Obama's State of the Union remarks

[estesbob]

I’d like to see where the Church categorically condemns the Democratic Party by name.

Nobody said it did., Rich However Cardinal Burke has this to say:

**At this point, the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitively into a “party of death” **due to its choices on bioethical issues, as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book “The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life.”

And Archbishop Chaput had this to say:

None of the Catholic arguments advanced in favor of Senator Obama are new. They’ve been around, in one form or another, for more than 25 years. All of them seek to ‘‘get beyond’’ abortion, or economically reduce the number of abortions, or create a better society where abortion won’t be necessary. All of them involve a misuse of the seamless garment imagery in Catholic social teaching. And all of them, in practice, seek to contextualize, demote and then counterbalance the evil of abortion with other important but less foundational social issues.This is a great sadness. **As Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George said recently, too many Americans have ‘‘no recognition of the fact that children continue to be killed [by abortion], and we live therefore, in a country drenched in blood. This can’t be something you start playing off pragmatically against other issues.’’

**Meanwhile, the basic human rights violation at the heart of abortion - the intentional destruction of an innocent, developing human life - is wordsmithed away as a terrible crime that just can’t be fixed by the law. I don’t believe that. I think that argument is a fraud. And I don’t think any serious believer can accept that argument without damaging his or her credibility. We still have more than a million abortions a year, and we can’t blame them all on Republican social policies. **After all, it was a Democratic president, not a Republican, who vetoed the partial birth abortion ban - twice.
**

And Bishop Tobin:

And in one of the most dramatic moments of his speech, Mr. Obama announced that the wounded congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords, opened her eyes for the first time just after he’d completed his visit to her. “A miracle” some proclaimed, and certainly a welcome sign of recovery at which we all rejoice.

**But I can’t help but wonder how many tiny eyes will never open, will never see the light of day, because of this president’s shortsighted and zealous promotion of abortion. **

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I’d like to see where the Church categorically condemns the Democratic Party by name.

OR where the Church, not a Cardinal using is private judgment, endorses the Republican party by name.

 

[estesbob]

OR where the Church, not a Cardinal using is private judgment, endorses the Republican party by name.

Nobody ever said they did. Are you and Rich out of straw yet?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Nobody said it did.

Your wording, at least, implied it. BTW, the private declarations of three of the hierarchy do not constitute the authoritative word of the Church. If you doubt me, just check threads where the USCCB makes some statement. You’ll have a dozen posters assuring us that it’s no more than the personal judgment of the members of that organization.

 

[crazzeto]

OR where the Church, not a Cardinal using is private judgment, endorses the Republican party by name.

Of course you’ll find neither, but you’ll also find not supporting abortion is our #1 non-negotiable. And there are so few pro-life democrats out there… =(

 

[estesbob]

Your wording, at least, implied it. BTW, the private declarations of three of the hierarchy do not constitute the authoritative word of the Church. If you doubt me, just check threads where the USCCB makes some statement. You’ll have a dozen posters assuring us that it’s no more than the personal judgment of the members of that organization.

As usual you set up a strawman , knocked it down and now claim it proved your point

 

[qui_est_ce]

Your wording, at least, implied it. BTW, the private declarations of three of the hierarchy do not constitute the authoritative word of the Church. If you doubt me, just check threads where the USCCB makes some statement. You’ll have a dozen posters assuring us that it’s no more than the personal judgment of the members of that organization.

Aren’t we obliged to obey our local bishops? Aren’t they the local authority? For example, as a St. Louisan, I’m obliged to follow Archbshp Carlson.

 

[qui_est_ce]

It is a standard standard tactic of those Catholics trying to justify their support of the Democratic Party in spite of the parties embracing of the culture of death. The only way they can do this is to demonize the Republican Party beyond recognition. The truth is that the Catholic Church neither endorses nor condemns the approaches of either parties solutions to solving the problems facing the country-that is with the exception of abortion. The Catholic Church categorically condemns the Democratic Party’s support of unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortions on demand. No matter how one wants to spin you cannot overcome this. Rather than try, most just try to change the subject by claiming the Republican Party is evil personified and they are forced to support abortion as the lesser of two evils. The other alternative is to condemn both parties as being equally evil and support so-called pro-life purists who have not a chance in hell of ever being elected. Both of these approaches result in the election of pro-abortion candidates.

That explains it. I couldn’t figure out the extreme vitriol of some here against the Republican party. I mean, I don’t agree with the most of the Democratic party platform, but I wouldn’t call the party evil or hateful. Just misguided.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Aren’t we obliged to obey our local bishops? Aren’t they the local authority? For example, as a St. Louisan, I’m obliged to follow Archbshp Carlson.

It depends. If your bishop said that Catholics in his diocese may not own guns, his statement should be considered with respect, but I don’t think he has the power to mandate that. On the other hand, if he said that he will not allow people to carry guns into any Catholic church, of his diocese, he’d be fully within his rights to order that.

Case by case, I’d think.

 

[qui_est_ce]

It depends. If your bishop said that Catholics in his diocese may not own guns, his statement should be considered with respect, but I don’t think he has the power to mandate that. On the other hand, if he said that he will not allow people to carry guns into any Catholic church, of his diocese, he’d be fully within his rights to order that.

Case by case, I’d think.

Burke is bishop emeritus to St. Louis, so, in matters of faith and morals, we are to obey him.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Burke is bishop emeritus to St. Louis, so, in matters of faith and morals, we are to obey him.

A bishops ordinary magisterial and pastoral authority can direct people of his diocese to not bring guns to church. However, it is not part of the magisterial or pastoral authority to forbid anyone from owning them. Rich is right on this one, if your bishop said that noone in his diocese is allowed to own a gun, you can take that into consideration, but there is nothing about that mandate that you would be required to obey, since it is not a matter of faith or morals.

 

[ishii]

Asked and answered.

As I said, you don’t have an anwer. Or do you?

Ishii

 

[ishii]

OR where the Church, not a Cardinal using is private judgment, endorses the Republican party by name.

Actually I’d like to see a shred of proof or evidence that its the policy of the Republican party to be against any tax or regulation on business. You made the charge, either back it up, or have the honesty to admit that you have no proof.

Ishii

 

[exoflare]

Actually I’d like to see a shred of proof or evidence that its the policy of the Republican party to be against any tax or regulation on business. You made the charge, either back it up, or have the honesty to admit that you have no proof.

LCMS’s deafening silence for a week was their admission of no proof.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

LCMS’s deafening silence for a week was their admission of no proof.

I’ve always couched in the language of opinion.

Then again, OF COURSE no Republican will say outright, “I’m opposed to laws that protect their employees from unscrupulous employers” or “I’m opposed to laws that prevent companies from dumping toxic pollution into the communities where they operate or into other communities.”

If they said that outright, they’d NEVER be elected, the Christian anti-abortion vote notwithstanding.

Instead, they couch it in language such as, “we are opposed to ‘job killer’ regulations.” The problem is, virtually every regulation that is proposed, no matter how small or benign, along with virtually every regulation that’s currently on the books, is panned as a “job killer.”

Meanwhile, those who are charged with enforcing the laws on the books are continually berated and subject to nothing short of slandered by public officials, or supporters, of the Republican party.

 

[Ocean52680]

I’ve always couched in the language of opinion.

Then again, OF COURSE no Republican will say outright, “I’m opposed to laws that protect their employees from unscrupulous employers” or “I’m opposed to laws that prevent companies from dumping toxic pollution into the communities where they operate or into other communities.”

If they said that outright, they’d NEVER be elected, the Christian anti-abortion vote notwithstanding.

Instead, they couch it in language such as, “we are opposed to ‘job killer’ regulations.” The problem is, virtually every regulation that is proposed, no matter how small or benign, along with virtually every regulation that’s currently on the books, is panned as a “job killer.”

Meanwhile, those who are charged with enforcing the laws on the books are continually berated and subject to nothing short of slandered by public officials, or supporters, of the Republican party.

Three paragraphs later and still no evidence. I suppose we’re against child labor laws too.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Three paragraphs later and still no evidence. I suppose we’re against child labor laws too.

First, let’s look at whose interests the Republican Party represents. If one looks at their actions, we see that the Republican Party represents the interests of the Chambers of Commerce first, last and always.

To that end, I did a little looking up of what the California Chamber of Commerce is up to. They print their list of “job killer” bills every year.

One of them was a law that would make it a misdemeanor with an increased fine when an employer willfully defrauds a worker of his wages for more than 90 days. The law specifically said “willfully” and defined it. I would think that, considering defrauding a worker of his wages is on par with homosexuality or murder according to Church teachings, this would be something a Catholic could support. But noooo, the Republican party’s man, Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

Another bill would remove an exemption for agricultural workers from a regulation allowing employers to use a 30 day calendar to determine how many rest days their employees have as long as they get 1 day off for every seven worked. Considering, as Catholics, we are commanded to not work one day each week so we may worship God, I would think that adding this protection of law to agricultural workers is a good thing. But the Republicans? Noooo, their man Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

In each case, I believe, when it came to votes, it was strictly party line…Republicans voting to deny or remove protection from working people.

 

[ishii]

First, let’s look at whose interests the Republican Party represents. If one looks at their actions, we see that the Republican Party represents the interests of the Chambers of Commerce first, last and always.

To that end, I did a little looking up of what the California Chamber of Commerce is up to. They print their list of “job killer” bills every year.

One of them was a law that would make it a misdemeanor with an increased fine when an employer willfully defrauds a worker of his wages for more than 90 days. The law specifically said “willfully” and defined it. I would think that, considering defrauding a worker of his wages is on par with homosexuality or murder according to Church teachings, this would be something a Catholic could support. But noooo, the Republican party’s man, Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

Another bill would remove an exemption for agricultural workers from a regulation allowing employers to use a 30 day calendar to determine how many rest days their employees have as long as they get 1 day off for every seven worked. Considering, as Catholics, we are commanded to not work one day each week so we may worship God, I would think that adding this protection of law to agricultural workers is a good thing. But the Republicans? Noooo, their man Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

In each case, I believe, when it came to votes, it was strictly party line…Republicans voting to deny or remove protection from working people.

LCMS no more:

*Actually I’d like to see a shred of proof or evidence that its the policy of the Republican party to be against any tax or regulation on business. You made the charge, either back it up, or have the honesty to admit that you have no proof. *

So to back up your claim that the GOP is against any tax or regulation on business, you bring up a veto by Arnonld Schwarzenneger and some law that is opposed by the Chamber of Commerce. Why don’t you admit that you made a wild claim that is untrue and be done with it? Or do you think its okay to make baseless charges about those with whom we disagree? You complain about being “dragged down the rabbit hole” but it is of your doing. All we are asking is for you to back up your claims or retract them. That seems fair to me. The Republicans aren’t against all regulations and taxes on business and I think you know that. I suppose it is easier to demonize those with whom you disagree than to discuss the issue calmly and not engage in hyperbole. You may disagree with Arnold’s veto. That’s fine. There are two sides to the issue- if the law was passed then arguably the farm workers would have been worse off because then the agriculture companies would have different workers working different shifts at the same non-overtime wage rather than the same workers working twelve hours in one day and making more money at the same wage. It is likely that many businesses would relocate to other states that don’t have the law - fewer jobs. I don’t know if Arnold did the right thing or not, but I do know that his veto is NOT proof that Republicans are against all tax and regulations on business. It is time that you retract that false accusation and start dealing in facts rather than hyperbole.

Ishii

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Using Ahnoold Guvuhnatah of Caulifawnya as the prototypical “Republican” is lame.

 

[estesbob]

First, let’s look at whose interests the Republican Party represents. If one looks at their actions, we see that the Republican Party represents the interests of the Chambers of Commerce first, last and always.

To that end, I did a little looking up of what the California Chamber of Commerce is up to. They print their list of “job killer” bills every year.

One of them was a law that would make it a misdemeanor with an increased fine when an employer willfully defrauds a worker of his wages for more than 90 days. The law specifically said “willfully” and defined it. I would think that, considering defrauding a worker of his wages is on par with homosexuality or murder according to Church teachings, this would be something a Catholic could support. But noooo, the Republican party’s man, Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

Another bill would remove an exemption for agricultural workers from a regulation allowing employers to use a 30 day calendar to determine how many rest days their employees have as long as they get 1 day off for every seven worked. Considering, as Catholics, we are commanded to not work one day each week so we may worship God, I would think that adding this protection of law to agricultural workers is a good thing. But the Republicans? Noooo, their man Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

In each case, I believe, when it came to votes, it was strictly party line…Republicans voting to deny or remove protection from working people.

Old Claim: Republicans are evil

New Claim: The US Chamber of Commerce is evil, therefore the Republican Party is evil

Generally when you make a stupid comment in the heat of a deabate it is best to just admit so and move on. The last thing one should do is dig themsleve in deeper.