Nuns get involved in the battle for the White House

[Lapey]

Small correction: the Penny plan balances the budget in 6 years, IIRC.

Man, I suck!!! Just kidding, thanks for that correction!

 

[CMatt25]

Your faith is shaken every time the church you attend espouses anything contrary to your belief; why else would you run to another church to find one that won’t exclude “liberal Christians”? Ever thought it may not be the Church’s teachings but the formation of the conscience which is lacking?

No. I’m aware of the Catholic Church’s teachings, Lapey, and how Catholics are supposed to force their consciences to conform to them. I run to another when I’m told I can’t be a Catholic as I am. I run to another Christian community where I am welcomed to be me then.

 

[CMatt25]

Okay, so you’d vote for someone who would let live babies die as Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act 4 times besides being a big exponent of Planned Parenthood. That is good, it is your vote. Likewise, Republicans have defunded Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin, New Jersey and elsewhere and want to do so nationally so in the end, we do have to see a vote for Obama is a vote for more abortions.

I don’t see PP as the big evil you do obviously. I actually know women who have used their healthcare services. Having nothing whatsoever to do with getting an abortion.

 

[estesbob]

Well, faith and feeling don’t go hand-in-hand, either. I doubt Jesus felt very good when he was in agony in the Garden, or being nailed to the Cross, but he retained his faith.

Actions, not feelings, are the true measure of our faith.

There are two characteristics that i see constantly from those trying to reconcile church teachings with their left-wing political views.

1. Their politics form their faith
2. They believe we can fulfill our obligation to help the poor and needy merely by voting for someone who promises to take other people’s money and do it for us.

 

[kimmielittle]

Carm as a source on a Catholic site?



And I have no idea how that argument represents a strawman.

The “Romney won’t do anything about abortion” argument is an easy illicit affirmative.

Does the definition change?

logicalfallacies.info/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Well… The strawman. "Using the excuse Romney won’t reverse Roe vs. Wade " Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position[60] ] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

HAS Mr Romney stated he would?

If he hasn’t… it’s a “misrepresentation of his position”.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

There are two characteristics that i see constantly from those trying to reconcile church teachings with their left-wing political views.

1. Their politics form their faith
2. They believe we can fulfill our obligation to help the poor and needy merely by voting for someone who promises to take other people’s money and do it for us.

This is it, exactly.

 

[fastenatingguy]

I don’t see PP as the big evil you do obviously. I actually know women who have used their healthcare services. Having nothing whatsoever to do with getting an abortion.

I want to keep this dialogue with you charitable, Matt, but you are making it tough:shrug:

As far as healthcare services, PP may be doing some good. I have no knowledge to the contrary. IF IF IF (BIG IF) they didn’t provide abortions, I could possibly consider offering support to them. Maybe.

As for abortion, I can no longer take you seriously on this. You just sidestep the issue constantly, as if the Church does not matter. You have developed your own doctrine. I said a prayer for you.

 

[CMatt25]

This is the mistake you make; it is always automatically that those who want spending cuts want to hurt anyone. It is also unfortunate that you automatically think none of us want tax increases.

A fair tax plan should be put in place, a flat rate with base deduction. Example, 15% for every wage earner with the first 50K deducted for all expenses. This will take care of the lower income family’s taxes and the big earners will end up paying more without any deductions. Do away with all corporate taxes, who pays corporate taxes? The consumer does corporations do not. I could go on but I won’t bore you.

Good Lapey, then tell your Republican savior of the budget, Mr Ryan, and the others to come to the table with tax increases for the rich on it.

Lapey, I’m not sure I’m following. So anyone with an income of $50,000 and under will pay no tax under your plan?

 

[Lapey]

No. I’m aware of the Catholic Church’s teachings, Lapey, and how Catholics are supposed to force their consciences to conform to them. I run to another when I’m told I can’t be a Catholic as I am. I run to another Christian community where I am welcomed to be me then.

Look at what you wrote here, this does not bother you that you leave because the Church doesn’t change for your beliefs? The Church has not changed its views for 2000 years, why would it change now? Truth is truth, its name is Jesus!

Matt. 19:22 “When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.”

Jn. 6:60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

Jn. 6:66 “After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.”

We are not forced to conform, we have that choice, we can walk away; as did the rich young man and the many who turned away from the harsh teachings of eating and drinking the Body and Blood of Jesus. He offered Peter and the rest of the 12 the opportunity to leave just like He offered you the opportunity to leave or believe in His truth. Thankfully the great simple words of our hero, Peter, still ring out today, “…Leave? To whom shall we go, you Lord have the words of eternal life…”

Hopefully Catholics and all will follow Peter’s example and not be like the rest. That same opportunity is open to you, to come back home where you belong.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Good Lapey, then tell your Republican savior of the budget, Mr Ryan, and the others to come to the table with tax increases for the rich on it.

Lapey, I’m not sure I’m following. So anyone with an income of $50,000 and under will pay no tax under your plan?

Tax the evil rich. Why not. Its the Democratic way.

I say make everyone pay a little more proportionately. All Americans should have a little skin in the game, no matter how small the contribution. Doesn’t everyone use federal highways, or only the rich?

 

[CMatt25]

Do you know what the “PRO” in “Pro-life” means?

In means Promotion-Of-Life.

You are describing a person who is “socially concerned” - not someone Promoting -Life.

Yeah I know what “PRO” means. Do you know what “LIFE” means? I’m sorry and please forgive me but I get tired of being asked such questions as if I’m so uneducated that I don’t know something like the meaning of “pro”. I’ve no doubt you know what “life” means. I just believe it needs just as promoted if not more so beyond 9 mos. The degree of emphasis may be one of the reasons why your religion is stated as Catholic and mine is not. But in any case I know in my heart God will bless you for all you do for the unborn and peace be with you.

 

[kimmielittle]

Thank you.

You are welcome

It’s a “strawman” because it misrepresents Mr Romney’s position - He Mr Romney ] never said his position would.

 

[Lapey]

Good Lapey, then tell your Republican savior of the budget, Mr Ryan, and the others to come to the table with tax increases for the rich on it.

Lapey, I’m not sure I’m following. So anyone with an income of $50,000 and under will pay no tax under your plan?

I just grabbed that number, but simply put yes. I think I’ve heard the number $36 K talked about, but yes. Every tax payer will get the same deduction, basic living expenses for a typical family of 5 (guessed at the number.) Then after that all income would be taxed the same, no deductions not subsidies, no tax credits for Solyndra or Exxon, etc.

Would increase the unemployment rate though, there would be no need for 98% of the IRS employees…lol

 

[scipio337]

I don’t see PP as the big evil you do obviously. I actually know women who have used their healthcare services. Having nothing whatsoever to do with getting an abortion.

So if I’m good son to my mother, but kill 6 million Jews, does this make me a good person?

 

[estesbob]

Does the definition change?

logicalfallacies.info/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Well… The strawman. "Using the excuse Romney won’t reverse Roe vs. Wade " Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position[60] ] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

HAS Mr Romney stated he would?

If he hasn’t… it’s a “misrepresentation of his position”.

It is interesting that they never hold the democrat candidate to the same standard where helping the poor and needy is concerned. Have you ever heard somebody say" I won’t vote for Obama because he won’t eliminate poverty?" But with abortion they always demand perfection. For example: Romney supports approximately 4000 abortions a year and Obama supports 1.2 million abortions a year plus uses U.S. funds to fund overseas abortions . Because of Romneys support of these 4000 abortions they claim there is no moral difference between Obama and Romney where abortion is concerned.

 

[Elizabeth502]

No. I’m aware of the Catholic Church’s teachings…I run to another when I’m told I can’t be a Catholic as I am. I run to another Christian community where I am welcomed to be me then.

That’s probably realistic.

There are many, many posters on CAF who can remember a time not very long ago when those who opposed the core teachings of the Church ceased identifying themselves publicly as Catholic. Even people without very much formal education. They understood clearly that there was no such thing as an invented Catholicism, a “personal” or “private” Catholicism. When they came to a fork in the road (which many did!) – such as an unwillingness to refrain from remarriage after divorce, such as weekly Mass or the Easter obligation, such as disinterest in the spiritual and practical discipline which assumes some regularity with Confession, they generally did not parade a watered down faith, hypocritcally.

When the question came up in social circles, they would say honestly, “I’m not really a practicing Catholic any more; I used to be.” Also, more often than not, a respect remained – not only for the teachings and for the permanent moral authority of the Church, but for personal truth/witness itself. IOW, they honored the standard of conforming one’s beliefs (and one’s attempt at a conforming personal behavior) with the official, orthodox standards laid out by their Church. So, the admission of not practicing any more was followed quickly with an acknowledgement of weakness on their part – as opposed to a complaint about the Church or a prideful assertion of superior personal “authority” versus the Roman Church. (There was invariably a comment which accompanied – something like…“but I know I should be [a better Catholic, a practicing Catholic,”] etc.) Not, “I think the Church is wrong,” or “I think the Church should change with the times,” or “I have an independent conscience which disagrees with the Church.” They “got it” that if their conscience “disagreed,” the truth was on the side of the Church, and it was their own thinking that was amiss. It was merely that they had succumbed to their own weakness (they offered).

It is sometimes assumed that a misinterpretation of Vatican 2 is the root of all the misguided spinoffs of the self as the center of moral authority, but lately I have come to believe, that while such misinterpretation is an amazingly convenient excuse, the real reason may lie more with the tendencies in society over the last 20 years to claim personal expertise in all matters, including religion. (“Everybody’s an expert.”) Asserting expertise is also a means to claiming [autonomous] authority.

JMO

 

[kimmielittle]

Yeah I know what “PRO” means. Do you know what “LIFE” means? I believe it needs just as promoted if not more so beyond 9 mos.

I agree.
BUT that is not what YOU were trying to promote - You were trying to promote Ms Campbell as someone in line with Catholic Teaching. Clearly, she is not - as I’ve proven!

She may very well have a reverence for some of life.…BUT she is not in line with Catholic Teaching in reverence of ALL of Life. As a matter of fact, by her own words, she’s agnostic about the most innocent.

 

[He_Man]

It is not the bus but her words at the DNC which inspired me so that I was on my feet in my living room along with the DNC delegates in the hall giving her a standing O.

I was on my feet too, but that’s because my wife warned be about throwing up on the couch.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

I was on my feet too, but that’s because my wife warned be about throwing up on the couch.

:bowdown2:

 

[kimmielittle]

I was on my feet too, but that’s because my wife warned be about throwing up on the couch.

Snicker