That’s the kind of article one would expect of VOX. Here is another perspective on the situation in Seattle.
Ender and @Jen95, situation of low wages and no wages (unemployment) looks pretty bleak, doesn’t it? If just getting paid more does not suffice, then there must be more parts to the solution.
That hardship exists is not evidence of injustice, and while we are called to act we are not called to act in a particular way. There is no specific solution the church requires or supports. We are free to - and are required to - make choices based on what we think is best. I may think your approach is harmful (and vice versa) but if both of us are doing what we believe is right then while one of us may be terribly mistaken, neither of us has failed our moral obligation.
Sporadic incidences of hardship can be treated with acts of charity. What we actually see is widespread hardship, and on the increase.
Just as we are required to inform our conscience, we are required, insofar as we are able, to read and discern the principles and spirit of the social justice encyclicals.
Homelessness is a symptom of injustice. Reasons for homelessness, given in the article you posted (other than rent increases):
I think the encyclicals say that injustice exists and it causes hardships, but the existence of hardship is not evidence of injustice. Inequality is not inherently unjust. I admit injustice exists, but I deny that because someone is having a hard time of it this means he has been treated unjustly.
The “spirit of the social justice encyclicals.” So far what I have seen of that spirit is the name calling applied to those who disagree with the specific solutions proposed by social justice warriors. Why is it so important to turn these disagreements into tests of moral rectitude? Why isn’t it sufficient to just argue about the proposals without turning those disagreements into “I’m good, you’re evil” conclusions?
Not a bit, but neither will I give a pass to the implication that a difference of opinion over specific, practical proposals constitutes a moral failure.
We went to different civic classes. In the end is the tenth amendment of the Bill of Rights limiting the rights of the central government to those enumerated in the Constitution.
? What is your point? Are you claiming that God has always been banned from the public square since the founding? If so, you are seriously misinformed.
Just not true. But the question was to define “socialism” which I did. Do you disagree?
As I said, there are options, like taxing purchases of large, inefficient vehicles, like SUV’s and one ton duelies to offset gasoline. No one needs any more vehicle that to drive to work than it takes to move their body. My opinion may be a result of where I live where the vast majority of such vehicles have one person in them, and they represent the large majority of vehicles used in commuting. In any case, whatever policy there is, I am saying that the environment is not a special interest. Policies aimed to improve the environment are aimed at all living creatures, present and future.
Agree, disagree, that is the great thing about the Catholic faith. You see, one thing that drives me nuts is when Catholic social justice is dismissed as something that is just “prudential.” Well, prudential doesn’t mean irrelevant. As Pope Francis reminded us, moral values are not negotiable. I see here most, but not all seem to accept this, even in disagreement over what is the best course to social justice. Then there are those that dismiss this all important moral value because there is no one path, trivializing the importance of a topic Jesus said means Heaven and Hell with sarcastic labeling. All followers of Jesus should embrace the role of social justice warrior, conservatives and liberals, as we are fighting for Jesus, in the thirsty, the hungry, the stranger, and the prisoner.
The free enterprise solution is to remove all subsidies that artificially lower the price of gas/diesel. The free market price for transportation fuel would efficiently influence the decision to buy low mpg vehicles.
I must have missed that in the catechism. I did find this though from Laudatio Si.
I am not saying I have the answer, though I have no problem with what you call “social engineering” which is just a negative term for leading society one way our another (like the Declaration of Independence). The free enterprise solution does not work so well when the negative effects extend into future generations, and those who are hurt the most also are the class that has the least political power.
No plan can account for extreme examples that are one in a million, if they even exist at all. You do know, don’t you, that the tax code already has built in a per child exemption? I have never seen anything close to what you describe. I do see all the large vehicles with one driver commuting every day. I have no problem engineering away stupidity and selfishness, waste and short-sightedness.
What I call social engineering is when one person concludes he has the right and ability to decide how others should live their lives with regard to what they do or do not need. Like Mayor Bloomberg’s NY law that banned sodas larger than 16 ounces…or your suggestion that: “No one needs any more vehicle that to drive to work than it takes to move their body.”
Prudential does not mean irrelevant, but it does mean an opinion about the application of moral principles. It is not the principles that are negotiable, but their application to specific situations, and there is nothing in the Catholic faith or its social teachings that suggests otherwise.
I was just going to comment that the exemption only benefits those who make enough money to be assessed that much in taxes to begin with. Incredible.Well, I have read the entire Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine. Unlike some, I recognize it as it is titled, part of the Church’s teaching. And while applying much of it to actual political policies does require Prudential judgement, I happen to think applying it to our individual actions is more cut and dried. For example, the Church commands a just wage. If I am an employee, I am morally bound to do so.