Inequality

[koda]

patshea1128:

WOW, that says it all right there! You’re not a Catholic are you? In essence, what you have said is that man is inherently evil. That is not true. God made man in his own image. You most certainly belong to a Protestant church, for that is how the Protestant ministers keep protestants, protestant. They teach the flock that man is inherently evil. You, by your statements, obviously believe that. MMMM…What should I say next?

Actually, I am Catholic and I believe that man is inherently good. But a reading of the daily newspaper will give example after example of people who don’t seem to care too much about their fellow man. They have fallen into sin. If everyone was going to do the right thing we wouldn’t need any laws - but clearly this is not the case. Yes, we are inherently good but that doesn’t mean we can’t turn away from God. People do it in droves. So, I guess you misinterpreted my post. I don’t believe the things you think I “obviously” do.

 

[koda]

patshea1128:

The role of government is clearly defined in the Constitution. National Defense being #1. The Federal Government has gotten 2 things right in its 200+ years. The United State Military Establishment, and Space Exploration (NASA). They should stick to those 2 ventures. I’ve got this crazy idea going on inside of my head that man is inherently good and when confronted with decisions of kindness and humanity, man will make the right choice. I am one of those lunatics that actually has faith in mankind and the goodness of man. I do not have faith in government. It is lazy people that put their faith in government. People avoid having to make decisions and would rather have government control their lives. I do believe that is contrary to what Jesus Christ expects from society.

Are you saying that you don’t believe the government should make abortion illiegal? What about gay marriage?

 

[koda]

patshea1128:

Did the Lord say anything about using your neighbor’s money to take care of the least among us? Are you trying to separate your religion from everyday life? Do you realize that the Protestants teach that as part of their basic doctrine? Protestants are real big into separating church and state unless is happens to be their brand of religion being intermixed with the state. By the way, who is the state?

I’m a bit confused by your post. What do you mean by trying to separate my religion from everyday life? I don’t advocate that at all, for myself or anyone, that’s why I thing the government should help take care of the needy - precisely because we are supposed to be a Christian country. We can’t pick and choose the morality we legislate. No abortion and not gay marriage beacuse they are not Christian - well, neither is letting people starve. Tell me, do you donate to charity, volunteer with the needy, etc…

 

[Brendan]

koda:

I don’t advocate that at all, for myself or anyone, that’s why I thing the government should help take care of the needy - precisely because we are supposed to be a Christian country.

Why by the government instead of by Christians? Is it not the responsibilty of the Church and of Churchgoers to personally take care of the poor.

Why delegate it to a secular authority that deals with bodies, not souls.

I do volunteer work at an free, Catholic inner city clinic. A lot of the work the doctors do is cleaning up after the city clinics. The city clinics give prostitutes a shot of antibiotics and a box of condoms. So they ‘help’ the body by killing the soul.

Yea government, NOT

We can’t pick and choose the morality we legislate. No abortion and not gay marriage beacuse they are not Christian - well, neither is letting people starve. Tell me, do you donate to charity, volunteer with the needy, etc…

Right, abortion bans and marriage definitions are civil in scope, so they are the province of the secular government. “Feed my sheep” was a command given to Peter, so it belongs to the Church.

The government programs give people bread alone. What did the Bible say about that.

No Catholic can, in good conscience, think that we can get away with giving out bread without the Bread of Life. The government cannot do that, only the Church can.

Government programs teach the false lesson that people can rely on a temporal body. They cannot. One can only place true faith in God and His Church.

One must trust GOD to provide for one’s needs, and GOD will provide. Not Uncle Sam.

 

[koda]

Brendan:

Why by the government instead of by Christians? Is it not the responsibilty of the Church and of Churchgoers to personally take care of the poor.

Why delegate it to a secular authority that deals with bodies, not souls.

I do volunteer work at an free, Catholic inner city clinic. A lot of the work the doctors do is cleaning up after the city clinics. The city clinics give prostitutes a shot of antibiotics and a box of condoms. So they ‘help’ the body by killing the soul.

Yea government, NOT
Right, abortion bans and marriage definitions are civil in scope, so they are the province of the secular government. “Feed my sheep” was a command given to Peter, so it belongs to the Church The government programs give people bread alone. What did the Bible say about that.

No Catholic can, in good conscience, think that we can get away with giving out bread without the Bread of Life. The government cannot do that, only the Church can.

I’m not saying that the Church shouldn’t help - it should. As for abortion and gay marriage - yes, the laws are civil in scope but are based on Christian ideals (i.e., we get our definition of marriage from the Bible). You shall not kill and you shall not steal are also Biblical. And nowhere am I advocating a bread alone approach. True, man does not live by bread alone - but it sure helps. We need both and both the Church and the government should respond.

.

 

[koda]

cynic:

Bringing religion into the argument, and implying that anyone who isn’t libertarian is a lazy, greedy, enviouse control freak etc just covers up the disntinct lack of answers libertarians have. It makes sense to ensure that every child has access to a minimum level of education, can you think of another way to ensure that? So the parents don’t earn enough, sorry little guys no school for you. Multiply that by millions and you’ve got a social and economic disaster. Like it or not these uneducated fools who drew the short straw for parents aren’t just going to lie down in a corner and conveniently die. And I’d like to meet an employer who prefers his staff to be illiterate.

Is there a country in the world that has ever tried libertarianism?

AMEN!

 

[patshea1128]

koda:

I’m a bit confused by your post. What do you mean by trying to separate my religion from everyday life? I don’t advocate that at all, for myself or anyone, that’s why I thing the government should help take care of the needy - precisely because we are supposed to be a Christian country. We can’t pick and choose the morality we legislate. No abortion and not gay marriage beacuse they are not Christian - well, neither is letting people starve. Tell me, do you donate to charity, volunteer with the needy, etc…

I’m not sure why you are confused. You refer to the government as if it is an autonomous individual with a freewill and soul. It’s not! By advocating taxes, you are usurping the freewill of man. You are controlling that which is not yours to control. The ends never justifies the means. That is Catholicism! Are you a Protestant? I ask that because Prostestantism is based on the doctrine that “the ends does justifies the means”.

 

[koda]

cynic:

Typical libertarian extemism, someone disagrees, so get like that. What do you say to people earning $300 a week about how they educate their children? And elderly people who’ve earnt a similarly low wage their whole lives, no family, and run out of savings? That’s right no answers cause there are none and there was never any interest in providing any. I think your a libertarian first and foremost, this is survival of the fittest. Whats mine is mine so hands off!! We’ve had ‘socialist’ funding for education since the 19th century. If we didn’t we’d have a large number of people illiterate because private education costs a_lot_of_money, great if your a upper middle to high earner. Not possile for the rest of us.

This is exaclty the type of behaviour I was talking about in my original post - there are people who will voluntarily help, but many more who will not. Laws are not created in a vacuum.

 

[patshea1128]

Brendan:

Government programs teach the false lesson that people can rely on a temporal body. They cannot. One can only place true faith in God and His Church.

One must trust GOD to provide for one’s needs, and GOD will provide. Not Uncle Sam.

Me thinks Brendan knows what’s going on!

 

[Ray_Scheel]

patshea1128:

Me thinks Brendan knows what’s going on!

Amen to that. If Katrina and Rita didn’t make that clear, I’m not sure what would. It was the faith community that stepped up and took care of things both times.

 

[lillysan]

patshea1128:

You need to quit worrying about other people’s business and worry about yourself. The national debt is a result of people not willing to accept personal responsibility for themselves and relying on the government (ie. their taxpaying neighbor) for a handout all of the time. New Orleans should have been an eye opener to this country. Not only are tax cuts justified, they are essential to continued progress and welfare of this nation. Have you ever heard of the commandment: Thou shall not steal! Taxes, are nothing more than legalized stealing. Which part of this do you not understand? It is very simple. I owe you nothing. You owe me nothing. If I choose to help you out, that is my choice. For example, since you are on a Catholic Forum, let me give you a Catholic example. The Catholic church has it’s own schools. Catholic parents, that pay property taxes just like the protestant parents, shell out several thousands of dollars a year to send their children to Catholic schools. Why? Because they accept the personal responsibility of raising their own children. On the other hand, there are other denominations that feel it is the obligation of the property owner, or the community to help raise their children. That is complete and total rubbish. Parents raise the child, the village raises the idiot! You figure it out from there.

I totally agree on so many levels
I wish people would take care of their own families and problems, every important movement starts small with the individual!

 

[koda]

lillysan:

every important movement starts small with the individual!

Yes, and ours started with Jesus. Please explain to me how looking out for oursevles complies with the commandment to take care of each other, love our neighbor as ourselves, be kind to those who are cruel to us, and “what you do for the least of mine, you do for me”. How would denying millions of children an education because you’re too cheap to pay taxes set with Christ, do you think? These are innocent children who will suffer (and eventually all of society as most people will be illerate and unable to earn a living). Are you suggesting we roll back the child labor laws so these kids can work to pay for their education?

I am not trying to be a smart *** or attack you in any way - however, I’m truly flabbergasted at your attitude. I just don’t see how "looking out for ourselves) comes even close to Christianity.

 

[cynic]

patshea1128:

Actually, using tax dollars for education was started by the Protestants. The practical issue is to have parents assume personal responsibility for the children they procreate. I have never had a single person invite me into their bedroom to help them procreate, yet every fall, the same people that didn’t invite me into their bedroom, come to my doorstep begging me to raise my property taxes to help educate their children. Parents raise the child, the village raises the idiot! Which do you want your child to be? The fact of the matter is, taxes going to schools has proven statistically over the past 60 years of public education to be disastrous. It is actually, in fact, HIGLY IMPRACTICAL. There you go, I don’t need to provide a biased link.

the link was for you, since that is obviousely where your ideological views are.

You havn’t answered how someone earning $300 a week pays for private education. Aren’t married people required to be open to life during thier marriage? I’s not as though you can just have one, no matter how low the wage is.

Home schooling you say? well I’d like to see how many parents are going to be able to teach their kids calculus, phsyics and chemistry to an acceptable level, so the kids can sit external exams and get high school qualifications. Wow, super mum. If not, then that might just be limiting their opportunities in life, (which apparently, you’d have no problem with)

What statistics are you talking about? Sounds like massive bias to me. Again no specifics, no plan for how the free market is supposed to provide affordable education for low income earners, nothing.

Moral relativism began in the 60’s/ 70’s. Your mixing up issues. deliberately.

 

[Karin]

koda:

. How would denying millions of children an education because you’re too cheap to pay taxes set with Christ, do you think? These are innocent children who will suffer (and eventually all of society as most people will be illerate and unable to earn a living). Are you suggesting we roll back the child labor laws so these kids can work to pay for their education?

The public education system that my tax $$ pays for is a JOKE. I would rather give that portion of my taxes to a Catholic school and have them set up scholarships for kids that could not pay full tuition rate. Heck their is also the HOMESCHOOLING option…that seems to work very well from what i have read.

 

[Karin]

cynic:

You havn’t answered how someone earning $300 a week pays for private education.

There are scholarships available to these children (in some areas) or perhaps one of the better off families in the parish could pay the tuition for a child or children???
I know that in the past I have paid 1/2 a year of tuition for a child because the father lost his job and the mother did not work…the funds where not there to pay for the rest of the school year.

 

[cynic]

Karin:

The public education system that my tax $$ pays for is a JOKE. .

then the government should give vouchers to low income couples to pay for schooling privately.

 

[Karin]

cynic:

then the government should give vouchers to low income couples to pay for schooling privately.

Totally agree but the teachers unions will never let it happen here in NJ…so sad!!!

 

[Convert68]

gksaoh:

The CIA World Factbook says, “Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.”

Since 2000,there has been 76 new billionaires while 5,000,000 people have been added to the poverty count.

Although the U.S. is the world’s richest nation, its infant death rate compares with Malaysia. The nation’s capitol has a higher infant death rate among blacks than Kerela, India. 45,000,000 Americans lack health insurance.

Is this condition moral? Can a society be healthy with such economic extremes? All of us are responsible for the exploding national debt. Are tax cuts morally justified when they serve to concentrate wealth at the top?

I don’t know what the CIA World Factbook is but according to the World Almanac & Book of Facts Malaysia has an infant mortality rate of 18.4 per 1,000 live births, the United States is 6.6.

76 new billionaires where? Also where are the 5,000,000 more people living poverty? Statistics on income and poverty are very misleading. The so-called “poverty line” is a moving scale. If you adjusted today’s “poverty line” for inflation, you would find that a majority of North Americans lived in poverty in 1960. Official stats, however, show only 22% in poverty in 1960 and 12.5% in 2003.

Tax cuts do not necessarily concentrate wealth at the top. They are often designed to cut the poorest off the tax rolls, i.e. so that they pay no tax at all. In Canada, a single person making $12,000 pays $1,000 in federal income tax. Is that fair? Also, massive tax cuts have, as an example, so stimulated the economy of Ireland that that country has for the first time in history become wealthier than Great Britain (per capita GDP for Ireland = 29,800, Britain = 27,700). Remember the potato famine of only 160 years ago?

Things are not always what they seem. Capitalism may appear to be brutal and chaotic but it has produced the greatest prosperity and reduced poverty the most in all of history. Compare Cuba to Puerto Rico; North Korea to South Korea.

The United States is not without its problems. You could go a long way to solve the problem of the uninsured. But don’t look northward for answers. Here in Canada people die on waiting lists for treatment for cancer and heart disease. Someone has to find a way to combine the best of the U.S. market system in healthcare and our system of equal accessability (inaccesability?).

 

[Catilieth]

Socialized medicine does not work to the benefit of patients. I can give you some examples. In the mid 80’s, London, England and Baton Rouge had a doctors’ exchange program, and doctors from London came to Baton Rouge and toured the hospitals and medical facilities and in general, saw how things were done…and visa versa. At that time there were 5 CAT scanners in Baton Rouge, a city at that time of about 350,000. Londond had 1 for several million people. By the time you got your appointment for your CT scan, it was academic.
In Scotland, the veterinary school is in Edinburg(sp?), and the human hospital in Edinburg has Scotland’s only CAT scanner. Because the scanner was only used during the day (socialized medicine has no incentive for 24 hour use), the veterinary school (veterinary medicine is private, not socialized) would use the scanner at night. When the press made the observation that a dog could get a CAT scan within a week, and people had waiting lists months long, instead of having the hospital use the CT scanner 24/7 as is the case in the US, they just said the vet. school could not use it.

And Koda, as to "How would denying millions of children an education because you’re too cheap to pay taxes set with Christ, do you think? " Do you have any idea how many schools the Church has built for the express purpose of educating the children of the poor? Literally thousands and thousands. You don’t see many here in the states because we’ve all grown apathetic…let the government take care of it, not my responsibility. But in the inner cities they still exist, and are wildly successful in educating and changing completely the lives of children otherwise destined for the vicious cycle of welfare/poverty/drugs that is the lot of the majority of their peers in the public school system.

 

[cynic]

Catilieth:

. But in the inner cities they still exist, and are wildly successful in educating and changing completely the lives of children otherwise destined for the vicious cycle of welfare/poverty/drugs that is the lot of the majority of their peers in the public school system.

that’s a ridiculousely hyberbolic statement. Are you suggesting the majority of students attending public schools anywhere are "destined for the vicious cycle of welfare/poverty/drugs that is the lot " or just the ones in the inner city? If it’s the former then that discredits anything you have to say. Exaggerated, and mostly untrue, examples are the halmark of people on the extremes.

Basically libertarians will say anything to make their point.