Liberal vs conservative

[LatinCat]

goofyjim:

Actually the pharmaceuticals were more willing to give out free medicine before the big medicare takeover. Yet even there they only did it while there was a patent on their medicine. Once generics were available they stopped the support.

The churches would also be overburdened providing housing, clothing, medicine and evrything else to the poor. We can be conservative but let’s not throw compassion out the window.:banghead:

Let’s not throw justice out the window.

 

[goofyjim]

Goodbye, I don’t seem to be welcome here.

Even though I am conservative.

 

[goofyjim]

bear06:

The Church managed before but like eveyone else, we’ve all come to rely on the government. There was a time when people actually tithed to Catholic charitable organizations. Now we are forced to “tithe” to the government. They have effectively taken away our will to help our fellow man.

My spiritual director told me the Church has never actually required titihing. He would actually rather see that his parisihioners are self-sufficient first before having to give ten percent to the Chruch then turn around and have to ask for assistance. I believe the correct wording is that the precepts of the Church do not require tithing only supporting your Churhc to the best of your abilities. Besides, if we eliminated taxes, how many would actually give enough to the Church to make up for what some of these programs do.

 

[mikew262]

LatinCat:

Give me a break. The Catholic Church teaches that a Catholic must be against abortion. To be pro-choice is contrary to the teachings of the Church. It is heresy. It is also a position that suggests that one in is in a schismatic state because to be pro-choice is to refuse to submitt to the Roman Pontiff in this matter. Pope Pius XII wrote the encyclical “Mystici Corporis Christi” which states that to be in heresy or schism is to be severed from the Church. Thus a person who is pro-choice is no Catholic at all. This has nothing to do with flaming. This is not an emotional matter. It is a rational conclusion.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, AS IS everybody else on this forum. Again, you are not the judge on who is a Catholic/Christian and who is not; that is reserved for somebody else.

BTW, we are off topic here, but I can’t sit by and let people make judgements on whether somebody is “Catholic enough” or not. Agree or disagree on an issue, but leave it at that.

 

[goofyjim]

LatinCat:

Give me a break. The Catholic Church teaches that a Catholic must be against abortion. To be pro-choice is contrary to the teachings of the Church. It is heresy. It is also a position that suggests that one in is in a schismatic state because to be pro-choice is to refuse to submitt to the Roman Pontiff in this matter. Pope Pius XII wrote the encyclical “Mystici Corporis Christi” which states that to be in heresy or schism is to be severed from the Church. Thus a person who is pro-choice is no Catholic at all. This has nothing to do with flaming. This is not an emotional matter. It is a rational conclusion.

I agree with you wholeheartedly here. But I disagree on the role the government can play in helping the disabled. I don’t think the Churhc has made a definitive statement on that one.

 

[goofyjim]

LatinCat:

Let’s not throw justice out the window.

How am I throwing justice out the window by providing some government programs for the disabled?

 

[bear06]

goofyjim:

My spiritual director told me the Church has never actually required titihing. He would actually rather see that his parisihioners are self-sufficient first before having to give ten percent to the Chruch then turn around and have to ask for assistance. I believe the correct wording is that the precepts of the Church do not require tithing only supporting your Churhc to the best of your abilities. Besides, if we eliminated taxes, how many would actually give enough to the Church to make up for what some of these programs do.

Your pastor is correct. That said, we took care of people before the government became enablers. I imagine that it would be hard, not impossible, for America to go back to not relying on the government for charity. I think it would also depend on our pastors. My pastor can raise funds like nobody I know. I think if we eliminated taxes we’d have a lot less frivalous spending and we’d probably come out ahead if not better. We certainly wouldn’t have to fund all of the horrible and immoral things we are funding now.

 

[goofyjim]

bear06:

Your pastor is correct. That said, we took care of people before the government became enablers. I imagine that it would be hard, not impossible, for America to go back to not relying on the government for charity. I think it would also depend on our pastors. My pastor can raise funds like nobody I know. I think if we eliminated taxes we’d have a lot less frivalous spending and we’d probably come out ahead if not better. We certainly wouldn’t have to fund all of the horrible and immoral things we are funding now.

And I agree that we should not have government funding for immoral activities but medicaid also provides assistance for me, a faithful devout Catholic who abides by the Curhc’s teachings. I can’t possibly afford my doctor’s bills and medication bills on my own because I am unable to work full time. I just don’t see it as a “liberal” view to rely on medicaid.

 

[goofyjim]

bear06:

Your pastor is correct. That said, we took care of people before the government became enablers. I imagine that it would be hard, not impossible, for America to go back to not relying on the government for charity. I think it would also depend on our pastors. My pastor can raise funds like nobody I know. I think if we eliminated taxes we’d have a lot less frivalous spending and we’d probably come out ahead if not better. We certainly wouldn’t have to fund all of the horrible and immoral things we are funding now.

BTW, my mathematics tells me that if we elimimated taxes we would have no spending from the government and there would be no defense, no roads, etc., etc. etc.

 

[bear06]

goofyjim:

And I agree that we should not have government funding for immoral activities but medicaid also provides assistance for me, a faithful devout Catholic who abides by the Curhc’s teachings. I can’t possibly afford my doctor’s bills and medication bills on my own because I am unable to work full time. I just don’t see it as a “liberal” view to rely on medicaid.

Medicaid is a short term bandaid for a huge problem. I’m not saying that you are not devout for using Medicaid nor am I saying that people are not devout if they use welfare. Charity shouldn’t be a government mandate. Charity should be me as a Christian helping out my fellow man. We are paying for immoral and pork with our taxes that could go to helping the needy. In fact, I don’t think people realize how much money actually goes to funding these ridiculous programs. If we eliminated this ridiculous spending, we’d probably have more than enough to help people who truly needed it. The government has enabled us and even caused us to turn a blind eye to the needy in our country while increasing ludicrousy and immorality. God might actually bless our country if we’d get it together!

 

[bear06]

goofyjim:

BTW, my mathematics tells me that if we elimimated taxes we would have no spending from the government and there would be no defense, no roads, etc., etc. etc.

Hmmm…how did we ever survive before income tax? I think a quick google will show you how it can be done.

 

[goofyjim]

bear06:

Medicaid is a short term bandaid for a huge problem. I’m not saying that you are not devout for using Medicaid nor am I saying that people are not devout if they use welfare. Charity shouldn’t be a government mandate. Charity should be me as a Christian helping out my fellow man. We are paying for immoral and pork with our taxes that could go to helping the needy. In fact, I don’t think people realize how much money actually goes to funding these ridiculous programs. If we eliminated this ridiculous spending, we’d probably have more than enough to help people who truly needed it. The government has enabled us and even caused us to turn a blind eye to the needy in our country while increasing ludicrousy and immorality. God might actually bless our country if we’d get it together!

Maybe if we ran a more Christian country the direction of the spending could be done properly. We are not in disagreement here. But I can’t see the Church administering all sorts of social programs for the needy either because that is not its mission. Its mission is to spread the gospel and have its members influence worldly institutions with that in mind. Therefore it still seems reasonable to have some level of taxation and some level of government spending for the truly needy.

You have no idea how much I have defended both the Reagan tax cuts in the eighties and the Bush tax cuts currently. I am a staunch supporter of supply side economics even though I was educated in the ways of Keynes. Yet I have had to balance my political philosophies with a disability and compassion.

 

[goofyjim]

bear06:

Hmmm…how did we ever survive before income tax? I think a quick google will show you how it can be done.

Now you’re talking of income tax. We survived before that but have we ever existed with absolutely no taxes. Since my source of wealth is income I’m all for getting rid of income tax. I don’t own property so I won’t pay taxes there or shouldn’t because of low income. any tax can be considered unfair.

 

[bear06]

Maybe if we ran a more Christian country the direction of the spending could be done properly. We are not in disagreement here. But I can’t see the Church administering all sorts of social programs for the needy either because that is not its mission. Its mission is to spread the gospel and have its members influence worldly institutions with that in mind. Therefore it still seems reasonable to have some level of taxation and some level of government spending for the truly needy.

Once again, how did we survive a 150ish years before income tax? Also, I think Mother Teresa might disagree with you beliefes that the Church can’t administer social programs and spread the Gospel. In fact, wouldn’t that very well be a way to do it. Besides, the Church ran quite a bit of social programs before the government made it just about impossible to do so. Now our Catholic hospitals are or are on the brink of being forced to provide birth control and abortions to its patients and employees. Yikes!

You have no idea how much I have defended both the Reagan tax cuts in the eighties and the Bush tax cuts currently. I am a staunch supporter of supply side economics even though I was educated in the ways of Keynes. Yet I have had to balance my political philosophies with a disability and compassion.

I’m at a loss to think why you think a loss of the income tax must hurt people with disabilities or destroy compassion. The government seems to have convinced a good portion of us that this will happen. I suspect that just the opposite would happen. My parents receive money for medicine from the government. Guess what? I still have to pay for some of their expenses because they run out. I’d be able to pay for a lot more of them if I didn’t have the thousands of dollars going to income tax every year.

 

[bear06]

goofyjim:

Now you’re talking of income tax. We survived before that but have we ever existed with absolutely no taxes. Since my source of wealth is income I’m all for getting rid of income tax. I don’t own property so I won’t pay taxes there or shouldn’t because of low income. any tax can be considered unfair.

That’s correct, again. I never meant that we should have no taxes. That said, the taxes before income tax didn’t go to creating a welfare state.

 

[goofyjim]

bear06:

Once again, how did we survive a 150ish years before income tax? Also, I think Mother Teresa might disagree with you beliefes that the Church can’t administer social programs and spread the Gospel. In fact, wouldn’t that very well be a way to do it. Besides, the Church ran quite a bit of social programs before the government made it just about impossible to do so. Now our Catholic hospitals are or are on the brink of being forced to provide birth control and abortions to its patients and employees. Yikes!

I’m at a loss to think why you think a loss of the income tax must hurt people with disabilities or destroy compassion. The government seems to have convinced a good portion of us that this will happen. I suspect that just the opposite would happen. My parents receive money for medicine from the government. Guess what? I still have to pay for some of their expenses because they run out. I’d be able to pay for a lot more of them if I didn’t have the thousands of dollars going to income tax every year.

They’re going to have to go somewhere. If the money is not available at their parish, they turn to another parish. If not in the diocese, they turn to another diocese. All this becomes is the churhc-state. If you are not opposed to this then we are in agreement to eliminate the taxes and put the church in control. But will they get the medicine they need or what the church says they should have? Will they have the freedom to choose what works best for their condition? True, they may not be guaranteed that now because of insurance problems but what will prevent some in the church saying the same thing of “if it’s our money this is what they will take.” We’ll still face the same questions of who decides the best treatment options for conditions such as schizophrenia and depression. But, hey, if my expenses are covered I’m willing to go with your idea. Now is anyone out there employing anybody so I can return to work and get off the Social Security rolls. And when I do I want to stop paying into it unless they promise me my return.

 

[Knight003]

OK, Goofyjim- I support both Welfare, and Medicaid. I think that a responsible government should have programs to help the poor if all else fails, but I am against artificially sustaining people below their abilities. I also think that forced charity (taxes for government programs) gets in the way of true charity, and causes people to become bitter toward the poor instead of compassionate. I do feel that you deserve the help you are getting, and I am proud that some of my taxes are going to help you since you need it.

Abortion is always wrong!

Bobcat, I think the answer you are looking for is- do not accept the secular definition of compassion. The fullness of truth lies with God. Compassion without God is not full, and therefore can be misleading. When in doubt look to God, He has proven through the Passion of His Son that He understands the fullness of compassion, and will not lead you astray.

 

[goofyjim]

BTW, I originally thought this thread was supposed to be on the issues of sexual morality, not on the issues of welfare et al.

Abortion is wrong! As well as homosexual behavior, premarital sex, adultery, assisted suicide, etc.

 

[steveandersen]

bobcat:

This is a difficult concept for me to explain. … Liberals shouted that … Does anyone understand this? Am I making myself clear. I would like to say this to people who use this argument, but no one seems to understand this concept.

Liberalism is in general a wonderful thing
From Locke to Jefferson it is a affirmation of natural law and has lead to the individual rights and freedoms that many people in the world enjoy today

HOWEVER it has a blind spot
By its very nature, it is based upon the rights of the individual and has no solution when there is a conflict of rights that has mutually exclusive options.

 

[Knight003]

steveandersen:

Liberalism is in general a wonderful thing
From Locke to Jefferson it is a affirmation of natural law and has lead to the individual rights and freedoms that many people in the world enjoy today

HOWEVER it has a blind spot
By its very nature, it is based upon the rights of the individual and has no solution when there is a conflict of rights that has mutually exclusive options.

You are speaking of the origins of liberalism, as it relates to its root word liberty as in individual liberty. I feel that modern day liberalism is more closely related to the root word liberty as in taking liberties. This explains a lot. Liberals see grey areas in the Constitution, where it is black and white (gun control) and black and white areas where there is gray (abortion). They do the same with religion (death penalty, the war, the poor) and (abortion, gay marriage, stem-cell research). They take liberties with their interpretations; this is why it is so difficult to debate them. They call me a conservative for taking the teachings of the Church seriously. I call them liberals for not, and seeing no problem with it.