V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
It’s because ignorant, paranoid and illogical men can identify with him. Read the thread for proof.
Glenn Beck says to run away from churches who preach social justice?
- Status
N
NEWCATHOLICJEFF
Guest
“I think I can,” puffed the little locomotive, and put itself in front of the great heavy train. As it went on the little engine kept bravely puffing faster and faster, “I think I can, I think I can, I think I can, I think I can, I think I can, I think I can…woooo ooohhhh wooooo!!”
C
catharina
Guest
See revised Post 639 too!“I think I can,” puffed the little locomotive, and put itself in front of the great heavy train. As it went on the little engine kept bravely puffing faster and faster, “I think I can, I think I can, I think I can, I think I can, I think I can, I think I can…woooo ooohhhh wooooo!!”
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
I am a reading comprehnsion teacher and I thought I was having a mini stroke reading your thoughts. Since your authoritarian friend cited your latest nonsense I read the original document from your latest rant. The whole article was illogical. It was based on a false premise. Stay on track for the thread or start a new one.
C
catharina
Guest
Speaking of on track for this thread …
the suggested notion that “some” are unworthy of help
(although social justice is defined for all),
well, the point is made re “preschool brats” - who cares?
not the one who judges children that way - of course.
Throw the children into the street and run them down.
Those little children have no manners: tsk tsk tsk.
They must be unworthy - even worthless!
No social justice for BRATS. Uh huh.
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
Unworthy, too, is the kid who won’t cut his hair and the whole 60’s generation who have damaged this country beyond repair. Hard to imagine that someone who espouses to be a Vincentian has so much distain in his heart. Unbelievable.
C
catharina
Guest
I can say that with my own 40+ years of exchanges within the Vincentian family,
I have never met even ONE man or woman who displays such endless disdain.
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
If you want to know where he’s coming from read the article gangsta granpa posted. It says alot about the two of them. Need I state quoting from Conservatives Without a Conscience?
C
catharina
Guest
You say he lost his street cred (agreed)
and I say his perceptions are uncharitable and twisted - (I mean BRATS?) -
so I have no plan to follow the pseudo twisted points of either of them.
I can, for sure, the attitudes are NOT Vincentian. Not even close!
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
I couldn’t agree more. God Bless.
C
catharina
Guest
The quote I denigrated?
I don’t even read anonymous quotes!
I didn’t read that one for that reason.
A quote from … nobody?
Oh yeah, sure I’m interested … NOT AT ALL.
As for your claim to know many brats - perhaps you do.
I’ve worked with children from every background for 45 yrs and I’ve never met one “brat.”
It’s clear to me that you and I perceive things in very different ways.
C
catharina
Guest
God bless you too.
God bless all with His compassion.
S
sedonaman
Guest
Thank you for your support. It’s nice to see that there is someone I’m getting through to and who might think it’s just possible for there to be better ways of achieving “social justice” [yet to be defined by its advocates] besides shoveling money into the streets, especially by the government.
Getting back to the case of the woman and her boyfriend in jail, it’s a fact that the Society of St. Vincent de Paul cannot help everyone; and we don’t, so some judgment must be exercised in each case, knowing that if you help one, someone else must do with less … or without altogether. The only question is where to draw the line. Therefore, hypothetically speaking, I would ask any of my critics here if they would authorize the payment of her dues to a lesbian bondage club based on only the knowledge that she had a girlfriend in it? Or would they authorize the payment of her abortion? Why or why not? We are admonished not to judge, but even the decision to provide financial support necessarily involves an act of judgment. It would seem that in some cases we are forced to support self-destructive behavior, or be judgmental; there is no in between – a notion I reject.
I believe that what Beck was advising is to avoid those churches that support socialism [like the International / National Council of Churches, of which the Roman Catholic Church is not a member [the last time I checked] because the Church has condemned socialism in all its forms, a point that apparently left little impression on most.
I’m not a particular fan of Beck, but if someone dismisses him because he thinks he’s an idiot, then that someone is free to pursue his conscience and join a “Church of What’s Happening Now” that supports whatever causes, and not watch him.
Again, thanks.
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
S
sedonaman
Guest
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 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!!!
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
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!!!
Well, that explains alot. Thanks for sharing.
M
ManOnFire
Guest
Ironically, there was an episode on the TV show LOST that explains our differences:
For those familiar: Kate’s alcoholic step-father beats her mother horribly and regularly. Kate is tired of it, so she burns down the house with him in it (alone) and he dies. Kate took out an insurance policy so her mom would be financially stable. With a look of hope, Kate tells her mom what she did. Kate’s mom TURNS HER OVER to the police. When Kate finally gets the chance to ask her mother why she turned her over to the police, her mom says, “Kate, you killed him to make YOURSELF feel better. I loved him.”
Kate’s version of “social justice” was very different than the Church’s version of social justice. This era of independent individualism has created a “judge and jury” individualist version of social justice, which the unelected media is all too happy to foster. The more we make up our own rules, the less we live by God’s Covenant for behaviour. The Church requires us to be charitable to the True needy. The Church does not require us to be suckers who get conned out of our tax dollars by able-bodied people (the false needy) who spend money on drugs and who have learned that the more one asks for aid, the more one receives. No matter how good you feel to vote for the needy, the Church’s social justice is not met if the “responsible-by-choice” are being taken advantage by the “irresponsible-by-choice,” which starts in the home. Home life and values are dictated by pop culture media for too many and are not up to the Church’s standards for behavior.
Pushing a button on a voting machine requires no great sacrifice. All it will do is cause the ambitious to be less ambitious, which = lower personal incomes and less tax revenue for social programs = less household spending = less jobs = more ownership and control by govt. Once the far left extremists control most of the country, we’ll see the secularists dictate thoughts, values, and behaviors (they have already), use fear of not being “politically correct” to limit free speech and actions (they have already, look how many sheeple ignore the Truth if the unelected media deems words to be “not nice,” no matter how true), and limits on popluation growth to “save the earth.” All of this is because we fail to be good Christians when pop culture media keeps tempting people away from God’s Way and into sinful anti-true-love behavior. Just look at the pro athletes and movie stars: if money was more important than morality, they would be the kings and queens of character and class. Instead, many are the OPPOSITE. “If you arm causes you to sin, cut it off.” Since pop culture media causes us to sin if we lack the will power, we must limit our exposure to it.
For those familiar: Kate’s alcoholic step-father beats her mother horribly and regularly. Kate is tired of it, so she burns down the house with him in it (alone) and he dies. Kate took out an insurance policy so her mom would be financially stable. With a look of hope, Kate tells her mom what she did. Kate’s mom TURNS HER OVER to the police. When Kate finally gets the chance to ask her mother why she turned her over to the police, her mom says, “Kate, you killed him to make YOURSELF feel better. I loved him.”
Kate’s version of “social justice” was very different than the Church’s version of social justice. This era of independent individualism has created a “judge and jury” individualist version of social justice, which the unelected media is all too happy to foster. The more we make up our own rules, the less we live by God’s Covenant for behaviour. The Church requires us to be charitable to the True needy. The Church does not require us to be suckers who get conned out of our tax dollars by able-bodied people (the false needy) who spend money on drugs and who have learned that the more one asks for aid, the more one receives. No matter how good you feel to vote for the needy, the Church’s social justice is not met if the “responsible-by-choice” are being taken advantage by the “irresponsible-by-choice,” which starts in the home. Home life and values are dictated by pop culture media for too many and are not up to the Church’s standards for behavior.
Pushing a button on a voting machine requires no great sacrifice. All it will do is cause the ambitious to be less ambitious, which = lower personal incomes and less tax revenue for social programs = less household spending = less jobs = more ownership and control by govt. Once the far left extremists control most of the country, we’ll see the secularists dictate thoughts, values, and behaviors (they have already), use fear of not being “politically correct” to limit free speech and actions (they have already, look how many sheeple ignore the Truth if the unelected media deems words to be “not nice,” no matter how true), and limits on popluation growth to “save the earth.” All of this is because we fail to be good Christians when pop culture media keeps tempting people away from God’s Way and into sinful anti-true-love behavior. Just look at the pro athletes and movie stars: if money was more important than morality, they would be the kings and queens of character and class. Instead, many are the OPPOSITE. “If you arm causes you to sin, cut it off.” Since pop culture media causes us to sin if we lack the will power, we must limit our exposure to it.
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
Does this mean you agree with the original statement to run away from churches who preach social justice, as advised by Glenn Beck?Ironically, there was an episode on the TV show LOST that explains our differences:
For those familiar: Kate’s alcoholic step-father beats her mother horribly and regularly. Kate is tired of it, so she burns down the house with him in it (alone) and he dies. Kate took out an insurance policy so her mom would be financially stable. With a look of hope, Kate tells her mom what she did. Kate’s mom TURNS HER OVER to the police. When Kate finally gets the chance to ask her mother why she turned her over to the police, her mom says, “Kate, you killed him to make YOURSELF feel better. I loved him.”
Kate’s version of “social justice” was very different than the Church’s version of social justice. This era of independent individualism has created a “judge and jury” individualist version of social justice, which the unelected media is all too happy to foster. The more we make up our own rules, the less we live by God’s Covenant for behaviour. The Church requires us to be charitable to the True needy. The Church does not require us to be suckers who get conned out of our tax dollars by able-bodied people (the false needy) who spend money on drugs and who have learned that the more one asks for aid, the more one receives. No matter how good you feel to vote for the needy, the Church’s social justice is not met if the “responsible-by-choice” are being taken advantage by the “irresponsible-by-choice,” which starts in the home. Home life and values are dictated by pop culture media for too many and are not up to the Church’s standards for behavior.
Pushing a button on a voting machine requires no great sacrifice. All it will do is cause the ambitious to be less ambitious, which = lower personal incomes and less tax revenue for social programs = less household spending = less jobs = more ownership and control by govt. Once the far left extremists control most of the country, we’ll see the secularists dictate thoughts, values, and behaviors (they have already), use fear of not being “politically correct” to limit free speech and actions (they have already, look how many sheeple ignore the Truth if the unelected media deems words to be “not nice,” no matter how true), and limits on popluation growth to “save the earth.” All of this is because we fail to be good Christians when pop culture media keeps tempting people away from God’s Way and into sinful anti-true-love behavior. Just look at the pro athletes and movie stars: if money was more important than morality, they would be the kings and queens of character and class. Instead, many are the OPPOSITE. “If you arm causes you to sin, cut it off.” Since pop culture media causes us to sin if we lack the will power, we must limit our exposure to it.
S
sedonaman
Guest
Mega :thumbsup:s.
A problem that liberals seems to have is they lack any concept of limits, or points of diminishing returns. Two examples: I asked an ultra-liberal friend who should get medical care, a 70 year-old man who needs a heart operation, or a 14-year-old girl who wants an abortion? His reply; “Both.” No concept of scarce resources.
Second example: Above I made the statement that, “…the Society of St. Vincent de Paul cannot help everyone; and we don’t, so some judgment must be exercised in each case, knowing that if you help one, someone else must do with less … or without altogether. The only question is where to draw the line.” One of my critics did not know where to draw the line [or didn’t want to], so she tried to avoid the question by asking if I equated a bus ticket to abortion [then had the audacity
to ask if I had taken a course in logic]. No concept of scarce resources.This should not come as a surprise, since they don’t seem to have a concept of economics either, which I feel is the study of the allocation of scarce resources.
Speaking of scarce resources, this morning the news showed a sign on a doctor’s office in Florida, which said,
Question for liberals: Has Øbama increased “social justice” in this case?
C
catharina
Guest
A holy Good Friday to all.
- Status