P
PiousTemplar
Guest
If Catholics have to disregard their religion in a secular government, especially when making decisions, how do they remain faithful Catholics?
- Status
F
FightingFat
Guest
Do they ‘have to’?
P
PiousTemplar
Guest
Yes, you can’t make decisions from your religious perspective in a secular government, from what I know
C
ChadS
Guest
I don’t think you have to ignore your Catholic faith or push it aside to be a good member of any political body. Politicians have all sorts of political, moral or ethical codes that they operate by – some will vote what’s best for their party and at other times they’ll vote what’s best for their district other times they’ll vote their conscience even if it upsets their district.
Obviously all votes cast in Parliament are not the same. Some are more important than others and others have farther-reaching effects. If you follow your Catholic faith in voting you may be doing the moral thing, but you won’t be popular with all people at all times – but, that’s true of any politician though, so that wouldn’t be a surprise.
The only way I could see your faith interfering in a role as a politician is if you started to support legislation that would take away or limit others rights. For example supporting legislation that said only Catholics could vote or otherwise discriminated against others for a religious reason. But, then if that’s how you express your faith perhaps there are other issues to be worked out.
ChadS
S
seagal
Guest
If atheists can make decisions based on their (godless) perspective, why can’t Christians?
B
Bohm_Bawerk
Guest
I’m aiming to be someone who holds power in the future. For personal reasons and experiences, I think that there is a strong probability that it is my destiny.
Personally, I would not reject my own Catholic beliefs, since I also consider many of them to be logical. A Catholic individual does not have to reject his/her beliefs when in a position of power, just so long as he or she considers it from a logical angle than a religious one. For example, I sometimes mention that if I had the power, I’d slap a huge tax on cigarettes (despite the fact that I believe in Classical Liberalism, which advocates small government). Cigarettes contribute **nothing ** to society, in any way, shape or form. I’m not really convinced by the free-marketeer’s arguments against negative externalities with regards to cigarettes. Taxing cigarettes, which ultimately leads to a decrease in it’s consumption, has a biblical foundation:
“Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?” (1 Corinthians 6:19)
Smoking is morally egregious on the grounds that it is pretty much self-destruction. Nothing good results from the practice; on the contrary, what one gets it from it are a multitude of cancers. It’s also particularly egregious because it drags non-smokers down with them.
I’d also introduce a small tax on junk food, but at the same time, abolish the subsidization of the domestic agricultural industry. Result? A healthier population; a decrease in the price level of foods because of cheaper food from elsewhere in the world; an increase in the incomes of poor farmers across the globe (I once read that the US’ agricultural subsidies puts about 380 million people in the developing world below the poverty line).
Ultimately, I’d introduce what I personally call a “sin tax”, taxing cigarettes, profits of oil firms, junk food, alcohol, maintaining the Congestion Charge, an enormous tax on arms deals/purchases, and a few other things that are pretty much “useless” and cost more to society than the benefits. I wouldn’t abolish abortion, but I would halt all government spending that directly and indirectly supports abortion centres. I’d drastically limit government spending, perhaps only to national defence and a strong police force, in turn abiding by Catholicism’s notion of “subsidiarity”. Corporation tax (except in the aforementioned cases), income tax, etc, I would put to 0%, as Classical Liberalism sees it as theft.
So that’s just quick overview of the things I would do.
Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
J
JRKH
Guest
J
JRKH
Guest
No person must disregard their own personal views in order to serve in governments I’m familiar with. The fact that so many do, in order to get elected and re-elected, is another matter.
If a person runs for office and is honest and open about their beliefs, then the electorate can make an informed decision. In the case of electing a person they know to be Catholic and who has campaigned in truth about their convictions (based in part on their faith) then there is no problem. The electorate has, by their votes, agreed to those “catholic” ideas that effect public policy.
Of course, there really aren’t that many things touching on public policy that are peculiarly “Catholic”. The vast majority of Western Countries have legal systems built upon a Christian foundation so where “religion” meets “secularism” in the public arena, Catholicism is not really any different from most other Christian faiths…
Peace
James
V
vsedriver
Guest
first you’d create a huge bureaucracy just to define what is junk food. I’m against taxing any kind of food, clothing, or shelter. Those are necessities and should never be taxed. It’s not the government’s job to watch what I eat or how much I exercise. That is intrusive and evidence of a nanny state.
US farmers keep the 3rd world in poverty? I don’t think so. It’s more likely their own government’s greed that keeps them in poverty.
Do you know any farmers? I know many dairy farmers who would dump milk down the drain without government subsidies. Milk is worthless to them. They make their money from the milk fat that produces butter and cheese. Milk costs to store, process, and then transport.
Most of the produce in our local stores is imported, so somebody overseas is making money selling food in the USA. The cost to farm continues to rise but prices aren’t going up as high as the cost. Especially when you consider that the farmer is investing in the future and is still dependent on weather and nature for a successful season. A jump in fuel prices can wipe out any profit a farmer is counting on.
Why do you consider oil profits part of a ‘sin tax’? Aren’t oil companies allowed to make a profit? Maybe it would be better to tax the stock markets because it is the stock market that sets the price of oil not the oil companies. Oh and OPEC sets the barrel head price based on the stock market. But you can’t tax a foreign consortium. It is interesting that when oil prices dropped dramatically in the 80s no one thought that the oil companies should have been helped out. Many went bankrupt and closed, others consolidated. But once they begin being profitable again somehow they are now evil.
I should also think that if you are in favor of sin taxes what greater sin could be taxed than abortion? And if you plan to tax arms manufacturers you will be costing your government a lot. Who do you think buys those arms to use in defense of your country?
But I do agree there should be 0 Corporate tax but only for those companies headquartered in the taxing country and who employ 90% of their people as citizens in that country. Companies who import manufactured goods should have a corporate tax since they don’t end up paying taxes via employees. Afterall Corporations don’t really pay taxes. They just add the tax into the cost of the product and pass that on to the consumer.
1
1ke
Guest
Your premise is flawed.
Catholics should not “disregard” their religion in decision making.
1
1ke
Guest
Preposterous.
B
Bohm_Bawerk
Guest
In response to vsedriver,
I take it you’re a Libertarian? I’m a Classical Liberal, so we share the same beliefs. The only problem I have with Libertarianism is that it really is unpractical in the real world; even it’s central tenet admits this when it refers to the State as a “necessary evil”.
As a Classical Liberal, in theory, we should believe in 0% taxes…for everything. But again, I see this as unpractical, and so my own personal policy would be to adopt incredibly low taxes (political parties in the West define “low taxes” as 30%-40%…I see it as radically lower). I’m not convinced by the Austrian School’s arguments against negative externalities. I experience this everyday when the neighbour below me decides to light her cigarette whilst my window is open.
In regards to junk food, we wouldn’t need to create a huge bureaucracy. We aren’t going to dwell on defining junk food
. But we would tax the blatantly obvious (McDonalds, KFC, etc), which are orientated around the selling of junk food.
US and Western Farmers **do ** keep the developing world in poverty. This is because those in the developing world (who are often farmers) are unable to export their naturally cheaper crops to the Western world. Western governments subsidize their agricultural industries to the hilt, ensuring that Western farmers cover the costs of production. I’m not so sure about the US, but the EU actually pays it’s farmers not to overproduce agricultural products, so as to keep the prices over-inflated. Not to mention the tariffs that go on the developing world’s exports. The West also keeps the developing world in poverty by funding their corrupt governments who pocket the cash. Economists William Easterly and Dambisa Moyo go into this in detail.
I consider the profits of oil firms as worthy of a “sin tax” because of the detrimental effect that oil firms have on the environment. In addition, there is much talk about reducing foreign dependence on oil from the Middle East (given with their instability), so that would make the “sin tax” all the more worthwhile.
Overall, however, I would pretty much abolish corporation tax, income tax, eliminate the need for our central bank’s monetary policy, remove legal tender laws, and other policies in line with Classical Liberalism. The above that I highlighted are merely “exceptions to the rule”.
Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
I take it you’re a Libertarian? I’m a Classical Liberal, so we share the same beliefs. The only problem I have with Libertarianism is that it really is unpractical in the real world; even it’s central tenet admits this when it refers to the State as a “necessary evil”.
As a Classical Liberal, in theory, we should believe in 0% taxes…for everything. But again, I see this as unpractical, and so my own personal policy would be to adopt incredibly low taxes (political parties in the West define “low taxes” as 30%-40%…I see it as radically lower). I’m not convinced by the Austrian School’s arguments against negative externalities. I experience this everyday when the neighbour below me decides to light her cigarette whilst my window is open.
In regards to junk food, we wouldn’t need to create a huge bureaucracy. We aren’t going to dwell on defining junk food
. But we would tax the blatantly obvious (McDonalds, KFC, etc), which are orientated around the selling of junk food.US and Western Farmers **do ** keep the developing world in poverty. This is because those in the developing world (who are often farmers) are unable to export their naturally cheaper crops to the Western world. Western governments subsidize their agricultural industries to the hilt, ensuring that Western farmers cover the costs of production. I’m not so sure about the US, but the EU actually pays it’s farmers not to overproduce agricultural products, so as to keep the prices over-inflated. Not to mention the tariffs that go on the developing world’s exports. The West also keeps the developing world in poverty by funding their corrupt governments who pocket the cash. Economists William Easterly and Dambisa Moyo go into this in detail.
I consider the profits of oil firms as worthy of a “sin tax” because of the detrimental effect that oil firms have on the environment. In addition, there is much talk about reducing foreign dependence on oil from the Middle East (given with their instability), so that would make the “sin tax” all the more worthwhile.
Overall, however, I would pretty much abolish corporation tax, income tax, eliminate the need for our central bank’s monetary policy, remove legal tender laws, and other policies in line with Classical Liberalism. The above that I highlighted are merely “exceptions to the rule”.
Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
J
JRKH
Guest
Here’s the thing…
If a represntative were to say, “I voted against the abortion bill becuse the Pope says…”, there would be all sorts of wailing and gnashing of teeth about “religious interferance”.
However if that same person says, "I voted agains the abortion bill because I believe that life begins at conception etc…In other words expressing their belief based on the reasoning behind the church’s teaching… What could anyone say?
If the opposition wishes to accuse someone of believing that way because they are catholic, the response is simply - I’m catholic because I believe this way…
Do you see what I mean??
A person of faith need not go against their faith in a secular government. In fact to do so would be to betray both themselves and the very freedom that their government upholds.
Peace
James
V
vsedriver
Guest
C
ChadS
Guest
I’m sure people would love to have Big Brother telling them what to eat and that what they like to eat is going to cost more. If KFC is junk food then does that make Tyson’s junk food also? I’m not sure how this is at all “obvious.” Would certain foods at the blatantly obvious not be taxed if they met certain requirements? Nothing that is blatantly obvious will remain so once bureaucrats get ahold of it.In regards to junk food, we wouldn’t need to create a huge bureaucracy. We aren’t going to dwell on defining junk food
ChadS
B
Bohm_Bawerk
Guest
What I find slightly funny is how the term “Big Brother” is thrown about so flippantly. So, a 0% corporation tax, income tax and some other perks, with the only exceptions being to that of junk food, cigarettes, alcohol, international arms deals, and a few other things, would constitute “Big Brother”? I don’t think so. Which is the problem I have with Libertarianism…it just isn’t going to work. It’s essentially anarchy. Not only is it anarchy, but it’s taking what a group of economists/philosophers/politicians wrote and turning it into some kind of religion such that they are “infallible”. No one is infallible apart from God; yes, even the Popes make errors. And it’s for that reason that I’m not a Libertarian or follow any political philosophy quite similar to it.
Classical Liberals do not believe in big government. They believe in **limited **government. But we don’t believe in no government either, since we see the State as a “necessary evil”. Libertarians are basically a caricature of Classical Liberals, which is why there has never been a society which followed Libertarian principles (on the contrary, Hong Kong is sometimes seen as a good example of a Classical Liberal society, as argued by economist Milton Freidman, with only a few improvements to make). The problem of our day is how the government believes that the incomes people make legitimately are somehow it’s property, which Classical Liberalism sees as theft. Not to mention how inflation is seen as part of the natural economy (one economist measured that a mere 2% year-on-year inflation rate would wipe out consumers’ purchasing power within a generation).
That said, I personally believe in the purpose of a “sin tax”, and so did economist Adam Smith in his book the “Wealth of Nations”. He argued that in his day, there were some liquors that were worthy of a tax, to maintain the health and morality of the British population. In the same way, I do believe in taxing cigarettes. Cigarettes are what we call “price inelastic”, so they’re a great way to increase government revenue. Radical free-marketeers have not and probably can not convince me that negative externalities do not exist with cigarette smoke…the only way to combat negative externalities associated with cigarette smoke would be to “privatize the air”. I don’t see that happening. Come to think of it, from this discussion, I’d probably rethink about my stance on the profits of oil firms, but I would still make some attempt at looking alternative energy sources, for the mere fact that God gave us this planet to look after (I’m not a part of the Green Movement by the way, because I’m a little bit worried about their hatred towards Capitalism). I would maintain my stance on taxing junk food, just as how Adam Smith maintained his position on taxing the liquors of his day. Like I said above, we aren’t going to “dwell” on junk food
. I’m reminded by Albert Einstein’s quote: “Keep all things simple, but not any simpler”. The revenues are needed for defence and a strong police force and a few other activities such as building infrastructure (e.g. roads). Again, radical free-markeeters have not convinced me that a free-market can genuinely build roads without resorting to the problem of duplication.I’m not American so I don’t know what a “Tyson’s store” is
.The crisis I see with Libertarianism is that it will be a political philosophy that will never be taken seriously in the real world. Most academics would laugh at the stances of libertarians…that isn’t to say that the academics (most being Keynesians) aren’t at fault. When I read the stance of Ron Paul on the situation in Libya, that is when I made my mind up that he has no real grasp of foreign policy. And if he hasn’t got any real grasp of foreign policy, I can only imagine some economic blunders he would commit as a President. I personally liked him up until then, but he sees Libertarianism or whatever philosophy he follows as a kind of religion, which I personally find disturbing.
That said, this isn’t meant to be an exhaustive things that I believed should implemented/withdrawn. I’m nowhere near the halls of power yet
Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
- Status