You volunteered to do your work for free. Its not the same thing. Poor people don’t create jobs. They don’t advance society. They rarely contribute anything positive. And to enslave them to the public dole only offers to guarantee that they will remain in that condition for the bulk of their lives.
That’s the most un-Catholic statement I’ve read here in a while. It sounds more like atheist enemy of the church Ayn Rand propaganda. How can you be serious considering our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was poor and his Holy and Immaculate Mother?
Is attacking the rich un - Catholic also?
I didn’t say that the poor are not loved by God. It is our sacred duty as Christians to love and support them. Tell me one thing that a NON-DIVINE poor person did to advance society as a result of them being poor? I am sorry that reality bothers you so much.
Ironically, I never attacked anyone. I made a factual statement, and my words were twisted to make it look as if I am unChristian (Comparing what I said to Ayn Rand and her atheism). From my understanding, denouncing another’s Christian faith is in itself unchristian.
What is your definition to “advance” anyways? What about St. Thomas Aquinas? He, being a Dominican, took a vow of poverty as well as the vast majority of Catholic religious who have advanced society like Gregor Mendel, the father of modern biology. Seriously, I can list hundreds of poor people who have contributed enormously to advancing society.
It could be, if it is an attack on their dignity. Yet I do not think it is the same thing. The Bible is replete with the description of how God responds to the poor. You will not find, for example, a verse specifiying that God hears the cries of the rich. The Catholic social doctrine of preferential option for the poor is born directly from the heart of God revealed in Scripture. I think to say they do not advance society is to consider only the materialism we have. The poorest Saint will contribute more to society than the wealthiest miser.
Thank God I am neither Republican nor Democrat. Can we please get off the dedicated religious people kick? Yes, I know, most of our saint took vows of poverty. Mother Teresa, for example, did wonderful things for the world IN SPITE OF HER POVERTY, not because of it. You seem to be stuck with the fact that I am making the simply true statement that poor people do not move the economic engine of society as a broad brush condemnation of poor people. I did no such thing. I did not say that the poor do not have value in their own way. The poor are a burden on society which Christ Himself even told us of (Matthew 26:11), and we, as a society, have made most of our “poor” permanently so by granting them lifelong access to entitlements without the mechanism to divest themselves from it. Even St. Paul admonishes the poor to NOT be a burden on their brothers. Is St. Paul not Catholic enough for you?
I think you may be reading more into this. I too found the statement deficient. However, I recognize the the poster was referring only to economic development. Yes, I think we need a broader range of scope, which is why I responded. But let us not make more of one statement than is there.
I agree with all of this. We, as a society, allow too many people to get a “free ride” that have no business living off the toil of other people’s labor.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let’s be clear - you accused the right of being full of hate and vitriol, have been asked on more than one occasion to show what you mean, and I even showed you with one quick search how bad it is from the left.Politics.I have heard enough of the finger pointing, criticisms and anger.
I will just now wait for the debates and then the results.
I will then hope and pray,President Obama or Mr.Romney our leader, when his time is up,
will leave our Country and its citizens safer and better off.
Peace to all ,Carlan
Cause Dole, Ford, or McCain were so great? Ropoting for a certain guy to win doesn’t make you an idolator, at least until Obama won in 08.
To often people think preferential treatment for the poor translates into preferential treatment for big government.
Romney is pretty bad. He has made so many confusing statements on abortion and gay marriage recently that he’s difficult to figure out. Plus, he’s big in the Mormon religion, which isn’t a good thing in my opinion not to mention his early pro-abortion stance and his foreign policy which isn’t any better than Obama’s.
That’s wrong because it obviously violates subsidiarity. However, much of those who rightly support subsidiarity in the government, wrongly don’t support it in the free-market. The flip side to big government is big business.
Talk about confusing
Romney is as bad as who? Stalin, Hitler, Obama? I’m not understanding what you’re getting at.Pork Roll this makes no sense to me at all. It seems to compare apples and oranges. I think the principle is that government or social services or charities should be applied at the local level first, then move up the chain if the smaller and more local entity cannot take care of the issue. IOW if you want a pothole filled in the neighborhood, it shouldn’t take a federal government program to get this done. But a superhighway can’t be built piecemeal by local governments paving a few miles.
Pork Roll, could you elaborate on what evil policies Romney supports that are close to being as bad as Obama’s policies? Is it the justices he wants to nominate - e.g. constructionist judges - ones recommended by Robert Bork? Is it Romney’s energy proposals? More drilling and development of energy sources here in America to increase the supply and help lower the costs? (remember high energy costs are like a regressive tax on the poor and working class). Is it his fiscal proposals? Cutting or slowing down spending, reforming entitlements like Medicare and SS so that they don’t go bankrupt? None of those proposals seem evil to me. Help me out here.