The rise of the religious left

[donsnow]

The issue is not “people have a right to health” but “people have a right to health care.” The problem was that insurance companies (free market) had no incentive to insure people with pre-existing conditions over which the people had no control, things like domestic violence and birth defects. This meant that certain people did not have access to the same levels of health care as did healthy people.

There’s no real right to health care, since there’s no right to good health, imho. That’s one of those unwon or imaginary rights that people make up. There was no problem, in my mind, that insurance companies could say ‘no’ to applicants on reasonable grounds. You can go into a restruant and see the sign that says, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”

That’s a real right, the right to say ‘no’. I suspect an abusive trait that refuses to allow ‘no’ for an answer from any private business.

You just keep doing your thing.

I have very few things which I haven’t adopted from our culture and/or our societies.

Remember this? youtube.com/watch?v=KCOd-qWZB_g&feature=player_embedded

It takes my 46kbs modem too long to download video. Thanks, anyway.

 

[donsnow]

The private markets are at least partially the cause for a lot of the mess we find ourselves in. I am amazed when I hear folks saying oh if only business or the wealthy who create jobs weren’t taxed as much they would create jobs. No. Greed sets in. We already went down that path. The wealthy were given tax cuts and we ended up with the worst recession since the Great Depression.

If you don’t understand how any Catholic could vote Democratic, I have to assume you’re not really an Independent voter then, at least not if you choose between the 2 parties.

But of course health care is a right. The Preamble of the Constituion includes, "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare…

The 9th amanedment, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Promoting the general welfare and not denying the right to affordable, adequate healthcare as another right we wish to retain sure sounds like it is constitutional.

But I’m disgruntled with both parties too. And I am gravely depressed along with you. I’m depressed because the social Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has taken a backseat to other issues like abortion, gay marriage, and stem cells.

Peace on your journey with Him.

Since they’re bigger, governments are greedier than individuals. I think too much government suffocates, abridges and infringes property rights, etc.

I choose neither of the two major parties. I vote the individual of each party.

I see you include health under the “…general welfare…” I offer that the term ‘welfare’ was used differently then, than now.

I reiterate, health is not a right “…retained by the people.”

No, I think it’s twisting words to claim healthcare as a right. This administration is real good at twisting concepts. Sorry you fell for it.

I believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about His Father’s kingdom, not the socialist things of any earthly nation.

Again, you’re arguing with our Church, of which we’re a part. I think that our Church is right and that you are wrong to contradict it.

 

[donsnow]

No you don’t have to wonder if you follow all Church teaching as to who is a Catholic. I just rechecked my papers.

And thank you and peace be always with yours as well. God bless!

When you follow Church teaching, you don’t whine about Gay Rights and you recognize abortion as murder because the right to life begins at conception. That’s Church teaching.

 

[larkin31]

When you follow Church teaching, you don’t whine about Gay Rights…

Tell that to the Council of American Bishops, who wrote this:

Respecting Human Dignity
The commission of the Church to preach the Good News to all people in every land points to the fundamental dignity possessed by each person as created by God. God has created every human person out of love and wishes to grant him or her eternal life in the communion of the Trinity.2

All people are created in the image and likeness of God and thus possess an innate human dignity that must be acknowledged and respected.1 In keeping with this conviction, the Church teaches that persons with a homosexual inclination “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”2 We recognize that these persons have been, and often continue to be, objects of scorn, hatred, and even violence in
some sectors of our society. Sometimes this hatred is manifested clearly; other times, it is masked and gives rise to more disguised forms of hatred. “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs.”3
Those who would minister in the name of the Church must in no way contribute to such
injustice. They should prayerfully examine their own hearts in order to discern any thoughts or feelings that might stand in need of purification. Those who minister are also called to growth in holiness. In fact, the work of spreading the Good News involves an ever-increasing love for those to whom one is ministering by calling them to the truth of Jesus Christ.4

In this letter of 2006: usccb.org/doctrine/Ministry.pdf

 

[donsnow]

No

It was meant to protect the individual from a church-state coalition.

Our founding fathers from England had a national history of the Catholic Church running the government and then of the Monarchy running the Anglican Church. They’d seen abuses from both sides.

Keeping in mind that in those days, the military was an establishment, the law was an establishment, etc, then the words, “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion;” goes much deeper than congress starting a state religion. The government has no business in religion, and that establishment clause was meant to protect religion from government infringement and abridgment, imho.

 

[Andrew1983]

I always found the religious right concept somewhat discordant. Conservatism is and always has been about protecting people against ideology (i.e. religious views.) The conservatives of today decry perceived attempts by the government to infringe upon individual liberties. This is proper conservatism: primarily concerned with freedom.

The problem is that they then turn around and are absolutely outraged by the suggestion that the US is anything but a Christian nation. They seek to pass morality laws (e.g. outlaw gay marriage and pornography.) Conservatism should reject the claim “Christianity made this country great” and instead preach “freedom made this country great.” A true conservative believes that we are not free unless we are free to ruin ourselves.

The left, on the other hand, has always been more aligned with religious concerns. Liberalism holds as its highest good equality. This is something that the religious should embrace. Has not God made us all equal in dignity? Doesn’t God command us to lower ourselves to lift up the least among us? The government is a powerful force for good, through the government we could help millions of the poor and suffering. But for some reason this idea has not yet stuck with the religious.

With all due respect tor your last paragraph about government being a force for good, you really need to read the history of the Kingdom of Israel, specifically 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and perhaps even 1 and 2 Chronicles.

Particularly 1 Samuel 8:4 - 8:20.

Just a taste of Scripture:

1 Sam. 8:5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
1 Sam. 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
1 Sam. 8:11 And he said, this will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
1 Sam. 8:14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
1 Sam. 8:17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
1 Sam. 8:18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

The source I used is from a Zondervan King James Version Bible, copyright 1994.

As far as the United States of America being a Christian nation? Well, let’s think about this for a second. Christianity has only been the dominant religious identity of the country since and before it’s inception. It’s only had more cultural impact than all of the other religions COMBINED. Our history is littered with references from scripture and recognition of the Christian concept of God more than anything else. No, I can’t possibly understand where conservatives would get the absurd notion that our country is a Christian nation.

 

[larkin31]

Our founding fathers from England had a national history of the Catholic Church running the government and then of the Monarchy running the Anglican Church. They’d seen abuses from both sides.

Keeping in mind that in those days, the military was an establishment, the law was an establishment, etc, then the words, “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion;” goes much deeper than congress starting a state religion. The government has no business in religion, and that establishment clause was meant to protect religion from government infringement and abridgment, imho.

fine

what about my other reply that was actually to you?

 

[CMatt25]

Since they’re bigger, governments are greedier than individuals. I think too much government suffocates, abridges and infringes property rights, etc.

I choose neither of the two major parties. I vote the individual of each party.

I see you include health under the “…general welfare…” I offer that the term ‘welfare’ was used differently then, than now.

I reiterate, health is not a right “…retained by the people.”

No, I think it’s twisting words to claim healthcare as a right. This administration is real good at twisting concepts. Sorry you fell for it.

I believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about His Father’s kingdom, not the socialist things of any earthly nation.

Again, you’re arguing with our Church, of which we’re a part. I think that our Church is right and that you are wrong to contradict it.

Don, you’re free to think and believe whatever you want. But trust me I’ve believed healthcare was a right far longer than this Administration. And I believe Christ taught as much. If healthcare is not a right according to Christ, He wouldn’t have said in the Gospel to care for the sick. And when obviously the Church and individuals can’t do it all themselves, and a nation steps up to help, I say go for it.

And again if you yourself follow Church teaching on everything, then you don’t need to wonder whether the Church calls me a Catholic. Peace.

 

[ishii]

larkin31 wrote:

Tell that to the Council of American Bishops, who wrote this:

Quote:
Respecting Human Dignity
The commission of the Church to preach the Good News to all people in every land points to the fundamental dignity possessed by each person as created by God. God has created every human person out of love and wishes to grant him or her eternal life in the communion of the Trinity.2

All people are created in the image and likeness of God and thus possess an innate human dignity that must be acknowledged and respected.1 In keeping with this conviction, the Church teaches that persons with a homosexual inclination “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”2 We recognize that these persons have been, and often continue to be, objects of scorn, hatred, and even violence in
some sectors of our society. Sometimes this hatred is manifested clearly; other times, it is masked and gives rise to more disguised forms of hatred. “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs.”3
Those who would minister in the name of the Church must in no way contribute to such
injustice. They should prayerfully examine their own hearts in order to discern any thoughts or feelings that might stand in need of purification. Those who minister are also called to growth in holiness. In fact, the work of spreading the Good News involves an ever-increasing love for those to whom one is ministering by calling them to the truth of Jesus Christ.4

In this letter of 2006: usccb.org/doctrine/Ministry.pdf

*This is not an endorsement of “gay rights” as pushed by the gay lobby - gay marriage, openly practicing gay clergy, etc. It is merely an acklowlegement that homosexuals should be treated with respect, compassion and sensitivity. That is not, however, an endorsement of the homosexual act. Hate the sin, love the sinner. So you are taking a statement by the U.S. Bishops and wrongly implying that it supports the radical gay agenda. *

Ishii

 

[josephdavid]

Enlightened according to whom?

Conservatives conserve. It’s a basic concept.

Do you have any answer to my other points regarding the left’s support of such anti-religious acts as abortion on demand and homosexual marriage?

Conserve? I think that forgot that notion between 2001 - 2008.

What about the Rights support of those issues?

 

[Andrew1983]

Don, you’re free to think and believe whatever you want. But trust me I’ve believed healthcare was a right far longer than this Administration. And I believe Christ taught as much. If healthcare is not a right according to Christ, He wouldn’t have said in the Gospel to care for the sick. And when obviously the Church and individuals can’t do it all themselves, and a nation steps up to help, I say go for it.

And again if you yourself follow Church teaching on everything, then you don’t need to wonder whether the Church calls me a Catholic. Peace.

1 Samuel 8 was made for you. Read up on the corruption of human nature and understand WHY most people do NOT want a massive government.

 

[larkin31]

larkin31 wrote:

Tell that to the Council of American Bishops, who wrote this:

Quote:
Respecting Human Dignity
The commission of the Church to preach the Good News to all people in every land points to the fundamental dignity possessed by each person as created by God. God has created every human person out of love and wishes to grant him or her eternal life in the communion of the Trinity.2

All people are created in the image and likeness of God and thus possess an innate human dignity that must be acknowledged and respected.1 In keeping with this conviction, the Church teaches that persons with a homosexual inclination “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”2 We recognize that these persons have been, and often continue to be, objects of scorn, hatred, and even violence in
some sectors of our society. Sometimes this hatred is manifested clearly; other times, it is masked and gives rise to more disguised forms of hatred. “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs.”3
Those who would minister in the name of the Church must in no way contribute to such
injustice. They should prayerfully examine their own hearts in order to discern any thoughts or feelings that might stand in need of purification. Those who minister are also called to growth in holiness. In fact, the work of spreading the Good News involves an ever-increasing love for those to whom one is ministering by calling them to the truth of Jesus Christ.4

In this letter of 2006: usccb.org/doctrine/Ministry.pdf

*This is not an endorsement of “gay rights” as pushed by the gay lobby - gay marriage, openly practicing gay clergy, etc. It is merely an acklowlegement that homosexuals should be treated with respect, compassion and sensitivity. That is not, however, an endorsement of the homosexual act. Hate the sin, love the sinner. So you are taking a statement by the U.S. Bishops and wrongly implying that it supports the radical gay agenda. *

Ishii

Donsnow wrote that a Catholic won’t “whine about justice”. I thought that this was a glaring untrue suggestion (that Catholics won’t care about justice), and in the matter of gays specifically, I had carefully read the document from the American Bishops Council, which specifically stated that care had to be taken not to contribute to the injustice toward gays.

I know that this is not an endorsement of homosexuality nor homosexual marriage. I did not say it was.

It was a clear Catholic endorsement of justice toward gays.

 

[Carlan]

larkin31 wrote:

Tell that to the Council of American Bishops, who wrote this:

Quote:
Respecting Human Dignity
The commission of the Church to preach the Good News to all people in every land points to the fundamental dignity possessed by each person as created by God. God has created every human person out of love and wishes to grant him or her eternal life in the communion of the Trinity.2

All people are created in the image and likeness of God and thus possess an innate human dignity that must be acknowledged and respected.1 In keeping with this conviction, the Church teaches that persons with a homosexual inclination “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”2 We recognize that these persons have been, and often continue to be, objects of scorn, hatred, and even violence in
some sectors of our society. Sometimes this hatred is manifested clearly; other times, it is masked and gives rise to more disguised forms of hatred. “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs.”3
Those who would minister in the name of the Church must in no way contribute to such
injustice. They should prayerfully examine their own hearts in order to discern any thoughts or feelings that might stand in need of purification. Those who minister are also called to growth in holiness. In fact, the work of spreading the Good News involves an ever-increasing love for those to whom one is ministering by calling them to the truth of Jesus Christ.4

In this letter of 2006: usccb.org/doctrine/Ministry.pdf

*This is not an endorsement of “gay rights” as pushed by the gay lobby - gay marriage, openly practicing gay clergy, etc. It is merely an acklowlegement that homosexuals should be treated with respect, compassion and sensitivity. That is not, however, an endorsement of the homosexual act. Hate the sin, love the sinner. So you are taking a statement by the U.S. Bishops and wrongly implying that it supports the radical gay agenda. *

Ishii

AMEN!
Peace,Carlan

 

[colmywaykurtz]

I am talking about core ideologies, not temporary issues. The core ideology of conservatism is freedom. The more enlightened conservatives, such as George Will, agree:

colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/171135/june-03-2008/george-will

The core ideology of liberalism is freedom when you look at liberalism–classical liberalism, as it existed in the time of the “Enlightenment,” when this country was founded. It was most concerned with liberating individual economic forces, but political liberalism was felt to be a necessary accompaniment of this.

The conservatives of that time were feudal lords and clerics who opposed all this. A lot of the corporate lords of more recent times liked the feudal idea, and returned to it in the form of subsistence wages and “company towns” where one was in economic thrall to the company everywhere one turned. A lot of corporate owners today would return to that if they could.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Does that mean that Republicans are smarter then?

Seriously though, before 2050? Sounds more like JWs and Adventists. I think it’s very unlikely that Jesus returns before the end of this century.

Many Catholics believe in the validity of private prophecies about a Minor Chastisement preceding the Millennium–a period of lesser (but still very great and world-changing) wars and upheavals that herald the advent of the Holy Spirit reigning OVER the earth during a long period of peace and prosperity–not to be confused with the final coming of Christ in the flesh to bring judgment and rule ON a totally transformed heavens and earth. This is not officially mandated Church teaching, but it IS believed by many Catholics.

 

[josephdavid]

1 Samuel 8 was made for you. Read up on the corruption of human nature and understand WHY most people do NOT want a massive government.

But in 1 Samuel 8 and also in Chapter 10 it clearly shows the the people wanted a government which at that time was a King. They wanted a ruler to guide them and lead them.

 

[ishii]

Donsnow wrote that a Catholic won’t “whine about justice”. I thought that this was a glaring untrue suggestion (that Catholics won’t care about justice), and in the matter of gays specifically, I had carefully read the document from the American Bishops Council, which specifically stated that care had to be taken not to contribute to the injustice toward gays.

I know that this is not an endorsement of homosexuality nor homosexual marriage. I did not say it was.

It was a clear Catholic endorsement of justice toward gays.

No, Donsnow wrote this:

When you follow Church teaching, you don’t whine about Gay Rights

And your response was to quote a document from the U.S. bishops which said we need to treat gays with respect, etc. You seemed to be implying that the document supported gay rights.

Ishii

 

[larkin31]

No, Donsnow wrote this:

When you follow Church teaching, you don’t whine about Gay Rights

And your response was to quote a document from the U.S. bishops which said we need to treat gays with respect, etc. You seemed to be implying that the document supported gay rights.

Ishii

correct, thanks

but the document said “justice,” not just “respect”

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Canon number 3 is disturbing and even disgusting. . . Maybe I am not understanding it but is this guy talking about wealth and class difference as a sign of “natural” distinctions? If so this guy is messed up. . .

As in between male and female?

Anyway, this is Wiki. Bear that in mind.

 

[donsnow]

Tell that to the Council of American Bishops, who wrote this:

In this letter of 2006: usccb.org/doctrine/Ministry.pdf

Yes. Also, our Catechism says much the same. However, my post did not refer to individual gays. It stated the deception of Gay Rights. Which movement I see as a satanic device to keep sinners in sin and drag them down to the fires of hell. With that view, my concern for the souls of gays rather than any alleged or imaginary rights, remains valid.

Also, I consider any person, regardless of choice of sexual orientation as all having the same civil and criminal rights. And, imho, the gay life style has enjoyed the same civil and criminal rights all along: equal housing, equal job opportunities, the right to vote when blacks couldn’t, life, liberty, happiness and all the rights in our Bill of Rights. I respectfully contend that many gays have always enjoyed the above rights and liberties.