Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have to come back and check the videos out,🙂 right now I have to finish snow removal. :mad:
 
Ender said:
Yes he does, which is a rather unfortunate observation.
I suppose if he knew how best to achieve that dignity and the objectives common to all of us his involvement would be warranted, but the solutions to most political issues require an expertise in disciplines foreign to the clergy, so their involvement is rarely beneficial. In the case of gun control it seems the only effect of Cardinal Dolan’s comments is to open those who disagree with his infatuation with the president’s actions to claims that they are less than fully Catholic. All in all, not his finest hour.

Ender
Click to expand...
Moral guidance in a secular world does not require expertise in every detail of issue, or implementing measures.

The only ones I’ve seen insinuate some are less than fully Catholic have been posters on these forums and it’s not against those who disagree with the Cardinal’s view.

Cardinal Dolan’s agreement with an issue is not an infatuation, and it’s sad to see his agreement on a single issue, while publicly making known his disagreements, even referred to as ‘infatuation,’ in my honest opinion.
 
styrgwillidar said:
If one chooses to give up the means to self-defense is one thing.

To use the power of the state to strip the means of self-defense from others is immoral and, IMHO, counter to the culture of life.

Similar to charity. Giving up ones own property voluntarily is admirable and charitable. Confiscating someone else’s property and giving it away is immoral as it is theft.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Very well expressed.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Moral guidance in a secular world does not require expertise in every detail of issue, or implementing measures.
Click to expand...
The problem is that there is no moral issue involved with this topic on which guidance could be given. Expressing an opinion on which laws one thinks would be beneficial cannot in any way be considered moral guidance.

I will reiterate this point: what moral choices are involved in determining how to reduce gun violence? Cardinal Dolan may have an opinion on this but expressing that opinion in no way provides guidance, moral or otherwise.

Ender
 
Personally I’m more worried about American History and our deviation from it, than what the Cardinal stated. I understand him, Obama and these two parties are both lost in search of guidance. They’re not even sure if they want to drone Americans while Homeland arms itself with “Automatic Weapons” for “personal” use.

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

James Madison
 
Ender said:
The problem is that there is no moral issue involved with this topic on which guidance could be given. Expressing an opinion on which laws one thinks would be beneficial cannot in any way be considered moral guidance.

I will reiterate this point: what moral choices are involved in determining how to reduce gun violence? Cardinal Dolan may have an opinion on this but expressing that opinion in no way provides guidance, moral or otherwise.

Ender
Click to expand...
Where we disagree is on the moral issue. The Cardinal clearly demonstrates connection between certain guns and the culture of death, and the choices of control that contribute to the culture of life.

We see, through scriptures, that sacrifices for others is a moral teaching. No where can I see it taught that any worldly possession should be placed above another person’s need. For these reasons, I don’t think I would change my mind, or view, to agree.
 
Tighty_Whitey said:
Exactly! Very well expressed.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

The reference to ‘those who live by the sword, die by the sword’ as some sort of justification for rendering others defenseless has always seemed specious to me. I don’t believe Christ’s definition of ‘living by the sword’ encompassed simply possessing them as a means for defense, or as a check on the power of government.

Seems there have been a whole lot of people in the last 120 years who didn’t live by the sword but died by it anyway. Mostly at the hands of their own governments, governments which had ensured only their agents could by wielding swords.

Again, this appears to be a fundamental difference between myself and PS1. I do not believe the nature of man has so changed, even in the US, that those who obtain political power are immune to its temptations. Things we do now, which may not immediately be exploited by our current elected employees are opportunities and enablers for others in the future.

Christ did not direct his apostles to take over the reigns of government. He did not lead a rebellion against the government and replace it. He did not instruct His apostles to force others to follow Him. He told them to spread His teaching, and shake the dust from their sandals of the places which wouldn’t believe.

I have no desire to live under a theocracy, regardless of whether it enforces the moral code of Catholicism, Islam, Secular Humanism, Socialism, or Communism. The older I get, the more I understand the wisdom of Christ’s direction to keep Church and State separate, the whole render unto Ceasar and God what is theirs. In the US, this is central to the issue of forced acceptance of the legitimacy of gay marriage, abortion, and forced servitude/theft from government defined classes of people and future generations.
 
I would encourage anyone who is interested in a “common sense” approach to gun control to look across the pond at the United Kingdom. Their regulations on firearms ownership and use have been in effect for more several decades. In comparison to the U.S. they are rather draconian IMO. What the laws in the U.K. have served to acomplish is a dramatic rise in violent crime over the last two decades. The illicit arms trade has flourished there and in some urban areas the local constabulary does not enter as a result. Also, in many areas the use of “deadly force” (whether actual or potential) to defend one’s self is considered a crime and severely punishable.
I’m not suggesting that we arm every citizen however, the right to defend yourself,family and the innocent from grave harm with a firearm is a strong deterrent to violent crime, FBI statistics validate this.The type of firearm in which this defense is applied is irrelevent, weapon type, magazine capacity are just red herrings. I’m always amazed at the straw man arguments put forth by people who desire “common sense” gun control. Additional gun control legislation, regulation, confiscation, ect are NOT the answer. Banning a certian type of gun makes no more sense than banning exotic sports cars that go fast or sharp kitchen knives. You cannot legislate away crazy or those with maleficence in their heart.
I believe that Identifying and seriously addressing the root social issues at hand would go a long way towards yeilding the results we all pray for.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Moral guidance in a secular world does not require expertise in every detail of issue, or implementing measures.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, when you are relying on the secular world and it’s secular Govt to determine the morality of an issue that is vital to the very life and death existence of every single American, then you d@mn well better be apprised of the pertinent facts of the matter.

Especially when you are relying on a secular Caesar who has recently displayed his overt deceit and disdain for your religious liberties with a draconian health care mandate that will cheapen life by subjecting individuals to all the disposable moral relativism of the secular Culture Of Death.

So yeah. There’s that minor little thing.:tsktsk:
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Moral guidance in a secular world does not require expertise in every detail of issue, or implementing measures.
Click to expand...
It certainly did with the Bishops opposition to Obama’s deceptive HHS Mandate.

Expert details of the insurance, medical, and Constitutional effects were addressed by the USCCB.

So why not on this issue?:confused:
 
THe ida that only specialists have an “informed opinion” on any issue in particular is not only a recipe fir big government “think tamks” but is an anathema to common sense.
 
Northumbrian said:
[THe ida that only specialists have an “informed opinion” on any issue in particular is not only a recipe fir big government “think tamks” but is an anathema to common sense.
Click to expand...
That’s not what I said.

I said “Expert details” to inform the Bishops.

However, when the Bishops do not apprise themselves of the factual details, they ARE ultimately surrendering the larger moral matters TO big government secular think-tanks which is exactly my point.

Thank you for unintentionally clarifying my point.👍
[/quote]
 
“I don’t pretend to be an expert on what should be in each specific bill, and I will never be an authority on the number of bullets that should be in an ammo clip, or the proper way to conduct background checks before selling someone a firearm.”

Cardinal Dolan

I really don’t see this article as anything more than defending a culture of life, as opposed to the culture of death.

If the man states he doesn’t know, and you agree, than you are both in agreement. 🤷
 
GaryTaylor said:
“I don’t pretend to be an expert on what should be in each specific bill, and I will never be an authority on the number of bullets that should be in an ammo clip, or the proper way to conduct background checks before selling someone a firearm.”

Cardinal Dolan

I really don’t see this article as anything more than defending a culture of life, as opposed to the culture of death.

If the man states he doesn’t know, and you agree, than you are both in agreement. 🤷
Click to expand...
The problem here is that Dolan goes on to imply agreement with specific and harmful implementations (number of rounds, acceptance of vilified “assault” weapons definition, the freedom of gun ownership in general…etc) that have long been proposed by the insidious Far-Left, without actually addressing the false premise of these “established” fallacies in the first place.
 
But we’re all are in agreement he didn’t know anything about guns, ammo, clips…zip? Why would I allow him to imply anything if he already stated he didn’t know? It doesn’t stand to reason.
 
GaryTaylor said:
“I don’t pretend to be an expert on what should be in each specific bill, and I will never be an authority on the number of bullets that should be in an ammo clip, or the proper way to conduct background checks before selling someone a firearm.”

Cardinal Dolan

I really don’t see this article as anything more than defending a culture of life, as opposed to the culture of death.

If the man states he doesn’t know, and you agree, than you are both in agreement. 🤷
Click to expand...
The problem some seem to have, is for anyone to voice a recognition of something needing to be done in the form of any controls. One has to overlook the mention of the culture of life, or death, so the view can be discounted as ‘moral.’
 
jay29 said:
Obama lies like mad and yet Catholics still support him in droves.

Obama’s stance on guns while he was in Chicago is all you need to know about his mentality on the issue. Ignore what he says now and read what he said in the past.
Click to expand...
I’ve been trying to figure that one out too. And voted him in twice, not once, but twice!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top