Pope’s climate views press Catholic candidates

[ishii]

Of course, the one thing I will give you credit for Ishii is that you have never disputed the marxist nature of social security. You are willing to live with marxism in order to have political stability. But the problem we have here, is that there are some posters who fully embrace the marxism of social security and medicare. It is kind of amusing watching people bring up the issue of subsidiarity when it comes to other welfare programs yet they become really silent when it comes to social security and medicare.

I’m glad you give me credit for one thing.

In a round about way we have arrived at our main disagreement which is this: it is one thing to call social security anti-subsidiarity, socialistic, etc. But it is quite another to say that as an elected leader and expect to live to fight another day for freedom, and for more common sense, non-socialist policies. We have to deal with political reality - and if a leader does not accomplish the dismantling of programs as entrenched as SS and medicare, I don’t think its fair to call them “Marxist.”

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

If a person is in favor of income redistribution, like the way that medicare was expanded to include prescription drugs, is a socialist then isn’t education a socialist concoction as well?

I don’t know how funding is done in the US but taxes for schools are collected from property taxes from home owners. Of course some home owners don’t have kids and as such in that situation it would be income redistribution.

There is certainly income redistribution in education, although it gets a little more complicated because in the US education is local and you can move away from places with excessive education spending. You can’t move, except overseas, to avoid SS and Medicare tax.

 

[ishii]

Rest your case? Sorry but your case is paper thin… I won’t play in to your circular logic where you make assertions and then as questions to have someone else prove your point. I rest my case until you can substantiate (even just a little) your broad assertions with no basis in fact.

You’re a tough one, godisgood (but I like that).

Okay for starters: all the pro-life measures in the past few years at the state level in America have been passed by Republican controlled legislatures, and opposed by the Democrats in the legislatures - in largely party-line votes. Therefore, the Republicans at the state level are pro-life, whereas the Democrats are anti-life.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

That’s true. Most Catholic democrats I know oppose abortion, suicide and the death penalty. It’s all the same thing, opposing the taking of human life.

You mean “personally opposed, but don’t want to force my beliefs on others” ? That kind of opposition? If so, it is meaningless.

Ishii

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

There is certainly income redistribution in education, although it gets a little more complicated because in the US education is local and you can move away from places with excessive education spending. You can’t move, except overseas, to avoid SS and Medicare tax.

So if a person or a party favors how education is funded (income redistribution) does that make them a socialist?

 

[stinkcat_14]

So if a person or a party favors how education is funded (income redistribution) does that make them a socialist?

I am not sure education spending by itself is enough to make one socialist. Although I would argue that federal spending on education is more socialistic than local spending. Even local taxpayers without kids benefit from education spending if they own a home. A better school makes the community more desirable and therefore increases housing values. You get none of that with federal education spending.

 

[phil19034]

I was hoping to get the answer from the horse’s mouth - but I guess we’re not on speaking terms.

What part of “protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America” that every president has sworn to do when elected goes against the Catholic church? Are you saying that to be president and be sworn in, means you have to be American first and Catholic second? What part of our constitution that many Catholics have died to protect goes against Catholic teaching? Be specific.

Ishii

It used to be against the law in America to hold public office unless he swore an oath of against foreign influence. This was used against Catholics, they had to swear non-allegiance to the Pope. One of the Carolinas was the last state to remove this law in the early 20th century.

In regards to the Constitution, I have nothing against it. It’s important and I value it. But it is not sacred like the Gospel, the Church, nor divine like God.

 

[phil19034]

That’s true. Most Catholic democrats I know oppose abortion, suicide and the death penalty. It’s all the same thing, opposing the taking of human life.

The problem though is that most of them still vote for pro-abortion democrats running for office.

Abortion & euthanasia trump all other issues. If leaders do not value the sanity of life for people who cannot defend themselves, then how can you trust their sense of morality on anything.

And the “I’m personally against abortion but don’t want to push my Catholic beliefs on others crowd” are the biggest cowards in the world. They apologize for their morality, they apologize for being Catholic.

Their argument could be used for a Muslim father stoning his daughter to death. The daughter “dis-honors” the family so “deserves death.”

If we allow abortion, why not allow parents to kill their children for bringing shame upon the family?

I know this is moving off topic… But when one candidate is anti abortion and the other is pro choice, Catholics MUST vote for the pro life candidate, regardless of party.

If the pro Life candidate is a registered communist and the pro choice person is a republican, still must vote for the Pro Life.

Defense of innocent life trumps all other issues. Period.

 

[estesbob]

That’s true. Most Catholic democrats I know oppose abortion, suicide and the death penalty. It’s all the same thing, opposing the taking of human life.

But they vote to keep those who promote this in power

 

[Crossbones]

The problem though is that most of them still vote for pro-abortion democrats running for office.

Abortion & euthanasia trump all other issues. If leaders do not value the sanity of life for people who cannot defend themselves, then how can you trust their sense of morality on anything.

And the “I’m personally against abortion but don’t want to push my Catholic beliefs on others crowd” are the biggest cowards in the world. They apologize for their morality, they apologize for being Catholic.

Their argument could be used for a Muslim father stoning his daughter to death. The daughter “dis-honors” the family so “deserves death.”

If we allow abortion, why not allow parents to kill their children for bringing shame upon the family?

I know this is moving off topic… But when one candidate is anti abortion and the other is pro choice, Catholics MUST vote for the pro life candidate, regardless of party.

If the pro Life candidate is a registered communist and the pro choice person is a republican, still must vote for the Pro Life.

Defense of innocent life trumps all other issues. Period.

Then I guess there is no sense in talking about this. Republicans can do whatever they want and Catholics must support them.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Then I guess there is no sense in talking about this. Republicans can do whatever they want and Catholics must support them.

Actually, there is no moral requirement to vote for a republican.

 

[Darryl1958]

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). Just 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

There are people here who overtly laud the main talking points of Marxism, and who openly state that capitalism has reached a point where it needs to be deconstructed.
It is difficult for me to take seriously any person that denies that the agenda of these people cannot be considered socialist, but that Reagan was a socialist.

 

[stinkcat_14]

There are people here who overtly laud the main talking points of Marxism, and who openly state that capitalism has reached a point where it needs to be deconstructed.
It is difficult for me to take seriously any person that denies that the agenda of these people cannot be considered socialist, but that Reagan was a socialist.

It cannot be disputed that Reagan supported a socialist policy.

For the record, I never denied that there may be some socialists out there. Which politicians have stated that capitalism needs to be deconstructed?

 

[Darryl1958]

It cannot be disputed that Reagan supported a socialist policy.

For the record, I never denied that there may be some socialists out there. Which politicians have stated that capitalism needs to be deconstructed?

Post 166.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Post 166.

What kind of politician is that poster. I mean, if Obama is not a socialist, and Reagan is not a socialist, both big government politicians, why are you so afraid of socialists if we have not elected any? The exception might be Bernie, but he is pretty harmless in my opinion, amusing, but harmless.

 

[ishii]

It cannot be disputed that Reagan supported a socialist policy.

For the record, I never denied that there may be some socialists out there. Which politicians have stated that capitalism needs to be deconstructed?

I thought we already established that Reagan was a socialist. And probably Goldwater too. And maybe Adam Smith.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I thought we already established that Reagan was a socialist. And probably Goldwater too. And maybe Adam Smith.

I never said anything about Goldwater or Smith, that is your claim.

As for Reagan, he took a socialist policy and made it more socialist. We can only judge Reagan by his behavior.

 

[ishii]

It used to be against the law in America to hold public office unless he swore an oath of against foreign influence. This was used against Catholics, they had to swear non-allegiance to the Pope. One of the Carolinas was the last state to remove this law in the early 20th century.

In regards to the Constitution, I have nothing against it. It’s important and I value it. But it is not sacred like the Gospel, the Church, nor divine like God.

I appreciate your response, phil19034.

In your previous post you implied that the constitution might be opposed to Catholic teaching when you said you are for “the Church before the constitution.” In what way would being loyal to the Pope/bishops prevent one from being loyal to the US constitution? Be specific.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

I never said anything about Goldwater or Smith, that is your claim.

As for Reagan, he took a socialist policy and made it more socialist. We can only judge Reagan by his behavior.

I think if you double checked, you would find that Goldwater voted as senator to fund social security and medicare. Therefore, Goldwater is a died in the wool socialist just like Reagan and Eugene Debs. As for Adam Smith, I believe both Reagan and Goldwater were influenced by his writings. If they both ended up socialist then I think we may need to revisit Adam Smith.

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

I think if you double checked, you would find that Goldwater voted as senator to fund social security and medicare. Therefore, Goldwater is a died in the wool socialist just like Reagan and Eugene Debs. As for Adam Smith, I believe both Reagan and Goldwater were influenced by his writings. If they both ended up socialist then I think we may need to revisit Adam Smith.

Ishii

I will take you at your word that Goldwater is a socialist.

As for Reagan being influenced by Adam Smith’s writings, I have not seen any evidence that he ever read them. A lot of people like to talk about Smith but few have read him.