Is there a difference between being a humanitarian versus a religious 'liberal?'

[Robert_Sock]

In need of suicide prevention?

I bought them five egg-laying chickens, not guns or rope!!!

 

[St_Francis]

So, does Fr James Schall, S.J., represent the official Church teaching on the matter. Yes or no!

What part of what Fr Scall wrote do you have a problem with?

 

[Robert_Sock]

What part of what Fr Scall wrote do you have a problem with?

Never read him. Abu references him like he represented the official Church teaching. All I’m doing is to place him in proper perspective.

 

[Elizabeth502]

So, does Fr James Schall, S.J., represent the official Church teaching on the matter. Yes or no!

Referring back to post 75 (I haven’t read more than that, of this priest), what he enumerates is actually implied by Catholic Social Teaching, in this regard:

Social Justice

1. Economic decisions and institutions should be assessed according to whether they protect or undermine the dignity of the human person. Social and economic policies should foster the creation of jobs for all who can work with decent working conditions and just wages. Barriers to equal pay and employment for women and those facing unjust discrimination must be overcome. Catholic social teaching supports the right of workers to choose whether to organize, join a union, and bargain collectively, and to exercise these rights without reprisal. It also affirms economic freedom, initiative, and the right to private property. Workers, owners, employers, and unions should work together to create decent jobs, build a more just economy, and advance the common good.
2. Welfare policy should reduce poverty and dependency, strengthen family life, and help families leave poverty through work, training, and assistance with child care, health care, housing, and transportation. It should also provide a safety net for those who cannot work. Improving the Earned Income Tax Credit and child tax credits, available as refunds to families in greatest need, will help lift low-income families out of poverty.
3. Faith-based groups deserve recognition and support, not as a substitute for government, but as responsive, effective partners, especially in the poorest communities and countries. The USCCB actively supports conscience clauses, opposes any effort to undermine the ability of faith-based groups to preserve their identity and integrity as partners with government, and is committed to protecting long-standing civil rights and other protections for both religious groups and the people they serve. Government bodies should not require Catholic institutions to compromise their moral convictions to participate in government health or human service programs.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-two.cfm

 

[Abu]

Robert Sock persists in trying to misrepresent the Church’s teaching which none other than the acknowledged St John Paul II has taught in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
CA 42. ‘Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?
‘The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.
‘CA 43. The Church has no models to present;’

For those unfamiliar with the esteemed Fr James V Schall, S.J., the following provides some insight into his achievements:
**From The Catholic Thing
Two on Father James V. Schall, SJ
By Hadley Arkes and Michael P. Jackson
Tuesday, 18 December 2012 **
thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/two-on-father-james-v-schall-sj.html

Georgetown bids adieu to the venerable Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
Posted by: Caitriona Pagni in News, Vox Populi,
blog.georgetownvoice.com/2012/12/11/georgetown-bids-adieu-to-the-venerable-fr-james-v-schall-s-j/

Insights of the giant that is Fr Schall at:
morec.com/schall/

 

[St_Francis]

Never read him. Abu references him like he represented the official Church teaching. All I’m doing is to place him in proper perspective.

What I mean is, what is it about the quote of him that you think does *not * represent Church teaching?

 

[Robert_Sock]

What I mean is, what is it about the quote of him that you think does *not * represent Church teaching?

Nothing in particular. Just a question to Abu.

 

[Robert_Sock]

What I mean is, what is it about the quote of him that you think does *not * represent Church teaching?

‘A relatively independent economy,’ to the degree he is talking about an unrestricted. free economy.

 

[St_Francis]

‘A relatively independent economy,’ to the degree he is talking about an unrestricted. free economy.

Do you think there is no difference between “a relatively independent economy” and “an unrestricted, free economy”?

 

[Stephen168]

I bought them five egg-laying chickens, not guns or rope!!!

They have a greater need for suicide prevention but you gave them chickens, which has nothing to do with preventing suicide. If you have your way, you would have the government take my money from me and buy egg laying chickens when that isn’t even the solution to Pakistan’s greatest problem. And after three years, the hens will stop laying and they will be hungry and still killing themselves in greater numbers. Make Robert Sock happy, not fix the problem, yes that is liberal (government) humanitarian aid.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Do you think there is no difference between “a relatively independent economy” and “an unrestricted, free economy”?

I’m not sure if that’s what he is talking about or not. He seems vague here.

 

[Robert_Sock]

They have a greater need for suicide prevention but you gave them chickens, which has nothing to do with preventing suicide. If you have your way, you would have the government take my money from me and buy egg laying chickens when that isn’t even the solution to Pakistan’s greatest problem. And after three years, the hens will stop laying and they will be hungry and still killing themselves in greater numbers. Make Robert Sock happy, not fix the problem, yes that is liberal (government) humanitarian aid.

Are you inferring that my good deed was all for naught? How presumptuous!!!

Who’s talking about the government buying them chickens!?! My philosophy is to have mandatory HS education for all children, and then provide them with decent paying jobs, which would boost the economy worldwide (and reduce their suicide rate).

 

[J_Peterson]

They have a greater need for suicide prevention but you gave them chickens, which has nothing to do with preventing suicide. If you have your way, you would have the government take my money from me and buy egg laying chickens when that isn’t even the solution to Pakistan’s greatest problem. And after three years, the hens will stop laying and they will be hungry and still killing themselves in greater numbers. Make Robert Sock happy, not fix the problem, yes that is liberal (government) humanitarian aid.

This is a strange post. Chickens lay eggs which make more chickens. They are good for poor families as they provide food and possibly even money if they breed them. What Robert did was to give a family a chance to be more independent. Are you saying he shouldn’t have done that because many people kill themselves in Pakistan? Could the high suicide rate have something to do with poverty?

I can only assume that Robert is only doing what he is called to do. Just because you are called to something different doesn’t make everything else wrong.

 

[St_Francis]

They have a greater need for suicide prevention but you gave them chickens, which has nothing to do with preventing suicide. If you have your way, you would have the government take my money from me and buy egg laying chickens when that isn’t even the solution to Pakistan’s greatest problem. And after three years, the hens will stop laying and they will be hungry and still killing themselves in greater numbers. Make Robert Sock happy, not fix the problem, yes that is liberal (government) humanitarian aid.

This is crazy! *Some *families need food; *others *need suicide prevention! Robert did a great thing–a famy in need of food gets high-quality protein, which is necessary to stave off starvation from a low-protein diet; and animals, which are nice for the children. The hens will lay for longer than three years, just not as much, or can be used themselves. One or two roosters would be sufficient to keep the whole village in chicks.

The government would do as it has before: send eggs for a couple of years and put any egg producers in the area out of business, then stop sending eggs, leaving the area worse off than before.

 

[Stephen168]

Are you inferring that my good deed was all for naught? How presumptuous!!!

I am not inferring that your good deed was all for naught. You started this thread assuming that liberals are humanitarians and conservatives are not. I disagree. You want government to solve your defined problem with your defined solution and if we disagree with you, we are not humanitarians. The problem with government is they have the power to take my money and spend it on their ‘problem’ using their ‘solution.’
The point I was trying to make but clearly failed was that if the government took my money and did want you did in Pakistan because that is what the politically active people wanted, they would not have been addressing Pakistan’s biggest killer, and would have been giving a short term solution which would not have solved their problem.

Chickens lay eggs which make more chickens.

Not without a rooster

The government would do as it has before: send eggs for a couple of years and put any egg producers in the area out of business, then stop sending eggs, leaving the area worse off than before.

Or the government would have just sent hens with the same result. After three years, I feed five hens for ten days to get four eggs. At that point I’m not sure if the poor should eat the grain or give it to a chicken.

Who’s talking about the government buying them chickens!?! My philosophy is to have mandatory HS education for all children, and then provide them with decent paying jobs, which would boost the economy worldwide (and reduce their suicide rate).

You still present a problem that you want the government to solve with your solution and other people’s money. Conservative humanitarians let individuals keep their money so they can solve problems with their own solutions. The great thing about that is if an individual’s problem and/or solution turns out to be wrong they can quickly adjust, the government will not.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I am not inferring that your good deed was all for naught. You started this thread assuming that liberals are humanitarians and conservatives are not. I disagree. You want government to solve your defined problem with your defined solution and if we disagree with you, we are not humanitarians. The problem with government is they have the power to take my money and spend it on their ‘problem’ using their ‘solution.’
The point I was trying to make but clearly failed was that if the government took my money and did want you did in Pakistan because that is what the politically active people wanted, they would not have been addressing Pakistan’s biggest killer, and would have been giving a short term solution which would not have solved their problem.

I’m in no way suggesting that conservatives cannot be humanitarians! I clearly said that in another post.

You still present a problem that you want the government to solve with your solution and other people’s money. Conservative humanitarians let individuals keep their money so they can solve problems with their own solutions. The great thing about that is if an individual’s problem and/or solution turns out to be wrong they can quickly adjust, the government will not.

The government and/or large corporations would need to invest in those people living in extreme poverty through mandatory HS education of all children (college classes would also need to be made available, but most of this could be implemented through the Internet). Once these children began to graduate, their skills could be put to use in meaningful, decent-paying jobs. The initial investment would then pay big dividends once these corporations create new jobs; the standard of living would then increase worldwide, with big advances in technology, increased mass production and other scientific endeavors. (Right now there are 2.4 billion people earning less than $2.00 USD per day)

This is humanitarian, not liberalism.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The government and/or large corporations would need to invest in those people living in extreme poverty through mandatory HS education of all children (college classes would also need to be made available, but most of this could be implemented through the Internet). Right now there are 2.4 billion people earning less than $2.00 USD per day)
Robert Sock;11195003:

This is humanitarian, not liberalism.

It’s neither. It’s fantasy.

Robert, whether gov’t or large corporations did what you suggest, in both cases that would require money. Gov’ts are not about to do it for free. Corporations are not going to engage in that wholesale a charity project either. More importantly, the 2.4B people you mention are largely illiterate to semi-literate. They are not in a position to use the internet to take HS courses, let alone college-level. They need a supervisory style of education (which costs $$), a style which is very labor-intensive. That has been proven in our own country in the rural south (in the very late 20th century).

 

[St_Francis]

Robert,
According to your scheme, we would “only” have to educate 1billion–altho I think that’s a very low number, I’ll go with it now–each $1000 we spend per student adds up to $1Trillion. If we educated 1B people through high school, how much would that cost per student? In the US, the average spent per student each year is around $10,000. Even if we were somehow able to educate the 1B at the low cost of $1000/year, and get them theough high school in 10 years, that would be $10 Trillion.

And frankly, there are way more than 1B children in the world, more like 2B illion children. So right off the bat, you are suggesting that we commit to spending more than the national debt over the next 10 years… and the reality is that we would really need to spend a couple of trillion/year educating older people so there would be people *ready *to take those jobs which you are planning to have appear.

From a practical standpoint, you plan cannot work because it does not address the *root *of the problem, merely the definition of the problem. From a political standpoint, in some places it won’t owrk because people like the dictator of N Korea wouldn’t let us do it, and in other places, they wouldn’t want a US-style education.

And from a financial standpoint, there just isn’t enough money to pay for this to happen all at once the way you seem to want it to happen, because when you get right down to it, there aren’t enough teachers and there’s no way the cost can be kept low enough for it to only cost a few trillion a year.

So this is why it is not happening. *This is simply not something which can be done through the government. *

 

[Stephen168]

The government and/or large corporations would need to invest in those people living in extreme poverty through mandatory HS education of all children…

Which government? Why aren’t corporations doing this now?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Robert,
According to your scheme, we would “only” have to educate 1billion–altho I think that’s a very low number, I’ll go with it now–each $1000 we spend per student adds up to $1Trillion. If we educated 1B people through high school, how much would that cost per student? In the US, the average spent per student each year is around $10,000. Even if we were somehow able to educate the 1B at the low cost of $1000/year, and get them theough high school in 10 years, that would be $10 Trillion.

And frankly, there are way more than 1B children in the world, more like 2B illion children. So right off the bat, you are suggesting that we commit to spending more than the national debt over the next 10 years… and the reality is that we would really need to spend a couple of trillion/year educating older people so there would be people *ready *to take those jobs which you are planning to have appear.

From a practical standpoint, you plan cannot work because it does not address the *root *of the problem, merely the definition of the problem. From a political standpoint, in some places it won’t owrk because people like the dictator of N Korea wouldn’t let us do it, and in other places, they wouldn’t want a US-style education.

And from a financial standpoint, there just isn’t enough money to pay for this to happen all at once the way you seem to want it to happen, because when you get right down to it, there aren’t enough teachers and there’s no way the cost can be kept low enough for it to only cost a few trillion a year.

So this is why it is not happening. *This is simply not something which can be done through the government. *

It can be done in stages, and to begin with, age 5 only. Countries with evil dictators can wait. Do you agree that it all begins with education?

The World Bank now has a plan in place to cut extreme poverty in half by 2030, but I’m unsure what the specifics are! It can be done!