Egalitarianism or a Meritocracy?

[zro_x]

LOOOOOL

I’m unfamiliar with what that means. My guess is something like “laugh really hard?”

 

[tonyrey]

That would be true, if you think that our natural recources are very limited at the moment, which is a matter of dispute. If we were bumping up against some population limit, then the Earth’s finite resources may be a problem, and may warrant greater taxation on the rich. However, if the world is far from its carrying capacity(or the rate of growth is significantly slowing or stopping), the mere act of having and gaining money in no way affects those who don’t have it.

We cannot serve God **and **Mammon. Even if we limit ourselves to the world’s population and present resources most human misery and suffering are caused by exploitation and gross inequality: of that there is no doubt whatsoever. All Christians have a moral obligation to condemn and fight against the main evil in society: the failure to follow the example and teaching of Jesus by treating everyone as our brothers and sisters - rather than accumulating wealth for ourselves…

 

[zro_x]

We cannot serve God **and **Mammon. Even if we limit ourselves to the world’s population and present resources most human misery and suffering are caused by exploitation and gross inequality: of that there is no doubt whatsoever.

No doubt? I know that I doubt it, if no one else. Could you give me some examples of “exploitation”? As for wealth inequalities, I fail to see how that in itself causes people to be poor. If I go out and earn a ton of money, the fact that I’ve earned this money has no effect on the wealth of other people. They are just as poor or as rich as they were before I earned it.

All Christians have a moral obligation to condemn and fight against the main evil in society: the failure to follow the example and teaching of Jesus by treating everyone as our brothers and sisters - rather than accumulating wealth for ourselves…

I agree. I just don’t think that the government has any right or buisness in such aid.

 

[devoutchristian]

Staying unaffiliated with any religion is a very good position for the government to take.

How can anyone who calls himself Catholic believe such a rediculous heresy?

Far better than a theocracy, at any rate, which is ultimately the only other option.

Nonsense. There are and have been plenty of confessional states that were ran by the laity.

Only when legislators pass laws that apply equally to everyone. Then taxation is a social contract. But when laws are passed that descriminate against a particular subgroup (such as the rich) the laws are no longer a social contract, but theft.

I would advise you to stay far away from the nonsense espoused by the social contract theorist of the enlightenment. There is nothing immoral about a progressive tax system. (to be clear I do support a flat tax)

 

[zro_x]

How can anyone who calls himself Catholic believe such a rediculous heresy?

Heresy? I think for something to be heresy, it has to be officially opposed by the catholic church. I’m not absolutely certain about this, but I’m pretty sure the church advocates freedom of religion, and a secular government is the only type of government that can fully achieve this.

Nonsense. There are and have been plenty of confessional states that were ran by the laity.

A confessional state is a watered down theocracy, even if the state is democratic. Any attempt to associate any religion with the state results in the loss of some freedom of religion. For example, In a confessional state, people might be forced to give up money for relief efforts that are only justifiable in a religious context. Such a law is every bit as horrible as the law passed that forces Catholic institutions to pay for contraception insurance. Both force people to do things against their values and belief systems.

I would advise you to stay far away from the nonsense espoused by the social contract theorist of the enlightenment.

As far as I can see, if taxation is not a social contract, it is theft, plain and simple.

There is nothing immoral about a progressive tax system.

What is this assertion based on? Descrimination is descrimination. Theft is theft, no matter how you look at it.

 

[tonyrey]

Could you give me some examples of “exploitation”? As for wealth inequalities, I fail to see how that in itself causes people to be poor. If I go out and earn a ton of money, the fact that I’ve earned this money has no effect on the wealth of other people. They are just as poor or as rich as they were before I earned it.

Paying wages which lead to children going to school without breakfast… If you earn a ton of money and you’re not prepared to pay tax so that they are not hungry you are not a Christian.

I agree. I just don’t think that the government has any right or buisness in such aid.

The members of the government have a moral obligation to ensure that children don’t go school without breakfast simply because their parents are paid insufficient wages…

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

In general, the magisterium of the Catholic Church has answered this question. It is all found in Catholic Social Doctrine. See: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

When the Church speaks, it is the LORD speaking.

Thus, any personal opinion or preference I might develop on this doesn’'t matter much. Neither does it matter what Ayn Rand, Karl Marx, Adam Smith, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Nancy Pelosi, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, or Mahatma Gandhi think or thought.

What’s next? A poll on whether we prefer the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence or the Lutheran doctrine of the Eucharist?

 

[Linux]

Paying wages which lead to children going to school without breakfast… If you earn a ton of money and you’re not prepared to pay tax so that they are not hungry you are not a Christian.

The members of the government have a moral obligation to ensure that children don’t go school without breakfast simply because their parents are paid insufficient wages…

Agreed.

I guess some people really are clueless or wilfully ignorant. It seems many Catholics on this forum don’t know about the common good or the degree to which they have a right to property.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Agreed.

I guess some people really are clueless or wilfully ignorant. It seems many Catholics on this forum don’t know about the common good or the degree to which they have a right to property.

Catholics have been kept mainly ignorant of Catholic Social Doctrine by a Catholic Left who act as though Catholic Social Doctrine is all there is to the Catholic Church (and thereby repulse everyone except for committed Lefties), and by a Catholic Right who secretly hate and reject core doctrines of Catholic Social Doctrine and so either never talk about it or if they mention it they distort it or minimalize it. Ask yourself: Have you EVER heard a discussion of Catholic Social Doctrine on Catholic Answers Live? I haven’t. And here you can see Jimmy Akin expressing his doubts and reservations about the Church’s latest summary of Catholic Social Doctrine: jimmyakin.com/2006/04/first_thoughts_.html

 

[tonyrey]

Agreed.

I guess some people really are clueless or wilfully ignorant. It seems many Catholics on this forum don’t know about the common good or the degree to which they have a right to property.

Selfishness is certainly incompatible with the teaching of Jesus even when cloaked by a claim to the right to make oneself rich!

 

[zro_x]

Paying wages which lead to children going to school without breakfast…

This is a case where the poor are positively, rather than negatively, affected by the rich and employers. Without the employers, they would have no wage at all. The employee and the employer agree to a trade: some of my money for some of your time. Both the employee and the employer benefit from the trade. In most cases, this is completely voluntary, and I’m not at all advocating the times when it is not. earning money, in itself and at this time, has no effect on the poor population.

If you earn a ton of money and you’re not prepared to pay tax so that they are not hungry you are not a Christian.

If I earn a ton of money and I’m not prepared to freely commit it to a good cause, I’m a poor example of a christian, and a disobedient Catholic.

I could just as easily say that anyone who does promote a unequal tax is not christian because an unequal tax is theft. We as christians are not allowed to do evil, even for good intentions. Christianity is not an “ends justfy the means” moral philosophy, at least not for guiding human actions. If we could somehow save the lives of ten starving children by stealing a toothpick, we still aren’t allowed to steal it.

The members of the government have a moral obligation to ensure that children don’t go school without breakfast simply because their parents are paid insufficient wages…

And where does this moral obligation come from? Is it not some theological, and therefore religious, idea? If we are going to keep our religious freedoms, we need to acknowledge that separation of Church and state is necessary. Besides, even if they did have such an obligation, they have a stronger obligation to obey God’s laws, including the seventh commandment.

 

[zro_x]

In general, the magisterium of the Catholic Church has answered this question. It is all found in Catholic Social Doctrine. See: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

When the Church speaks, it is the LORD speaking.

Only when making an infallible claim. I’m not sure if this reference is infallible or not, but either way, I think parts of it confirm the stance that Government should not be involved in what it doesn’t need to be involved in. See the “principle of subsidiarity” in chapter four; the idea that social change should be worked from the ground up, and that any moral responsibility should be allocated to the lowest possible social unit.

Thus, any personal opinion or preference I might develop on this doesn’'t matter much. Neither does it matter what Ayn Rand, Karl Marx, Adam Smith, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Nancy Pelosi, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, or Mahatma Gandhi think or thought.

Unless there is a lot of room for interpretation, and there is in a lot of the Catholic teachings I’ve read. But yes, it would be difficult to see how one could be Catholic if the church infallibly gave us a particular economic policy, and that person were opposed to it.

Also, I’ve read the article by Jimmy Aiken. In the article I read, nowhere does he doubt or second-guess the Church’s social teaching.

 

[zro_x]

Agreed.

I guess some people really are clueless or wilfully ignorant. It seems many Catholics on this forum don’t know about the common good or the degree to which they have a right to property.

I did glance over those two areas of Bartelome’s reference, but all they said was that the right to private property is not unlimmited (I agree, one does not have the right to property gained unjustly, and there is a responsibility, though not a legal one, to use that money to better society as best you can), and that the common good is something the government should strive to advance. (The common good does not necessarily apply to entitlements, and what promotes the general welfare is really a matter of political oppinion. Mine is that the general welfare is enhanced when the government takes as small a role as possible in releif and aid)

 

[Linux]

I could just as easily say that anyone who does promote a unequal tax is not christian because an unequal tax is theft.

False. Unequal tax is not arbitrary. A person is taxed according to the amount they earn, and that’s fair.

 

[devoutchristian]

Heresy? I think for something to be heresy, it has to be officially opposed by the catholic church.

Pope Pius IX condemned in his encyclical Quanta Cura the proposition that ‘that the best state of public society and civil progress absolutely requires that human society should be so constituted and governed, that there is no consideration of religion, as if it did not exist, or at least with no distinction made between true and false religions.’. There are other condemnations of secularism as well.

I’m not absolutely certain about this, but I’m pretty sure the church advocates freedom of religion, and a secular government is the only type of government that can fully achieve this.

Malta and Costa Rica are both religiously free Catholic confessional states.

A confessional state is a watered down theocracy, even if the state is democratic.

No it isn’t. A confessional state is substantially different from a theocracy.

Any attempt to associate any religion with the state results in the loss of some freedom of religion.

The Church has never advocated absolute freedom for false religions, so this is not a problem. In any case, secularism (which is really just watered down state atheism) infringes on the freedom of Catholics (the HHS mandate being a good example of this).

For example, In a confessional state, people might be forced to give up money for relief efforts that are only justifiable in a religious context.

How would a confessional state force people to directly pay for things that they regarded as evil?

Such a law is every bit as horrible as the law passed that forces Catholic institutions to pay for contraception insurance. Both force people to do things against their values and belief systems.

Even if it is granted that such cases would arise, there is a moral difference between Catholic moral teaching (which is true) and the moral teaching of false religions.

Descrimination is descrimination.

Discrimination isn’t inherently unjust.

And where does this moral obligation come from? Is it not some theological, and therefore religious, idea?

Yes it is. The Church’s teachings are binding on private persons and public authorities alike.

 

[Linux]

I could just as easily say that anyone who does promote a unequal tax is not Christian because an unequal tax is theft.

False. Unequal tax is not arbitrary. A person is taxed according to the amount they earn, and that’s fair.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Equal opportunities: for example - education and healthcare.

It is not necessary to carry it to extremes, like insisting every basketball team have at least 2 active players under 6 feet tall.

 

[tonyrey]

This is a case where the poor are positively, rather than negatively, affected by the rich and employers. Without the employers, they would have no wage at all. The employee and the employer agree to a trade: some of my money for some of your time. Both the employee and the employer benefit from the trade. In most cases, this is completely voluntary, and I’m not at all advocating the times when it is not. earning money, in itself and at this time, has no effect on the poor population.

When there are only jobs with very low wages it is not voluntary because the alternative is no income at all if the government is not responsible for ensuring everyone has a decent standard of living and every child has enough to eat…

If I earn a ton of money and I’m not prepared to freely commit it to a good cause, I’m a poor example of a christian, and a disobedient Catholic.

That is not a good reason for the State to do nothing to help children who have no breakfast.

I could just as easily say that anyone who does promote a unequal tax is not christian because an unequal tax is theft. We as christians are not allowed to do evil, even for good intentions. Christianity is not an “ends justfy the means” moral philosophy, at least not for guiding human actions. If we could somehow save the lives of ten starving children by stealing a toothpick, we still aren’t allowed to steal it.

That is sheer nonsense which is refuted by the principle of choosing the lesser evil.

And where does this moral obligation come from? Is it not some theological, and therefore religious, idea? If we are going to keep our religious freedoms, we need to acknowledge that separation of Church and state is necessary. Besides, even if they did have such an obligation, they have a stronger obligation to obey God’s laws, including the seventh commandment.

Legalism does not evade the moral obligation to help children who have no breakfast.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Only when making an infallible claim. I’m not sure if this reference is infallible or not, but either way, I think parts of it confirm the stance that Government should not be involved in what it doesn’t need to be involved in. See the “principle of subsidiarity” in chapter four; the idea that social change should be worked from the ground up, and that any moral responsibility should be allocated to the lowest possible social unit.

Unless there is a lot of room for interpretation, and there is in a lot of the Catholic teachings I’ve read. But yes, it would be difficult to see how one could be Catholic if the church infallibly gave us a particular economic policy, and that person were opposed to it.

Also, I’ve read the article by Jimmy Aiken. In the article I read, nowhere does he doubt or second-guess the Church’s social teaching.

A REAL Catholic would AT LEAST make himself aware of what the Catholic Church teaches about the morality of various economic systems, and would bring that into any discussion of economic models, theories, systems, practices, legislation, etc… even if what the Church teaches is not “infallible.” A REAL Catholic has ENORMOUS respect for the teachings of the popes and the Councils, even if everything they write is not infallible or unalterable. The Church’s teaching that pornography use is wrong is nowhere proclaimed as “infallible” either, by the way.