Glenn Beck says to run away from churches who preach social justice?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Via_Dolorosa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sedonaman said:
I
Click to expand...
I noticed a lot of these “I’s” here… I am pretty new, but it was pointed out to me that in most decisions that have sIn you will find “I” in the middle… s.I.n. with a big old I…
 
44 pages based on the rantings of a fallen away Catholic with an axe to grind. Mr Beck needs our prayers, that he will come back to Jesus.
 
sedonaman said:
As a matter of fact, I did. A couple of years ago, and it was a course in liberal logic, after which I decided to do the unthinkable: to become a liberal myself.

Because of my natural tendency to defer to legitimate authority, I still support conservatives and conservatism in general, but by changing my affiliation on paper, I am now unfettered by the need to examine the facts of a situation and to reach a [normal] logical conclusion before I make a decision or a categorical statement.

Henceforth, facts speak for themselves as I interpret them. “Fairness” [that is, how my **feelings
Click to expand...
define “fair”], now guides my actions, rather than some archaic, abstract notion of the law, ethics, or morality established by some 4,000 years of Western Civilization. What I feel is the only truth; there is no other. I will no longer be constrained by right reason. When I use a word, it will mean precisely what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less. I will no longer have to answer the question, “What do you think about . . . ?” for I will not think about anything, but "feel" about it instead. For example, I will no longer find it necessary to think of a logical answer to such questions as why President Bush invaded Iraq. A simple shrug of the shoulders, and an “I-guess-he-just-felt-like-it” should suffice. My agreement with his decision will be equally simple: “I feel he did the right thing.” Sticky, complex questions of UN resolutions, pre-emption, and Saddam’s having [or not having] WMDs will suddenly disappear.

Since we liberals believe that a person’s morality is measured not by his actions but by his support for politically correct causes, those who oppose me, or call my motives into question, are mean-spirited and/or evil. The end justifies the means if the end is good and just, as I define “good and just.” What I say today is valid only insofar as it supports my present arguments; if I need to change my reasoning tomorrow to support a contradictory position, it will be “unfair” [again, as **I define “unfair”] to bring up my past position, which obviously changed because of my sudden awareness of better [as **I define “better”] information, rendering yesterday’s position irrelevant. My feelings about a candidate, determined by the degree of my altruistic image of him conveyed to me by his eloquent oratory, will be everything; his qualifications, past record, and actual words will mean nothing [unless he is promising me a free lunch].

I will be able to work to advance my political agenda guilt-free by not having to worry, acknowledge, or even realize that I am forcing my personal beliefs on others, and be able to accuse those attempting to advance an opposing agenda of being evil for attempting to force their personal beliefs on me. This will enable me to have a double standard: one for me and one for those I oppose. When it becomes obvious that my ideas hurt some group or other, I can claim with all apathetic sincerity, “Well, my intentions were good,” and continue unabated and fully justified.

I will also be able to proclaim my points of view as “centrist” and my opposition’s to be extreme.

If, during an election, my guy is behind in the vote, we will need to keep recounting the ballots until everyone, including the dead and pets, has his/hers/its vote registered according to the demographics of the precincts I choose and how I believe those demographics should have voted – regardless of whether fraud, stupidity, confusion, laziness, or just plain error was the cause of my guy losing. We will need to glean the floors in and around the polling places for any chads or scraps of wastepaper and count them all as votes for my candidate. Two-thirds of those who count the ballots will consist of my candidate’s supporters. Once the vote count goes my guy’s way, we will stop examining ballots. The election is over because it went the right way: my side wins, as it should. Winning is everything.

If in the end, my candidate loses, not all is lost, for I will then be able to hurl at the winner, contradictory epithets, hyperbole, and ad hominems, however uncharitable or lunatic, even in the same sentence, using my own bizarre conspiracy theories to back them up. He [the winner] will obviously be dumb, so I will deny and defy all his authority. He knows less than I do, even though he is closer to a problem than I, is privileged with more information, and is ultimately responsible. He must be opposed at all costs. I will be able to attribute to him any disaster, natural or otherwise, because of his evil racist intentions and for failing to don his Superman suit, fly instantly [if not sooner] to the scene, and prevent loss of life and property. If my guy is caught committing some illegal/immoral act, I will deny that it ever happened. If he is caught on video tape, it will simply be a matter of his “diverse” lifestyle and/or just his exercising a poor “choice”.

If my guy wins, I will demand that his opposition not criticize him but instead get behind him and support him.

Last and best of all, I will be able to conduct my personal affairs in the exact opposite way I preach that others should conduct theirs.

Anyone who disagrees with me is evil.

Man, is this ever great!!!

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::clapping:
 
kage_ar said:
44 pages based on the rantings of a fallen away Catholic with an axe to grind. Mr Beck needs our prayers, that he will come back to Jesus.
Click to expand...
It’s amazing but true. God bless you and have a wonderful holiday.
 
Re: “Private charity, which Beck and I are both for, wasn’t enough to end the slave trade in Great Britain, end legal racial segregation in America, or end apartheid in South Africa. That took vital movements of faith which understood the connection between personal compassion and social justice. Those are the movements that have inspired me and shaped my life – not BIG GOVERNMENT. And my allies in faith-based social justice movements have wonderfully different views on the role of government – some bigger than mine and some smaller than mine – but we all believe social justice requires changing both personal choices and unjust structures.” – Jim Wallis huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/what-glenn-beck-doesnt-un_b_511362.html

OK. So if liberals are so much for social justice, why do they continually oppose any law that limits the greatest "unjust structure” today: that of abortion? Why did liberal Catholics vote overwhelmingly for Øbama after being told by their bishops that abortion is the number one, il primo social injustice that Catholics should work to eliminate and not support pro-abortion candidates [read: Øbama]?

Just think. We could eliminate a social injustice without cost and ameliorate the health-care crisis by putting abortion providers [doctors and nurses] to work providing health care consistent with Christian social justice that Wallis demands. But no. Not only must no crises go to waste, they must be compounded to facilitate further the constant increase in the size of government by making the citizenry more dependent on it.

BTW, Arianna Huffington used to appear on the conservative side in Buckley’s two-hour Firing Line debates on PBS. So she is a fallen away conservative, and good riddance because she was a terrible debater. She acted like she was a plant. And I find her website to be full of ad hominems and consequently of no interest. 😃
 
I think one item left out of this discussion so far, is that the USCCB was strongly in support of the government reforming health care. They started off with the erroneous assumption that health care is a right. Then they found themselves backpeddling as the true result of a bad idea got clearer and clearer.

Now, I found myself in January, in a catholic church (to which I will never again attend) being asked in the Prayers of the Faithful for “Universal Health Care”, and “Immigration Reform”, and was told in the Homily, that if I had health insurance while others did not, I was stealing. When I asked for clarification from the pastor, I was directed to the USCCB and banned from further discussions with the pastor, with the admonitiion that “May God have mercy on your soul”.

Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness are rights. Shelter, Food, Water, Transportation, Health Care are not rights, they are obligations of the individual to provide for themselves by self sufficiency or in our modern times, bartering goods produced by the person and family for goods not produced, but desired. In the event that an individual is truly unable to provide for themselves, God expects Charity from our heart to provide for those less able. This is natural and has worked for mankind since we were created.

Transposing charity to the government by way of confiscating a persons legitimate private property and giving to those who have less, is NOT charity. When the Bishops take the easy way out and tell us to vote for govenment programs the appear to be based on making things more fair, or equally distributed, they should not be surprised that they get a horrible, political and moral mess that is destructive and violates over half of the ten commandments.

I certainly hope this past event will illustrate the folly of taking a position on Social Issues, that involves a government solution. Maybe the USCCB can get back to preaching personal charity to the point, we have no tolerance or need for socialist redistribution of wealth.

P.S. By the way, I sent a letter on this to Cardinal DiNardo after all of my attempts to discuss this issue with the priest were denied. The Cardinal’s assistant intercepted the letter and asked the priest if it was worthy of the Cardinal’s attention, and was told to throw it away. Have the Bishops learned nothing from the sex scandals?
 
sedonaman said:
Re: “Private charity, which Beck and I are both for, wasn’t enough to end the slave trade in Great Britain, end legal racial segregation in America, or end apartheid in South Africa. That took vital movements of faith which understood the connection between personal compassion and social justice. Those are the movements that have inspired me and shaped my life – not BIG GOVERNMENT. And my allies in faith-based social justice movements have wonderfully different views on the role of government – some bigger than mine and some smaller than mine – but we all believe social justice requires changing both personal choices and unjust structures.” – Jim Wallis huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/what-glenn-beck-doesnt-un_b_511362.html

OK. So if liberals are so much for social justice, why do they continually oppose any law that limits the greatest "unjust structure” today: that of abortion? Why did liberal Catholics vote overwhelmingly for Øbama after being told by their bishops that abortion is the number one, il primo social injustice that Catholics should work to eliminate and not support pro-abortion candidates [read: Øbama]?

Just think. We could eliminate a social injustice without cost and ameliorate the health-care crisis by putting abortion providers [doctors and nurses] to work providing health care consistent with Christian social justice that Wallis demands. But no. Not only must no crises go to waste, they must be compounded to facilitate further the constant increase in the size of government by making the citizenry more dependent on it.

BTW, Arianna Huffington used to appear on the conservative side in Buckley’s two-hour Firing Line debates on PBS. So she is a fallen away conservative, and good riddance because she was a terrible debater. She acted like she was a plant. And I find her website to be full of ad hominems and consequently of no interest. 😃
Click to expand...
Would you consider changing your user name to onetrickpony?
 
OK. So if liberals are so much for social justice, why do they continually oppose any law that limits the greatest "unjust structure” today: that of abortion? Why did liberal Catholics vote overwhelmingly for Øbama after being told by their bishops that abortion is the number one, il primo social injustice that Catholics should work to eliminate and not support pro-abortion candidates [read: Øbama]?
Click to expand...
Because ‘liberals’ have been convinced that making abortion illegal is depriving women of something - of their ‘right to choose’ and their ‘rights over their own bodies’. They have been lied to and told that the aborted babies aren’t really babies. I really don’t think ‘liberals’ hate babies. I think they have been conned. If ‘liberals’ were educated about what abortion really is, then they wouldn’t, and couldn’t, support it. theliberal.co.uk/issue_9/politics/fof_hoskings_9.html

I am putting ‘liberals’ in quotes because I think it is a buzz word that has no clear definition. With the exceptions of being pro-life, and my belief that the teachings of the Church are consistent and true especially with regards to same sex marriage, male priesthood, and no remarriage after divorce, I fit what many on here call ‘liberal’.
 
markbrumbaugh said:
… * … was told in the Homily, that if I had health insurance while others did not, I was stealing. …*

This is like saying if you had food to eat while others were starving, you were stealing. I presume your priest has food to eat. I am reminded that Lenin once said, “Property is theft.” [An interesting question as a side issue is how can you have a concept of theft without a concept of property?]

I think the priest was trying to “throw your question over the partition” when he referred you to the USCCB, so I wouldn’t condemn all bishops because of what one socialist priest says.

Be that as it may, the advocates of free universal health care have not addressed [at least I haven’t seen it] some questions, like what happens when health care is “free” and demand explodes?
Quote:

Most discussions of health care are like something out of Alice in Wonderland.

What is the biggest complaint about the current medical care situation? “It costs too much.” Yet one looks in vain for anything in the pending legislation that will lower those costs.

One of the biggest reasons for higher medical costs is that somebody else is paying those costs, whether an insurance company or the government. What is the politicians’ answer? To have more costs paid by insurance companies and the government.

Back when the “single payer” was the patient, people were more selective in what they spent their own money on. You went to a doctor when you had a broken leg but not necessarily every time you had the sniffles or a skin rash. But, when someone else is paying, that is when medical care gets over-used – and bureaucratic rationing is then imposed, to replace self-rationing.
…
In country after country, the original estimates of government medical care costs almost always turn out to be gross under-estimates of what it ultimately turns out to cost.

Even when the estimates are done honestly, they are based on how much medical care people use when they are paying for it themselves. But having someone else pay for medical care virtually guarantees that a lot more of it will be used.

Nothing would lower costs more than having each patient pay those costs. And nothing is less likely to happen.

Unquote.

– economist Dr. Thomas Sowell

I have personally seen this over-use when in the military which provides “free” * health care to families of members. Retirees got “free” health care also, and as a result, some of them would go to the medic every Thursday morning just to meet with other retirees for a social gathering!

And then, where did the idea come from that those without insurance are not getting any health care at all? The lack of insurance does not equate to no health care. My wife is an ER nurse, and she told me that they have to treat anyone who shows up, regardless of ability to pay. Dr. Sowell backs that up in the above article. If someone cannot pay, he is stabilized and transferred to the local county hospital. I have encountered two individuals who had no insurance and needed life-saving surgery. The state paid for both.

Advocates like to point to the 15% who have no health insurance. Well, that means 85% do, and they would replace a problem that is 85% solved with one that is only 19% solved [the approximate of how much of a tax dollar actually reaches those it is intended to help].

In response to your priest, I would refer him to paragraph 4 of Rerum Novarum* by Pope Leo XIII:
Quote:

To remedy these wrongs , the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.

Unquote.

But to the socialist, that’s OK as long as everyone ultimately suffers equally, and since everyone will have been made equal in this, “social justice” will have been achieved.
Click to expand...
 
You got it Sedonaman. If we all bought and carried catastrophic health insurance, and used tax deductible health savings accounts, we would know how much things cost and individually could prioritize our health expenses against everything else we need to prioritize…food, education, bigger TV, new car, used car, bigger house, rent or buy…etc.
When folks treat things like they are free or paid by somebody else, they treat them like their are limitless and bad things will happen. No way costs will go down when things are “free.”
Covering everyone with prepaid health care, is going to be a disaster and I predict no good will come of it.
 
sedonaman said:
I think the priest was trying to “throw your question over the partition” when he referred you to the USCCB, so I wouldn’t condemn all bishops because of what one socialist priest says.
You may have a point about the priest. However all of the USCCB letters to congress start out with the premise that health care is “a RIGHT”, and that is absolutely impossible. Someone must “produce” health care. It is not free nor limitless. It therefore cannot be “a RIGHT”.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
markbrumbaugh said:
sedonaman;6481809:
I think the priest was trying to “throw your question over the partition” when he referred you to the USCCB, so I wouldn’t condemn all bishops because of what one socialist priest says.
You may have a point about the priest. However all of the USCCB letters to congress start out with the premise that health care is “a RIGHT”, and that is absolutely impossible. Someone must “produce” health care. It is not free nor limitless. It therefore cannot be “a RIGHT”.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this sensible post!!!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Ella said:
…
I am putting ‘liberals’ in quotes because I think it is a buzz word that has no clear definition. …
Click to expand...
Well, it used to mean one who favored individual rights and citizen self-government, IOW, “classical liberal”. But, as Auster puts it, "… what started as a demand for basic civil rights has mutated into a demand to overturn the whole society, along with its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history and heroes.”

I think liberals have denied the label because it has gotten a well-deserved bad reputation for “demanding that the whole society be overturned.” Perhaps “liberal” best describes someone who is liberal with someone else’s money.
 
Ella said:
… If ‘liberals’ were educated about what abortion really is, then they wouldn’t, and couldn’t, support it. …
Click to expand...
Liberals are among the educated elite in this country and the most ardent supporters of abortion. Those less educated [the “conned”] are forgetting the Golden Rule. How could they support something that, if happened to them, they wouldn’t be around to advocate it? Some here say I’m illogical, but I feel that if it is not a fallacy to advocate something to happen to someone else that you wouldn’t want to have happened to you, then it should be.
 
markbrumbaugh said:
…
You may have a point about the priest. However all of the USCCB letters to congress start out with the premise that health care is “a RIGHT”, and that is absolutely impossible. Someone must “produce” health care. It is not free nor limitless. It therefore cannot be “a RIGHT”.

…
Click to expand...
I have the same problem with it being a right. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with the bishops; I am just not sure. Government is charged with protecting individual rights; but, as you point out, if it is not available, how can the government protect it?
 
NEWCATHOLICJEFF said:
I noticed a lot of these “I’s” here… I am pretty new, but it was pointed out to me that in most decisions that have sIn you will find “I” in the middle… s.I.n. with a big old I…
Click to expand...
There was no intention of accusing anyone of sin, but to convey the idea that much of what passes as liberal thought these days is age-old relativism, i.e., truth is relative to the individual.
 
I am grateful for the Social Justice Teaching of the Catholic Church.
I am grateful for the strong pro life teaching of our Catholic Church - no abortion, no euthanisia, no death penality (except where it is the only choice to protect society)
I am grateful for the voice of priests and the USCCB who call us to consider that we as individuals, as communities and as society called to act with the preference for the poor.
I am grateful that the Bishops spoke strongly that health care is a RIGHT
I am grateful that the Bishops speak out for immigration reform.

I am pro life.
I am Catholic.
I embrace the Social Justice Teaching of the Catholic Church.

I believe other good Catholic people of good will and faith may draw the line in a different place as to how much the government should do to help meet the common good. I know that the Catholic Church advocates and encourages governments to act and legislate in ways that reflect ways to help the most vulnerable.

We are Catholics.
We may disagree about where this line should be drawn, but we should not disagree with the teaching of the Church. If we do, we should consider that perhaps another faith community would better meet our needs. If we are - perhaps we are looking for the Church of ‘I’ - the Church of ‘My World View’ -

On this Holy Saturday many are being welcomed into the embrace of the Church. We should all reflect on our personal commitment to be followers of Jesus and decide if this Church is where we belong - are we being molded - or are we trying to mold the church to us?

I find it ironic that those who speak here so strongly against relativism also reject the Social Justice Teaching of our Church… BECK told people to run from such Churches - run perhaps to the church of ‘ME’ the church of "I’VE GOT MINE’ ----- no, I’ll stay right here in the Catholic Church happily espousing the ENTIRE teaching, pro life, social justice, preference for the poor.

Easter Blessings
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top