Republican Primary

[Pork_Roll]

I dont agree with you 100%, but i see some merit to your argument. That said, if choosing between a Democrat and Republican candidate, you have to make a determination of which to support.

I’m intentionally being hard on the GOP. I’ve never voted democrat my entire life. I probably will never. There are some disturbing issues developing in our country right now: greater drift of income between rich and poor, highest incarceration rate in the world, loss of civil liberties, culture of death, overt catholic discrimination, the nanny state which makes us fear everything from Iran to the pig-flu… etc. that have both the democrats and the GOP hands all over it.

We Catholics need to demand more from our politicians or we’re going to end up like living in a nightmare of secular tyranny.

 

[CMatt25]

Please stop the insinuations about members of the opposition as all standing in opposition of most Catholic core moral values(it is not true and you know it.Their platform is not any more perfect than the platform of the Republican Party. We are all seiners and you gotta know by now there is more than one very evil moral issue to weight in the whole of it.
I never hear you or others here mention and get up in arms about the neglect of the poor mother in the projects of this country and her babe’s health and welfare. I suppose you are going to tell me what your Mr Romney said yesterday ," shan’t be worrying out for them much, after all there is a safety net to take care of them"and i suppose his thinking would likely add ‘the poor buggers’…
Peace, Carlan

Carlan, but take heart and even if there shall always be some, rest assure that His Holiness Pope John Paul II mentioned the poor.

“The needs of the poor take priority over the desires of the rich.” (Pope John Paul II, Toronto, Canada, 1984 )

shc.edu/theolibrary/poverty.htm

 

[_Abyssinia]

The problem with the GOP is where their policies don’t support what the church teaches. These would be sins of omissions. For example: they favor military spending that goes beyond what is necessary for national defense. They do not protect family run and small businesses from large corporations. They do not do enough to protect the environment or development in poor countries. I believe that the pro-death secularists and to a lesser extent the heresies of Protestantism are responsible for the moral decay of our country.

Catholics should be catholic first, and not GOP or democrat. Our job on earth is to defend the truth and not the policies of the GOP which many times benefit the rich at the expense of families and the environment.

How do the Democrats help development in poor countries? Maybe their idea of development is the Mexico City Policy? Or maybe Obama’s idea of ‘‘development’’ in poor countries is to illegally push abortion in Kenya. George Bush has been praised for helping millions in Africa.

Do you think the Republicans are anti environment? Protecting the environment is important, but it is not a big election issue, and it is not a non negotiable in the voting guidelines of Church teaching.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The problem with the GOP is where their policies don’t support what the church teaches. These would be sins of omissions. For example: they favor military spending that goes beyond what is necessary for national defense. They do not protect family run and small businesses from large corporations. They do not do enough to protect the environment or development in poor countries. I believe that the pro-death secularists and to a lesser extent the heresies of Protestantism are responsible for the moral decay of our country.

Catholics should be catholic first, and not GOP or democrat. Our job on earth is to defend the truth and not the policies of the GOP which many times benefit the rich at the expense of families and the environment.

The problem occurs when cutting back too much on military spending has the effect of encouraging one’s enemies.

The U.S. cut back military spending in the 1930’s and the direct result was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, triggering the War in the Pacific.

The U.S. cut back military spending after World War II and the direct result was the North Korean attack on South Korea.

The U.S. cut back military spending after “The Cold War” and the direct result was the al Qaeda attack on 9/11.

The issue is not to spend without a threat analysis, but to maintain military strength where the threat analyses point to the existence of the threat.

Right now we are once again back in that dangerous area of lower military spending, cutting back on active units, parking airplanes and ships, dismissing trained soldiers, to the extent that our enemies could be emboldened to attack us again.

Yes, it IS complicated.

There was the infamous Dean Atcheson speech.

There was the “Gorelick Wall”.

There was the deliberate throwing away or deliberate mis-targeting of weapons.

There were several occasions in which the United States deliberately reoriented its intelligence operations to cause them to be less effective. [Both Presidents Carter and Clinton did that.]

But that merely speaks to the need to be more comprehensive in our threat assessments.

 

[Carlan]

Carlan, but take heart and even if there shall always be some, rest assure that His Holiness Pope John Paul II mentioned the poor.

“The needs of the poor take priority over the desires of the rich.” (Pope John Paul II, Toronto, Canada, 1984 )

shc.edu/theolibrary/poverty.htm

Thanks for your support Matt, and how Blessed John Paul11 loved the poor and oppressed and the little ones! They can all have hope in the prayers he offers for them always.:yup::heaven: Peace, Carlan

 

[TMC]

Exactly. TMC is just misreprenting other’s viewpoints.

Exactly. In fact, that outlook is very much contrary to Church teaching.

Please don’t misrepresent my comments. My comment was that I hoped people were not being serious when suggesting the government should ignore the poor. If they were not serious about that, then my hopes were realized. If they were serious about that position, then that position goes squarely against Catholic teaching.

 

[rlg94086]

Please don’t misrepresent my comments. My comment was that I hoped people were not being serious when suggesting the government should ignore the poor. If they were not serious about that, then my hopes were realized. If they were serious about that position, then that position goes squarely against Catholic teaching.

Who said “government” should ignore the poor? I know a few posters said the federal government has no role, according to the Constitution, but I don’t know of anyone on the board who said there should be no government role (i.e. local, state).

I think you are misrepresenting people, which is my point. There is nothing revolting or anti-Catholic about applying subsidiarity to government roles. Your comments were either out of ignorance or a lack of charity.

 

[TMC]

Who said “government” should ignore the poor? I know a few posters said the federal government has no role, according to the Constitution, but I don’t know of anyone on the board who said there should be no government role (i.e. local, state).

I think you are misrepresenting people, which is my point. There is nothing revolting or anti-Catholic about applying subsidiarity to government roles. Your comments were either out of ignorance or a lack of charity.

You can read the thread as well as I can. There were multiple out of context biblical quotes cited, with at least one poster directly suggesting that the bible supports ignoring the poor. I expressed the hope that those posts were not serious, and no one has chimed in to defend them.

But as a practical matter, arguing that the government has no role in helping the poor amounts to the same thing as advocating the government ignoring the poor, whether you base that argument on your reading of the Constitution or elsewhere. No serious politician or legal scholar believes that the Constitution bars the federal government from helping the poor. If it did, it would be both morally and practically necessary that we amend it to fix that. Catholic teaching is crystal clear on this point – the government has an affirmative duty to help the poor. Do you deny that is the case?

 

[rlg94086]

You can read the thread as well as I can. There were multiple out of context biblical quotes cited, with at least one poster directly suggesting that the bible supports ignoring the poor. I expressed the hope that those posts were not serious, and no one has chimed in to defend them.

I guess you should have quoted those posters directly, rather than making a nebulous condemnation of “those posters.”

TMC:

But as a practical matter, arguing that the government has no role in helping the poor amounts to the same thing as advocating the government ignoring the poor, whether you base that argument on your reading of the Constitution or elsewhere. No serious politician or legal scholar believes that the Constitution bars the federal government from helping the poor. If it did, it would be both morally and practically necessary that we amend it to fix that. Catholic teaching is crystal clear on this point – the government has an affirmative duty to help the poor. Do you deny that is the case?

I disagree with your simplistic statement. There is a whole section of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church regarding government’s role. I will have to quote from it later to demonstrate how government’s “affirmative duty” is not to permanently replace charity with bureaucratic social programs. In fact, it is to regulate the economy and support private initiatives. When the government does take a direct role, it is supposed to be for a limited period until the other segments of societies can take on those duties.

There are constitutional and legal scholars who argue that the federal government has no place in social security, welfare, etc. So, your comment that there aren’t any shows you are ignorant on the matter. A strict constructionist would point out the the role of the federal government is very limited; the rest left up to the states. It’s called the 10th Amendment.

 

[TMC]

I guess you should have quoted those posters directly, rather than making a nebulous condemnation of “those posters.”

I disagree with your simplistic statement. There is a whole section of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church regarding government’s role. I will have to quote from it later to demonstrate how government’s “affirmative duty” is not to permanently replace charity with bureaucratic social programs. In fact, it is to regulate the economy and support private initiatives. When the government does take a direct role, it is supposed to be for a limited period until the other segments of societies can take on those duties.

There are constitutional and legal scholars who argue that the federal government has no place in social security, welfare, etc. So, your comment that there aren’t any shows you are ignorant on the matter. A strict constructionist would point out the the role of the federal government is very limited; the rest left up to the states. It’s called the 10th Amendment.

I couldn’t disagree more with your reading of Catholic doctrine. No one is saying that the government should completely replace private charity, but the government clearly has a more active role than you describe. And nothing in Catholic doctrine mandates that the government’s role be for a limited period.

I agree that there are so-called scholars that have an anachronistic and out-of-step view of the Constitution, just as there are so-called scientists that believe in a geo-centric universe or that deny evolution. Note that I said there were no serious politicians or constitutional scholars that share that view of the Constitution - including any of the current Presidential candidates of either major party.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I hope the posters that misrepresent the posters who have tried to explain Catholic social doctrine in regards to the role of government by simplifying it to “the government ignoring the needs of the poor” will actually give the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church a read and educate themselves, rather than claim that other Catholics who have read and understand it are “revolting.”

I was going to respond, but you said it better than I could have.

All I keep hearing from Obama supporters is that it we are ignoring the needs of the poor by not supporting federal government entitlements. They claim to be able read our minds and tell us in what “spirit” we are acting.

No doubt those of us who disapprove of federal government entitlements give to St. Vincent de Paul Society, volunteer, donate, and support Catholic Charities. We do it on our own dime, and physically meet and work with the poor. We don’t believe in pawning it off to the government, which has only worsened the situation of the poor.

Some of the biggest supporters of Obama are those employed by government social services. They are being PAID a salary and no doubt fear losing their jobs should government spending on entitlements be curbed.

It is getting tiresome to constantly retype responses to attacks on conservative mindsets and getting no direct answers, so I will save this post and others and repost them as needed.

 

[qui_est_ce]

It is getting tiresome to constantly retype responses to attacks on conservative mindsets and getting no direct answers, so I will save this post and others and repost them as needed.

Here is a post from YADA that I saved, and with his permission am repeating it here.

I am not rich - never have been - never will be … I want government [at all lvels] to do those things that are proper to their role AND THUS I do not believe that if you want or need to feed or house people in your local community - you can do so better/efficiently by first sending that Dollar to Washington - pass through one or more government agencies - before it returns to your local community - to feed or house the intended recipient … nor can I see how that fact would put me at odds with Catholic Social Teaching …

Suppporting parties and candidates that are pro-Abortion, pro-Euthanasia, pro-Gay Marriage are at odds with Catholic Social Teaching … and abortion is always intrinsically evil - no ifs and or buts … no compromise - always and everywhere a moral evil …

Ringil, TMC, CMATT,

I invite you to respond to this excellent post by YADA.

 

[Carlan]

Who said “government” should ignore the poor? I know a few posters said the federal government has no role, according to the Constitution, but I don’t know of anyone on the board who said there should be no government role (i.e. local, state).

I think you are misrepresenting people, which is my point. There is nothing revolting or anti-Catholic about applying subsidiarity to government roles. Your comments were either out of ignorance or a lack of charity.

You know, I believe States do all they can for the poor, and our Church people do also, not only, for the poor in our states but for the need of our Native American children, and how about Catholic Charities and their work with the poor of the world…
They do do, however, why do you want to exempt the Federal Government’s role in the compassion we the people should loving give to the serious need of the many millions less fortunate . It is God’s will that we love our neighbor as we love ourselves If only for the 1st commandment, you must love God with your whole heart, mind and soul, and the 2nd, and your neighbor as yourself. The federal Government is you. Peace, Carlan

 

[Josephene]

Apologies for not being in the flow of the topic at hand , at least in a direct manner …

Again , sharing few thoughts …

holyspiritinteractive.net/kids/saints/0203.asp today , on Feast of St.Blase , a saint from Turkey , before the times of the schism , patron of all with afflictions of the throat …good for all with spiritual afflictions too , one would assume .

.thus , very relevant for our times , which are awash, in curses and blasphemy, overt and hidden , lies againsy sacredness of life , marriage …idolatry or greed for power, moving persons , to resort to all sort of unChristian behaviors - esp. of the throat , using media …

and in this connection , with election , these too -

Just realised that even the name of Newt Gingrich , sort of resonates with a reverse of King Henry the 8th - like in, Gingrich ( resembling a bit - King Henry ) and Newt , for Ninth , instead of 8th !

( Well, God in His mercy , might like us a bit of light hearted fun in this season too )

Thus , instead of the 6 wives of King Henry the 8th , we have the Newt the Ninth , with one good wife now , with whom he seems to have made peace , in more areas than just marriage …

and may be God given , to help the nation , in which there are possibly millions , who too need to find grace of forgiveness and mercy , for themselves and others , esp . in this area !

Such a grace then, extending through the diffrent separated churches - we cannot possibly even imagine what could be the outcome - other than words of Bl.John Paul 11 - a new spring time , of faith , holiness - through Europe …M.East …, may be the unemployed in Europe , would somehow find means to become missioanries , pilgrims .to China , even Russia Africa, Asia …and reverse too …

The Ninth , being a history expert can look up also some recent history to see if there are troubling patterns - of the war being waged against the children of The Women ,as foretold in Book of Rev . - this esp. so , against those who love and honor The Woman , as The Mother of the Lord ( Holy Spirit inspired words from Elisabeth .)

There is the rcent history of aggressive trials against The Church …and if the Fla . pattern of attacks when the idol of power is threatend is an indication , should give many , long deep pause …as to what might be in store , for any who are seemed as against the grand plan, from the time of the days of Joseph Smith …

Even the auto industry , headed by Romeny’s father - has not looked up to specifics , but possibly good to do so , so that , like the Robama care bad yeast , good to see …before it is too late .

Michigan and the connection with Renault , French based …both with strong Catholic connections - American Motors , bought out by Chrysler , now no more …problems with lay offs in Renault during the link with AMC …large scale problems in MIchigan , even now

Is there some connection or pattern …in the mode of the so called 'cretaive destruction ’ which is said to be the motto of titans such as who are after profits , in paper , at risk of all else !

Again , only superficial thoughts …yet , after having been surprised in the debates as to how much of the problems of Robama care have been left unaddressed , thought these areas too , if there is any merit , better to be looked into now !

May the prayers of St.Blase help to remove any and all curses and its effects from all our lives, help us to see and proclaim the truth , to the best of our ability !

God Bless !

 

[bbarrick8383]

You know, I believe States do all they can for the poor, and our Church people do also, not only, for the poor in our states but for the need of our Native American children, and how about Catholic Charities and their work with the poor of the world…
They do do, however, why do you want to exempt the Federal Government’s role in the compassion we the people should loving give to the serious need of the many millions less fortunate . It is God’s will that we love our neighbor as we love ourselves If only for the 1st commandment, you must love God with your whole heart, mind and soul, and the 2nd, and your neighbor as yourself. The federal Government is you. Peace, Carlan

Your ideas of our federal government is not me.

 

[rlg94086]

I couldn’t disagree more with your reading of Catholic doctrine. No one is saying that the government should completely replace private charity, but the government clearly has a more active role than you describe. And nothing in Catholic doctrine mandates that the government’s role be for a limited period.

It does, but I have no time to find it for you right now…have to head off to work.

TMC:

I agree that there are so-called scholars that have an anachronistic and out-of-step view of the Constitution, just as there are so-called scientists that believe in a geo-centric universe or that deny evolution. Note that I said there were no serious politicians or constitutional scholars that share that view of the Constitution - including any of the current Presidential candidates of either major party.

“So-called” scholars.

I’m thinking it may not be worth discussing the matter with you, since you discount people who understand the Constitution as “anachronistic and out-of-step.” I may disagree with taking it completely to the original intent, but I fully respect their views. You would last about 30-seconds in a debate with one of them.

Anyway, as you dismiss such views as non-serious, I will confine my discussion with you to Church teaching. I look forward to helping you understand the social doctrine of the Church at a deeper level.

 

[rlg94086]

You know, I believe States do all they can for the poor, and our Church people do also, not only, for the poor in our states but for the need of our Native American children, and how about Catholic Charities and their work with the poor of the world…
They do do, however, why do you want to exempt the Federal Government’s role in the compassion we the people should loving give to the serious need of the many millions less fortunate . It is God’s will that we love our neighbor as we love ourselves If only for the 1st commandment, you must love God with your whole heart, mind and soul, and the 2nd, and your neighbor as yourself. The federal Government is you. Peace, Carlan

1. I’ve never said I want to exempt the federal government’s role - just limit it to its proper role.
2. Because I believe in following the teaching of the Church.
3. It is a perversion and simplification of Church teaching and the role of government to say “the federal government is you.” A bloated bureaucracy providing welfare to the detriment of human dignity is not “me.”

 

[qui_est_ce]

The federal Government is you. Peace, Carlan

No it is not.

 

[scipio337]

I couldn’t disagree more with your reading of Catholic doctrine. No one is saying that the government should completely replace private charity, but the government clearly has a more active role than you describe. And nothing in Catholic doctrine mandates that the government’s role be for a limited period.

I agree that there are so-called scholars that have an anachronistic and out-of-step view of the Constitution, just as there are so-called scientists that believe in a geo-centric universe or that deny evolution. Note that I said there were no serious politicians or constitutional scholars that share that view of the Constitution - including any of the current Presidential candidates of either major party.

So know a limited Federalist reading of the US Constitution = geo-centric solar system?

How on earth did the United States survive, up until 1935 or 1965??

 

[rlg94086]

So know a limited Federalist reading of the US Constitution = geo-centric solar system?

How on earth did the United States survive, up until 1935 or 1965??