Oh wait.....Trumps campaign was wire tapped after all

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChurchSoldier
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jig_Saw said:
So, your point of view is that the Little Sisters were the only organization willing to stand up for their faith and all organizations that signed the letter saying they were not willing to pay for contraceptives were less than faithful.
Click to expand...
Those who signed the letter were agreeing that contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilizations be provided to their employees and themselves. And it was not only the Little Sisters. There were 50 religious organization plaintiffs in the lawsuit and plenty who refused the “compromise” (like Notre Dame) but were not plaintiffs. And again, not a single bishop endorsed the “compromise”, and rightly so.

Sometimes there are moral leaders and sometimes there are followers. And sometimes there are those who rationalize complicity with evil or fear the consequences of their standing up against it.

It’s a shame some missed the moral lesson in all of that, or ignored it because of their politics.
 
Progressives have certainly fought for moral issues. Do you think it’s better to treat spousal rape like they did in the past? Thanks to feminism a man can be charged for raping his wife. Progressives pushed civil rights in the 60’s and made many people aware that racism is a moral issue. Should we have preserved or conserved these horrid beliefs in the name of tradition?

I have a very hard time seeing political conservatives as the primary arbiters of what is moral. Show me some evidence that conservatives are more moral. In my mind they are as lost and broken as the rest of us.

What is religious freedom other than the freedom to hold whatever worldview you want? That’s why atheism is included under the umbrella of “religious freedom” even though they lack a belief in anything religious. If someone’s worldview includes the idea that two people of the same sex can be married than how can we say that they are wrong? We have to respect their beliefs. Many people don’t believe the things we believe but we are allowed to carry on. I’ve been waiting years for someone to show me the harm caused by same sex marriage. Honestly it seems like a positive for society at large.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Those who signed the letter were agreeing that contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilizations be provided to their employees and themselves. And it was not only the Little Sisters. There were 50 religious organization plaintiffs in the lawsuit and plenty who refused the “compromise” (like Notre Dame) but were not plaintiffs. And again, not a single bishop endorsed the “compromise”, and rightly so.

Sometimes there are moral leaders and sometimes there are followers. And sometimes there are those who rationalize complicity with evil or fear the consequences of their standing up against it.

It’s a shame some missed the moral lesson in all of that, or ignored it because of their politics.
Click to expand...
I know there are 50 organizations as part of the lawsuit and I’m glad to see conservatives are fans of Notre Dame again, but, even then, the vast majority signed the letter. Now, you seem to be arguing that everyone that signed the letter is complicit with evil while those that fight it are the true believers. I believe that most of those that signed the letter did so believing that they were not complicit with evil in any way.

Maybe you have the leaders and followers backwards.
 
Your list is much longer than mine.
Good research on your part.

I wonder if Jig Saw will refute each one.
 
Jig_Saw said:
I believe that most of those that signed the letter did so believing that they were not complicit with evil in any way.
Click to expand...
A total speculation, particularly when they knew they would be ruinously fined if they did not. Sometimes moral courage is not first in peoples’ minds.

But again, which bishop said Catholic organizations should sign onto the “compromise”?
 
Ridgerunner said:
A total speculation, particularly when they knew they would be ruinously fined if they did not. Sometimes moral courage is not first in peoples’ minds.

But again, which bishop said Catholic organizations should sign onto the “compromise”?
Click to expand...
I see. So those who stand up against this are acting with moral courage and must then be right. Those that signed the letter are complicit in evil and not acting with moral courage. Well, I don’t want to repeat what you said, but that seems like total speculation to me. But this is a typical point of view that I have encountered from those on the right - that those that take the strictest interpretation of the teaching are the ones that are morally correct.
 
Jig_Saw said:
I see. So those who stand up against this are acting with moral courage and must then be right. Those that signed the letter are complicit in evil and not acting with moral courage. Well, I don’t want to repeat what you said, but that seems like total speculation to me. But this is a typical point of view that I have encountered from those on the right - that those that take the strictest interpretation of the teaching are the ones that are morally correct.
Click to expand...
It’s not a matter of being “on the right”. It’s a matter of being Catholic.

It’s a long way from being a speculation. Cdl Dolan condemned the “compromise” on behalf of USCCB. Cdl Chaput did. I’m sure no few of them did.

See if you can find a bishop who approved of the “compromise”.
 
Ridgerunner said:
It’s not a matter of being “on the right”. It’s a matter of being Catholic.

It’s a long way from being a speculation. Cdl Dolan condemned the “compromise” on behalf of USCCB. Cdl Chaput did. I’m sure no few of them did.

See if you can find a bishop who approved of the “compromise”.
Click to expand...
Do I have to find a bishop to say they approved to be right? They would have instructed their organizations not to sign a letter if it was causing their organizations to commit a sin. I think we’re seeing a group of newer bishops trying to stay out of hot button political issues that longer time bishops jumped into. I wouldn’t expect most of the newer bishops to say much of anything on something like this. The actions speak louder than words.
 
7_Sorrows said:
Your list is much longer than mine.

Good research on your part.

I wonder if Jig Saw will refute each one.
Click to expand...
It really wasn’t research on his part, but taken directly from the White House website, which is fine.

No, I’m not impressed. Refuting each one would be boring, but there are things that he claims that are self-induced trouble (Syria’s chemical attacks were because they felt like the US was about to back off based on comments made by Trump), some are interesting takes on reality (not sure how you draw the conclusion that we are any closer to our allies when Trump has spent time pushing them away), some are things I’m not sure he can take credit for (the job growth seems in line or maybe even slightly worse than the growth under Obama).

So, I’m sure his supporters will think this is impressive, but it’s not to most Americans.
 
You don’t seem to complain when Trump is/was given so much free air time.
 
Jig_Saw said:
It really wasn’t research on his part, but taken directly from the White House website, which is fine.
Click to expand...
It would be if the poster stated his references, which we who went to Catholic schools were taught.

Monte owes you thanks, IMO.
 
Jig_Saw said:
Do I have to find a bishop to say they approved to be right? They would have instructed their organizations not to sign a letter if it was causing their organizations to commit a sin. I think we’re seeing a group of newer bishops trying to stay out of hot button political issues that longer time bishops jumped into. I wouldn’t expect most of the newer bishops to say much of anything on something like this. The actions speak louder than words.
Click to expand...
In other words, you can’t find any bishop who said the HHS Mandate “compromise” was anything other than a violation of conscience. You could have just said so the first time.
 
Ridgerunner said:
In other words, you can’t find any bishop who said the HHS Mandate “compromise” was anything other than a violation of conscience. You could have just said so the first time.
Click to expand...
In other words, I didn’t look. I looked at the actual actions.
 
Jig_Saw said:
In other words, I didn’t look. I looked at the actual actions.
Click to expand...
Oh? How many bishops told their diocesan organizations it was okay to accept the “compromise”? Dioceses themselves have employees and provide health insurance. Which bishops signed on to the “compromise”?
 
Ridgerunner said:
Oh? How many bishops told their diocesan organizations it was okay to accept the “compromise”? Dioceses themselves have employees and provide health insurance. Which bishops signed on to the “compromise”?
Click to expand...
I know that most Catholic organizations signed the letter. I would assume that the bishops would have instructed them otherwise if they felt it was a sin.
 
At the very least, we were instructed to use quotation marks. In fact, if memory serves me right, CAF gave members some warnings on this.
 
Jig_Saw said:
I know that most Catholic organizations signed the letter. I would assume that the bishops would have instructed them otherwise if they felt it was a sin.
Click to expand...
Give us the names of any of the bishops who approved it. Would five be too many to ask? How about two, then?
 
Ridgerunner said:
Give us the names of any of the bishops who approved it. Would five be too many to ask? How about two, then?
Click to expand...
You keep repeating the same point as if it will somehow make it relevant. The approval was such that there were no demands to not sign the letter. If it were as heinous as claimed, the bishops would have stopped their organizations from signing it. They didn’t.

Of course, in your mind, this seems to indicate they aren’t moral leaders then (edit:: typo).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top