Pope’s climate views press Catholic candidates

[godisgood77]

No doubt you also dismiss Hillary and any Democrat as well as legitimate or worthy candidates?

Ishii

I didn’t realize we were talking about other candidates… seems off topic. If you want to start a new thread, I’d be happy to debate the merits of other candidates… Clinton included.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Massive taxation in the name of equality is socialism.

Who is bringing up equality here, except you?

To each according to his needs, and from each according to his ability is the slogan which defines socialism in this Marxist era.

Who has made this argument?

I am on the side of the debate that does not want the economy to be massively taxed and directed by elites and experts in order to bring out social and environmental change.
Where are you in that debate?

I have to see a proposal before I take a stand in the debate. If there are environmental externalities, then some policies to deal with them are reasonable. It depends on the problem and the policy though. On the other hand, there is no reason for some government policies such as social security and medicare, those are purely distributional, marxist programs.

 

[godisgood77]

Let us hope, lynnvinc, that when you enter the voting booth, you focus on stopping the ones wanting to promote abortion.

That was my main point.

Ishii

Ishii - seems like you are set on condemning democrats… Are you were that there is a national organization called Democrats for Life?

 

[ishii]

But we are NOT talking about American politics here. That is NOT what is happening in other nations. They are NOT taking a balance.

Btw - I was NOT attempting to make the two morally equal. I was pointing out two extreams and attempting to illustrate that it does not have to be a it the extremes.

There are ways to protect the environment AND the economy at the same time. But their might hurt some irresponsible companies who prefer to litigate vs change because it’s cheaper to litigate.

Additionally, you don’t have to believe in climate change. Pollution is real. Over hunting is real. In the last few hundred years, we have burned through out natural resources faster than the rest of human history combined. Don’t believe in climate change, fine. But if we don’t change the way we use our natural resources, we won’t have them in the future.

We should be caring about our great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren as much as we care about our future children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren (depending on what you currently have).

May The Lord grant us all wisdom and understanding. Amen.

phil, being a conservationist I agree with 90% of what you just posted above. All countries need to use their resources wisely and of course control / eliminate pollution. I am concerned, for example of the over fishing of the blue fin tuna (the source of a particularly sought after sushi). Since the fish do not pay attention to national boundaries its imperative that the countries involved get together to protect the fish.

Note, however, that there are cases where the environmentalists litigate/ take action that prevents common sense business activity.

Finally, you say “we’re not talking politics here” but when you begin your post saying "the left wants to… and the right wants to… " don’t be surprised when people think you’re talking politics.

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

Darryl, what Stinkcat does not understand is that socialism can be implemented in a piecemeal way - a little at a time, one “tragedy at a time” (to paraphrase an Obama adviser Rahm Emanuel). J

You mean like when Bush expanded medicare to include prescription drugs? Or when Reagan signed the law increasing the Social Security payroll tax, and made SS benefits taxable?

ust because they realize that they cannot impose socialism on America all at once, nor even blatantly announce their goals doesn’t make them any less socialist, nor does it make them any less dangerous. Indeed, as you point out, it is difficult to conclude otherwise when you take into account the things they say, “spread the wealth around” (Obama), and of course the socialization of 1/6 of our economy that is the ultimate goal of Obamacare is a giant leap as well.

Ishii

But of course, the problem is, both parties, when it comes to economic issues are socialist parties. Neither is keen on cutting spending or reducing regulation.

 

[ishii]

Ishii - seems like you are set on condemning democrats… Are you were that there is a national organization called Democrats for Life?

godisgood, I tell it like it is. I am not condemning anyone, but merely pointing out reality.

Btw, yes I am aware of the organization and wish them well. Hopefully the Democratic party can someday be considered at least not hostile to life and they are now.

Ishii

 

[ringil]

Yes it is. It is a phrase born of the false idea that we can create a heaven on earth.

Btw, you still haven’t answered my question: what Catholic teaching is Rick Santorum disobeying ?

Ishii

He isn’t disobeying any doctrine. He is questioning the Pope which isn’t appropriate- especially in a public forum.

The phrase “pray, pay, and obey” encapsulates what our role as layman should be in the Church. We don’t have any business questioning those to whom God has given authority to lead.

 

[weller2]

It comes from a concerted effort to over-regulate and shut down entire industries from people who are anti-capitalist.

Capitalism has already reached the stage of consuming its own tail.

Either we shut it down orderly, or it will collapse in a violent conflagration.

 

[godisgood77]

godisgood, I tell it like it is. I am not condemning anyone, but merely pointing out reality.

Okay…When you make a radical leap from talking about Santorum and the Pope’s encyclical to statements like “No doubt you also dismiss Hillary and any Democrat as well as legitimate or worthy candidates?”, hopefully you can see why one might get the impression you are after democrats.

BTW… It might be better to say “you tell it like you see it” rather than “you tell it like it is”…

 

[ishii]

You mean like when Bush expanded medicare to include prescription drugs? Or when Reagan signed the law increasing the Social Security payroll tax, and made SS benefits taxable?

But of course, the problem is, both parties, when it comes to economic issues are socialist parties. Neither is keen on cutting spending or reducing regulation.

No, Stinkcat. Expanding government programs or starting new ones does not in itself constitute being a socialist. Increasing a tax on its own does not make someone a socialist. What I’m trying to get you to grasp is that what matters is the larger ideology - an astute socialist might call for privatizing something - but that does not mean he / she has abandoned his/her ideology - two steps forward, one step back, etc.

Also, regarding your 2nd point, just because a politician cannot reverse or reform an entrenched program like SS or Medicare, and so does not get up and rant for their abolition, does not mean they are “socialist” as you wrongly state. But we have discussed this before and we will have to agree to disagree.

Ishii

 

[estesbob]

So the highest echelons of the Church- pretty wise men- have fallen pretty to a big lie perpetuated by the left?

Yes

 

[ishii]

Okay…When you make a radical leap from talking about Santorum and the Pope’s encyclical to statements like “No doubt you also dismiss Hillary and any Democrat as well as legitimate or worthy candidates?”, hopefully you can see why one might get the impression you are after democrats.

BTW… It might be better to say “you tell it like you see it” rather than “you tell it like it is”…

godisgood, my comments were in response to the following post:

Pope Francis has framed the climate change issue as a life issue and I expect he will continue down that path in his encyclical. The Church sees opposition to its life issues (abortion, suicide, war, death penalty, etc) everyday of the week, even from its own members. People who oppose action on climate change will be no different. The Vatican experts in our Church’s doctrine see climate change as aligned with the Church’s call for life and dignity. People can and will oppose the Church’s stance on this just as we see people opposing the Church on other life issues.

In other words, abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, not believing in man made global warming… they are all comparable in terms of moral gravity - is what the post seems to suggest. I pointed out that, no, they are not comparable. So no, godisgood, I don’t think my posts have been a radical leap at all - as they were responding to someone else who brought them up in the first place.

Btw, I am not “after Democrats” - I am merely trying to point out the truth about the modern Democratic party being 98% anti-life.

Ishii
.

 

[ishii]

Capitalism has already reached the stage of consuming its own tail.

Either we shut it down orderly, or it will collapse in a violent conflagration.

What do you want to replace it with?

 

[stinkcat_14]

No, Stinkcat. Expanding government programs or starting new ones does not in itself constitute being a socialist. Increasing a tax on its own does not make someone a socialist. What I’m trying to get you to grasp is that what matters is the larger ideology - an astute socialist might call for privatizing something - but that does not mean he / she has abandoned his/her ideology - two steps forward, one step back, etc.

Also, regarding your 2nd point, just because a politician cannot reverse or reform an entrenched program like SS or Medicare, and so does not get up and rant for their abolition, does not mean they are “socialist” as you wrongly state. But we have discussed this before and we will have to agree to disagree.

Ishii

What you seem to be saying is that democrats are secretly socialists, but they are afraid to say so publicly, so we just have to take your word that they are socialists. What you also seem to be saying is that republicans are secretly free market oriented, but they act like socialists in order to get elected. Once again, we have to take your word for this because there is no external proof of these claims.

Now, of all programs, social security and medicare epitomize the concept of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. In addition, they are purely redistributional programs, taking from those who work and giving to those who don’t work. But you can rationalize to yourself that they are not socialist.

The interesting thing is that compared to welfare programs like SS and medicare, pollution policy has the potential to be more free market. Pure capitalism presumes the lack of externalities and pollution is an externality, so there is the possibility that the transaction costs are so high that government intervention could be efficient. That of course, presumes that special interest groups don’t capture the process, which is certainly a concern.

 

[pnewton]

I regret Santorum taking the path of other American Catholics. I also regret his inability to recognize a basic false dichotomy. No man should be in politics, much less President, that thinks we are limited in the number of issues we can address at once. He lost something in this statement where I am concerned, probably my vote in the primary.

 

[ishii]

I regret Santorum taking the path of other American Catholics. I also regret his inability to recognize a basic false dichotomy. No man should be in politics, much less President, that thinks we are limited in the number of issues we can address at once. He lost something in this statement where I am concerned, probably my vote in the primary.

What is an American catholic ? Is it a catholic who is american or is it a catholic who has a certain ideology ?

 

[ringil]

Yes

That’s a tall claim sir.

I don’t buy it.

 

[estesbob]

That’s a tall claim sir.

I don’t buy it.

I’ll buy one atmosphere starts warming again and/or when a single scientist is able to produce a model that actually reflects what is going on. The global warming fiasco is going to damage the credibility of science for generations to come and now I am afraid the same is going to happen to the Church

 

[ringil]

I’ll buy one atmosphere starts warming again and/or when a single scientist is able to produce a model that actually reflects what is going on. The global warming fiasco is going to damage the credibility of science for generations to come and now I am afraid the same is going to happen to the Church

I guess we will see.

I back the Holy Father and I praise God for moving the Holy Father to authro the coming encyclical on the environment.

 

[godisgood77]

Btw, I am not “after Democrats” - I am merely trying to point out the truth about the modern Democratic party being 98% anti-life.

.

I’m not a democrat… so I don’t have a horse in the race… but saying that the democratic party is 98% is not the truth.