B
Birdpreacher
Guest
Is this cartoon something, as a matter of social catholic teaching, we can learn from or is it merely propoganda?
bobonline.net/progxiansd/ssj/index.html
bobonline.net/progxiansd/ssj/index.html
- Status
S
Spencerian
Guest
It’s propaganda.
The link above the cartoon goes to a church group that appears to ask for people with disparate views on Christianity that become so distorted or diluted that we, as Catholics, could not pin them down on what they believe and why, and its basis in Christian history.
Al Franken, once comedian and writer and now U.S. Senator (yep, I see the irony, too), apparently co-wrote the cartoon, which is rich with the satire and misinformation that comedians use to be funny but many confuse as fact.
Besides, the cartoon isn’t even funny, even when I let my horns grow out of my head in devious curiosity for greater understanding.
B
Birdpreacher
Guest
Interesting…It’s propaganda.
The link above the cartoon goes to a church group that appears to ask for people with disparate views on Christianity that become so distorted or diluted that we, as Catholics, could not pin them down on what they believe and why, and its basis in Christian history.
Al Franken, once comedian and writer and now U.S. Senator (yep, I see the irony, too), apparently co-wrote the cartoon, which is rich with the satire and misinformation that comedians use to be funny but many confuse as fact.
Besides, the cartoon isn’t even funny, even when I let my horns grow out of my head in devious curiosity for greater understanding.
E
ESMDHokie77
Guest
seems awfully blasphemous.
I
ibo
Guest
My opinion, but I would like to know Americans for they would understand better, I find it very interesting, but it is addressed to an American point of view. meaning, I could catch the bottom of the line.
S
St_Francis
Guest
I would say mere propaganda: it is using the fallacy of the strawman argument to make its point, or creating a false image of the opposing argument and then attacking that rather than the actual argument.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
My first thought after finishing reading it--------“Terribly unfair.”
I’m not a neo-conservative------I’m just a conservative-----but basically it says “Anybody that supports free markets, business and free enterprise is a compassionless, greedy bastard who claims to be a Christian but is actually totally opposed to its basic teachings. Shame on you.”
It also does not differentiate between the various teachings of various Christian denominations----the reader comes away thinking that there is no difference between what Catholics teach and what SOME Evangelicals teach.
It’s not “blasphemous,” but it DOES attempt to fit Jesus in as part of a particular ideology----namely, “liberal, mildly socialistic.” Which is just as wrong s trying to fit Jesus as a “free-market, free enterprise, conservative” Jesus. jesus was beyond politics. Therefore, as apolitical screed/satire, this fails.
I’m not a neo-conservative------I’m just a conservative-----but basically it says “Anybody that supports free markets, business and free enterprise is a compassionless, greedy bastard who claims to be a Christian but is actually totally opposed to its basic teachings. Shame on you.”
It also does not differentiate between the various teachings of various Christian denominations----the reader comes away thinking that there is no difference between what Catholics teach and what SOME Evangelicals teach.
It’s not “blasphemous,” but it DOES attempt to fit Jesus in as part of a particular ideology----namely, “liberal, mildly socialistic.” Which is just as wrong s trying to fit Jesus as a “free-market, free enterprise, conservative” Jesus. jesus was beyond politics. Therefore, as apolitical screed/satire, this fails.
I
ibo
Guest
I liked it.My first thought after finishing reading it--------“Terribly unfair.”
I’m not a neo-conservative------I’m just a conservative-----but basically it says “Anybody that supports free markets, business and free enterprise is a compassionless, greedy bastard who claims to be a Christian but is actually totally opposed to its basic teachings. Shame on you.”
It also does not differentiate between the various teachings of various Christian denominations----the reader comes away thinking that there is no difference between what Catholics teach and what SOME Evangelicals teach.
It’s not “blasphemous,” but it DOES attempt to fit Jesus in as part of a particular ideology----namely, “liberal, mildly socialistic.” Which is just as wrong s trying to fit Jesus as a “free-market, free enterprise, conservative” Jesus. jesus was beyond politics. Therefore, as apolitical screed/satire, this fails.
J
JohnAlexander
Guest
I think the cartoon is terrible. Jesus should not be used in such an irreverent manner.
Using Christianity as justification for government charity is absurd. Jesus never commanded that governments should feed the hungry and clothe the naked. It is individual people who need to do so. Charity is not charity if you are forcing people to do it and even less so if you are using someone else’s money.
Leftists are all in favor of taking care of the poor (as long as it is with someone else’s money) They care about minorities (as long as they are cleaning their homes, cooking their food, taking care of their children or mowing their lawns - and they live far away) And more most important - as long as they vote Democrat. As proof of this just look at what Democrats thought of African-Americans before slavery was abolished. They were either actively pro slavery or for the status quo. As long as African-Americans could not vote they didn’t care about them.
G
George_2007
Guest
You hit the nail on the head with the distinction of government, coerced charity versus true charity. This is a very simple distinction, but completely missed by so many. The left’s narrative represented in this cartoon cannot withstand this simple argument.
Aside from the fact that you can’t outsource your charity to the government and have it be true charity, look at what you get when the government is in the business of taking care of people. Godless ideologies being promoted. Look how hard Christian members of congress have to fight to keep abortion from being promoted by government-funded programs. The worst of the secular culture is promoted when government runs a social program. That’s not to mention the corruption and waste that you get with large, centralized organizations.
Aside from all this, the supply-side argument is inarguably correct in its essence. Jobs do in fact come from wealthy people. Directly or indirectly, everyone’s livelyhood derives from some person who had “more than he needed” using that wealth to finance some new economic activity. When the freedom to do so is limited or the income generated is taxed too heavily, the cost of starting or expanding a business goes up and the incentive to do so goes down. This does not mean there should be no restraint or no regulation or no taxation. Is the system abused? Of course it is. Do some people cheat and coerce their way to wealth? Of couse they do. Why would you expect any different? Do some fathers abuse their children? Do some schoolteachers cheat the system and slack off on the job? Do some priests abuse their power? Do some police officers take bribes? Of course. Should we then distrust and seek to limit the institutions of fatherhood, teaching, the church and law enforcement? Of course not. Why, then, does the idea that we need to fundamentally distrust and limit private business enterprise/the wealthy gain so much legitimacy among Christians today?
It’s the secularist government colossus that Catholics ought to be much more worried about than big business. Corruption runs unchecked in government at least as easily (I say much more) than in business. A business can’t put you in jail or take your children away. A business isn’t taking your money by threat of imprisonment and giving it to Planned Parenthood.
A
ANNE_2
Guest
Regarding the insulting, false and misleading cartoon which pokes fun at Jesus and Christians - - -
Whatever happened to:
“Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” ? ? ?
CCC - " 2142 The second commandment prescribes respect for the Lord’s name. Like the first commandment, it belongs to the virtue of religion and more particularly it governs our use of speech in sacred matters. "
CCC - " 2146 The second commandment forbids the abuse of God’s name, i.e., every improper use of the names of God, Jesus Christ, but also of the Virgin Mary and all the saints."
Where is our outrage ? ? ?
Whatever happened to:
“Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” ? ? ?
CCC - " 2142 The second commandment prescribes respect for the Lord’s name. Like the first commandment, it belongs to the virtue of religion and more particularly it governs our use of speech in sacred matters. "
CCC - " 2146 The second commandment forbids the abuse of God’s name, i.e., every improper use of the names of God, Jesus Christ, but also of the Virgin Mary and all the saints."
Where is our outrage ? ? ?
B
Birdpreacher
Guest
Read the entire cartoon and you will see that Jesus Christ makes an appearance. The supply side Jesus is attempted to be his foil
E
exnihilo
Guest
Al Franken is not a Christian. I for one wouldn’t learn about Christian morality from someone who does not even believe in it.
The greatest problem I see is that the carton makes government with everything. You can most certainly have charity without government. And most importantly you can have more charity when you have less government. Government stifles productivity. That has been thoroughly proven by the last 200 years. The less government the more resources you have to share.
B
bentcurve
Guest
I would much rather simply be indigent against it.
I think we need to approach social issues the way God approaches us. It is our calling as his church to guide people to the truth so they may choose him for themselves. God gave us freewill, and I do not think it is ever fair to say that it is our job to take choices or practices away from people because we believe so. God didn’t. This is what confuses me about the church. Who cares if homosexuals are given legal partnerships? We do not have to marry them, and it is their choice. We should be trying to guide them to truth through kindness and grace, not forcing things on them through power and government.
We pass the grace and peace to each other. We not not pass judgement and condemnation. We offer grace to our fellow men because that is what God has modeled. How well are we doing?
The church needs to stay out of government and politics.
I think we need to approach social issues the way God approaches us. It is our calling as his church to guide people to the truth so they may choose him for themselves. God gave us freewill, and I do not think it is ever fair to say that it is our job to take choices or practices away from people because we believe so. God didn’t. This is what confuses me about the church. Who cares if homosexuals are given legal partnerships? We do not have to marry them, and it is their choice. We should be trying to guide them to truth through kindness and grace, not forcing things on them through power and government.
We pass the grace and peace to each other. We not not pass judgement and condemnation. We offer grace to our fellow men because that is what God has modeled. How well are we doing?
The church needs to stay out of government and politics.
P
PJM
Guest
It makes a mockery of God, of Religion and of Catholics.
B
bentcurve
Guest
Your right, he couldn’t possibly make a good point or have something of value to offer since he is a JEW!
Can you find me one OBJECTIVE item that proves this? What we have seen is that less government proves great for those with wealth and influence. The Guilded age is a perfect example. The problem is, the ones with the money and influence is what people focus on, not the poor people working coal pits naked because they could only afford 1 set of clothes, who fed their babies opium instead of food because it was cheaper than bread and made them stop crying.
The last two hundred years has also shown us that if you stop trade routes to nations who do not agree with, so they cannot import food, your doctrine always looks better.
E
exnihilo
Guest
Well I guess he could. But he doesn’t.Your right, he couldn’t possibly make a good point or have something of value to offer since he is a JEW!
I suggest he make a Supply Side Muhammad cartoon and publish it widely. He surely knows as much about Islamic morality and the world needs his witty insights!
The Soviet Union would be the best example. It tried to compete with the US. It was a battle between as close to total government control of the economy as you can get and a somewhat free economy. The Soviets went bankrupt pretty quickly. It was not long into the experiment that their people had to suffer with considerably less material wealth.
There is no reason to believe that government will be fair if the people are not. If you have an unfair society what makes you think through some voting magic they will become fair? A democratic government can only reflect the people. So if the society is unfair that unfairness becomes law.
Inequality is not solved by fiat but by changing hearts. And until you can it is far better if the poor get a smaller portion of a much larger pie. If you look at any stats of the American poor you’ll find out they are actually very rich compared to the rest of the world and even common folks a generation ago. The average American poor person lives better than I did 10 years ago and I was not considered poor.
B
bentcurve
Guest
While I agree to some degree, we have to look at what we are honestly supporting from a moral standpoint as well. I do not want to support anything that commodifies people or whole cultures for profit. I want to know that I supported systems and businesses that coincided with my moral feelings regard the sacredness of all life.
Much of Russia’s failings were also because they had no way of feeding themselves. A good example of the inverse would be Canada, which has much more government than America and yet produces a similar per captia lifestyle. Or Japan. Or Germany. So on, and so forth.
Actually, American’s are not that rich per capita is much of the world. South Korea has like. I think, the sixth largest economy in the world, but only 1/20th the population of the us. Per capita income is much higher.
I will agree though that our poor live better than many “wealthy” the the rest of the world. My thing is, is that not the ideal?
Much of Russia’s failings were also because they had no way of feeding themselves. A good example of the inverse would be Canada, which has much more government than America and yet produces a similar per captia lifestyle. Or Japan. Or Germany. So on, and so forth.
Actually, American’s are not that rich per capita is much of the world. South Korea has like. I think, the sixth largest economy in the world, but only 1/20th the population of the us. Per capita income is much higher.
I will agree though that our poor live better than many “wealthy” the the rest of the world. My thing is, is that not the ideal?
E
exnihilo
Guest
I agree. ‘Big government’ leads to big corporations because by its very nature it is authoritarian and hierarchical. With big corporations you loose choice. You dont have the option of supporting one company because it does things more ethically.
The Western economies are pretty similar these days. All have big government. I think Russia’s problems were more in the nature of its terrible communist government. The whole Eastern Block had the same problem as did Communist China.
True. Americans think they are rich but the truth is they have a decaying infrastructure and massive debt. Most people just assume the US is at the top which is why things go on as they do.
I
IBombAtomically
Guest
I don’t see this cartoon as attacking religion or The Church. It’s attacking Republicans, politicians in particular, and showing how some of their ideals are opposed to what Jesus taught, or how we should be as Christians. I love Jesus, I love the Catholic Church, and I think this cartoon is poignant.
- Status