Can you give an example showing that Republican Party supports “degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit?” Prudential judgment should be based on more than partisan hatred or bias IMO. There should be some actual basis in reality.
According to your reasoning, we really don’t need to study each candidate and read up on all of their positions and assess them in totality - all we really need to do is refer to the so-called non-negotiables. Perhaps you’d like to fill out my voting ballot for me?
After all, according to your logic, I don’t need to think for myself.That’s an interesting outlook. Are you Catholic?According to your reasoning, we really don’t need to study each candidate and read up on all of their positions and assess them in totality - all we really need to do is refer to the so-called non-negotiables. Perhaps you’d like to fill out my voting ballot for me?
I don’t understand the mentality of those who subscribe to the 5 non-negotiables. Instead of asking “what can **I **do to make our country better?” - all of your non-negotiable issues are related to what “someone else” is doing. In essence you’re saying “I don’t like what so-and-so is doing and I want the all-powerful government to enforce compliance with my way of thinking.” This mindset indicates that your happiness in life is not tied to your own actions, but rather the actions of others. Why the unseemly fascination with what other people are doing? The so-called 5 non-negotiables is basically “governmental nannyism run amok”.
It’s on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, where the Oglala Sioux live.
* Unemployment rate of 80-90%
* Per capita income of $4,000
* 8 Times the United States rate of diabetes
* 5 Times the United States rate of cervical cancer
* Twice the rate of heart disease
* 8 Times the United States rate of Tuberculosis
* Alcoholism rate estimated as high as 80%
* 1 in 4 infants born with fetal alcohol syndrome or effects
* Suicide rate more than twice the national rate
* Teen suicide rate 4 times the national rate
* Infant mortality is three times the national rateAll of this is according to the website you linked to. Can you vouch for its accuracy? Do you really think that the condition on the reservation are similar to that of Haiti? Interesting that the site making the claims about the Pine Ridge reservation is also accepting donations.
Where did you get that idea? I am merely saying we shouldn’t include among the non-negotiables, candidates’ allegiance to pet liberal issues. Of course we should read up on each candidate and take their positions and assess them in totality. But you shouldn’t place, say, federal $$ for school lunch funding ahead of abortion in terms of moral gravity. Are you able to grasp that?According to your reasoning, we really don’t need to study each candidate and read up on all of their positions and assess them in totality - all we really need to do is refer to the so-called non-negotiables. Perhaps you’d like to fill out my voting ballot for me?
Not at all. All we’re saying is, in the voting booth, consider where the candidates stand on the non-negotiables. That does not speak at all to what individuals must do on their own to promote, for example, a culture of life. Would you say that laws against rape, murder, etc. are mere “govt. nannyism” ?
If that is true, how do you explain the fact that the most pro-abortion American Congressman in US history was a Roman Catholic priest, Father Drinan?
Here’s another link from the Red Cloud Indian School … I won’t post all the statistics here, but you’re welcome to compare them, keeping in mind that the previous website’s information was from 2007. This information mentions 2008 at the bottom of the page.All of this is according to the website you linked to. Can you vouch for its accuracy? Do you really think that the condition on the reservation are similar to that of Haiti? Interesting that the site making the claims about the Pine Ridge reservation is also accepting donations.
But even if the conditions are bad, I don’t have any reason to doubt that poverty does indeed exist on the reservation, how does that relate to the “non-negotiables” and how we vote for senators and presidents? I mean, is the poverty there a function of how much government aid is available? Or is perhaps due to other factors?
Ishii
One poster in particular has claimed that the Republican’s support of “extreme poverty” is sufficiently grave to ignore the Democrats’ stated position on abortion. I’ve searched the Republican platform statement thoroughly, and I can’t see anything that points to them supporting keeping people in “extreme poverty”. Neither is there language supporting human trafficking, slavery, or kicking puppies. So, based on the platform statements from the parties themselves, what Republican position justifies the Democratic Party’s support of the murder of over 1 million children per year through legalized abortion?
The role of government is to protect individual rights. Laws against rape, murder, etc. are designed to protect an individual’s right to not be raped, murdered, etc. These laws are designed to prevent “someone” from doing something to “someone else” against their will. That is not governmental nannyism - it is the government doing its purpose. However, marriage equality, for instance, is purely about “the two individuals” getting married. It doesn’t affect “you” in any way. You may be displeased with their choice, but there is no constitutional law against not being offended. That is the tradeoff for living in a pluralistic country as opposed to a theocracy.
All of these things you mentioned - slavery, genocide - are what someone is doing to someone else - and they must be opposed.
The poor have gotten poorer under Obama. The idea that a vote for Democrats is a vote against poverty has no basis in facts of any kind. It is delusional to think that Democrats have the solution for poverty.
So restricting our religious freedom doesn’t affect us? Right…
So restricting our religious freedom doesn’t affect us? Right…
You said that “marriage equality” (I’m making the assumption you mean gay marriage by that) doesn’t affect “you” (you weren’t talking to me but I’m assuming you meant Catholics/people in general) in any way.
Now I think you’re trying to change the subject. Forget about marriage equality, Mulligan. How about abortion? Is passing laws against abortion, “nannyism” ?
Passing laws against abortion is nannyism? Just want to clarify.