it as if were a fact.
D
dmelosi
Guest
You are misusing the term Pro-Life perhaps intentionally, perhaps not. Pro-Life is the opposite of Pro-Abortion.
In a sentence or two…has Bush been for or against the anti-abortion agenda? Notice that I changed and said anti-abortion so the debate cannot be changed.
- Status