That’s too bad.
Where is this question on the gay “marriage” thread?
That was a well-founded analysis, not excuses.
As I keep saying: where are all of these “YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO THE POPE” and “ARE YOU SAYING THE POPE DOESN’T KNOW WHAT HE’S TALKING ABOUT” on the gay “marriage” threads or the ones where the American government is making Little Sisters of the Poor pay for contraception for promiscuous college students?
Well to your first point of the CC having 2000 years experience, since it came about years after the Jews so why shouldn’t we be following them? Only God knows who is going to hell, that is all I know!OTOH – no one talks about hell much – it is probably more likely that an evil-doing, non-repentant Catholic will go to hell than his/her counterpart in some other religion or belief/value system. That’s bec supposedly we have the benefit of 2000 yrs of Church teachings and guidance and the sacraments. From those that have more will be expected
While I’m on the subject, it occurred to me as I was just in time to have the check-out lady put my groceries in my reusable shopping bag – so unaccustomed she is to anyone ever bringing their own bags – that if people can’t do very tiny things like that then they won’t be able to do the 100s of other tiny things and many bigger things to reduce their harm to their fellow humans and others of God’s creatures. Of course, I understand the ramifications of how my actions contribute to the harming others, and maybe others don’t, so it would be a much greater fault on my part not to bring my own bags and the 100s of other things I do to reduce my harm.
But surely everyone should know about these types of simple actions to reduce harms. Surely everyone should know anthropogenic climate change is real. There is NO excuse not to know. Not now. Maybe before 1995 (the year science reached 95% confidence that ACC was real), but not now. Listening to and believing what liars and dupers say is not much of an excuse either. God gave us brains and hearts to figure things out even when one mistakenly thinks there is a controversy about it (when it is only the fossil-fuel-funded CC denialist industry that has duped people into believing there is a controversy or that ACC is not happening).
I was glad to see that William F. Buckley – a Catholic and arch-conservative – came to accept climate science at the end of his life.
Here is a site for conservatives that accept climate science, “Climate Conservative.” Hope this helps:
climateconservative.org/
climateconservative.org/?page_id=28
I never heard anything about the pope not knowing what he is talking about.
Did the Democrats squander it last election?
YET…We hold the rock solid teaching and guidance of all the ages…the prior popes and prior Magisteriums who always kept intact certain unchanging fundamentals and this*** is** *what Jesus would do. Christ is the same - past, present and future and His teachings are meant for all time and for all men and all nations. It was recently reported (whether accurately or not) that the pope chastised conservatives for being too focused on abortion. What good are concerns about the environment if you’re not even allowed to be born? And how are we ultimately helping the poor if our only concern for them is for their material being??Yes, this is true. I have Protestant friends who think Catholics are socialists. Of course the whole USCCB/ACA/religious liberty thing hitting the press did help undermine that stereotype. The Pope, however, is getting me back into a little trouble though…You would have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to see that personally he is a liberal. The question remains how much will that affect his pontificate. My guess is he’ll do his job, i.e., stay “conservative” on the so-called moral issues, abortion, gay marriage, etc. and stick his neck out for the most liberal reading possible of social teaching - prioritizing equality and care for the poor in economic systems, environmental concerns, etc. ** In the end, pretty close to what Jesus would do**…whether we like it or not as “conservatives” or “liberals.”
Nope. It is merely an unsupported statement. To prove the statement to be false, you would have to demonstrate that Reagonomics does, in fact, work.
No, the Pope did not chastise conservatives on this issue as you assert.YET…We hold the rock solid teaching and guidance of all the ages…the prior popes and prior Magisteriums who always kept intact certain unchanging fundamentals and this*** is*** what Jesus would do. Christ is the same - past, present and future and His teachings are meant for all time and for all men and all nations. It was recently reported (whether accurately or not) that the pope chastised conservatives for being too focused on abortion. What good are concerns about the environment if you’re not even allowed to be born? And how are we ultimately helping the poor if our only concern for them is for their material being??
Re-reading the article, I see technically he did not mention conservatives, but they are the ones who are predominately pro-life. If you don’t like the Huff Post, then there are a myriad of other articles and a thread on this topic.
Is this what you are referring to?YET…We hold the rock solid teaching and guidance of all the ages…the prior popes and prior Magisteriums who always kept intact certain unchanging fundamentals and this*** is*** what Jesus would do. Christ is the same - past, present and future and His teachings are meant for all time and for all men and all nations. It was recently reported (whether accurately or not) that the pope chastised conservatives for being too focused on abortion. What good are concerns about the environment if you’re not even allowed to be born? And how are we ultimately helping the poor if our only concern for them is for their material being??
See above - there was also a corresponding article on how the church will fall like a house of cards if she focuses too much on the abortion and gay issue. The real culprit might be the media, but I can see the merit of this article in the OP.
Can you give an example of which conservative economic theories work and which liberal theories fail? For example, one can argue that Reagan followed Keynesian policies, since he cut taxes and increased government spending. On the other hand, Clinton raised taxes and we still had robust economic growth. Getting at the root of cause and effect in macroeconomics is difficult if not impossible.Conservative economic theories work, liberal ones = EPIC FAIL.
I trust then that all those who support the Pope’s position have increased their personal charitable contributions to alleviate poverty, homelessness, sickness, and so forth?
Why do you think giving cash is the answer, that it solves anything?
I was just citing what I read. Possibly taxes were factored in. Possibly closure of the stock market at some point was factored in. Possibly asset depreciation once it got going was factored in. I don’t know.
Giving one’s time should work then, no? I’m not sure I know which side you’re on.
I agree that it’s difficult. For a small example, did Clinton’s tax increase add to prosperity or were Reagan’s measures of such effect that the Clinton hikes made little difference until Clinton’s last year in office?
This makes sense. More sellers than buyers generally depress the markets, real estate, and most of other assets. And it has a domino effect, triggering margin calls and reducing collateral worth, reducing credit and eventually killing supply of basic goods as well.
