Originally Posted By RC Collins >>Jesus tells us in Matthew 25 that He will be judged us, as a nation and as individuals, by how we treat the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick and those in prison.<< Sounds like the church's job. Separation of church and state, and all of that, right? We don't live in a theocracy after all. There are other ways to do something besides by taxes and law. >>On the issue of euthanasia, unjust wars and the death penalty, I fall on the side of life in every case.<< Look, if you are being a good Catholic, I can understand the opposition to the death penalty. I'm not sure how the Church squares such opposition with the Hebrew Scriptures, but I haven't looked into it all that much. Otherwise, I say that we affirm life so much, that someone who intentionally takes innocent (in the legal sense, not the cosmic) human life should pay the severe price of their own guilty life. >>First, I will say that if the country were attacked in a military action by another country, I would do what I could to defend her. After 9/11, I was ready to see some action taken to defend the country, but what did I see? After we went to war and changed the regime in a country that WAS involved, we went to war in a country that WASN'T involved.<< So you were (or would have been) against our involvment in Europe during WWII? Germany didn't attack us at Pearl Harbor, after all. >>As a same-sex attracted person (there's your disclosure), I try to live in accord with the teachings of the Church...sometimes successfully and sometimes, not as much as I'd like.<< I do not envy you in the slightest. This must be very diffucult. >>Let's see...the Democrats have implemented anti-poverty plans to work towards feeding the hungry, giving the thirsty to drink, and clothing the naked. The Republicans have spent much their time and energy cutting those anti-poverty plans with nothing to replace the cuts.<< Republicans believe private efforts, like those of the Church, should replace the cuts. The Democrat efforts have encourage dependency on the government and FORCE people to engage in "charity." Instead of charity one-on-one, family-to-family, money is collected, using lots of overhead, and redistributed without regard to worthiness. >>The right says, "the market can take care of that." Oh, right. The market where a person can be working two or three jobs and STILL be going hungry. Uh huh. Get real.<< That's why there is family, community, charities, and church. I think your heart is in the right place. I think we just have different ways of striving for the same goal.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Republicans believe private efforts, like those of the Church, should replace the cuts. << They even go one step further. They believe in giving tax money (our money) to churches - but only "some" churches, others don't make the cut. Therefore, the bush administration is respecting the establishment of some religions, and funding them with federal taxes, to the exclusion of others. Doesn't sound very constitutional to me.
Originally Posted By woody >>They believe in giving tax money (our money) to churches - but only "some" churches, others don't make the cut.<< There's another liberal interpretation. If the government doesn't give tax money to ALL churches, they are establishing a religion. Don't think of church as a charity case. That's even worse than the people they are trying to help. To be conservative is to be clear about effectiveness and merit. Only those churches with proven track records should be allowed access to tax money.
Originally Posted By RC Collins >>>Republicans believe private efforts, like those of the Church, should replace the cuts.<<< >>They even go one step further. They believe in giving tax money (our money) to churches - but only "some" churches, others don't make the cut. Therefore, the bush administration is respecting the establishment of some religions, and funding them with federal taxes, to the exclusion of others.<< I'd rather the money not be taken from the People in the first place, but as long as it is, how can the government favor secular charities or charities that are not affiliated with a particular congregation over those that are faith-based or affiliated with a congregation? The adherents of that faith or members of that congregation were not exempted from taxes (income, sales, etc.). If they are not discriminated out when it comes to the collection of the money, why should they be discriminated against when it comes to the distribution of the funds? >>Doesn't sound very constitutional to me.<< I don't see how giving to say, a Christian organization that has a proven record in reducing criminal behavior in convicts AND a Jewish organization that has the same kind of track record is adopting an official denominational church as the official Federal church. Did you know the individual states had their own official denominations at one time? This hardly approaches that sort of involvement. Still... like I said, I'd rather the money stay with the People in the first place. And there are some faith-based organizations that won't take the money for that reason AND because they know that sooner or later, strings will be attached/ They fear a true violation of the separation of church and state... the government getting involved in controlling church matters.
Originally Posted By gadzuux More of a concern - churches getting involved in government matters. We see that happening all the time. People like robertson, fallwell, dobson, and others are made more powerful, more "legitmate" by the actions (and the funding) of the bush administration. >> To be conservative is to be clear about effectiveness and merit. << To be neo-conservative is to be 'unclear' on the purposes and limitations of the federal government.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >><< Let's see...the Democrats have implemented anti-poverty plans to work towards feeding the hungry, giving the thirsty to drink, and clothing the naked. >> Want to see what happens when the democrats get to put their " ideas " into action? You get the welfare state that is known as New Orleans and Detroit. Both places are hell holes.<< And, aside from platitudes like, let them get jobs (which don't pay enough to live on) or charity will take care of it or the market will work it out, what solution have you put out that actually FEEDS the hungry, QUENCHES the thirst of the thirsty and CLOTHES the naked in the same number NOW? That's the basis on how you and this country will be judged. Notice that Jesus doesn't say, "you told me to get a job because I was a lazy @$$." He said, "I was hungry and you fed M, I was thirsty and you gave Me to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed Me, I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and in prison and you visited Me." He didn't give conditions.
Originally Posted By patrickegan <<And, aside from platitudes like, let them get jobs (which don't pay enough to live on)>> I remember someone saying farmers were paying $15/hr out here in Cali, they could live on that. Same deal in New Orleans, trade mag’s are saying they’ll pay up to $25/hr for labor and no takers, what gives?
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>>Jesus tells us in Matthew 25 that He will be judged us, as a nation and as individuals, by how we treat the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick and those in prison.<< Sounds like the church's job. Separation of church and state, and all of that, right? We don't live in a theocracy after all. There are other ways to do something besides by taxes and law.<< No, He talks about gathering the NATIONS and separating them for judgement, not churches. As a Christian, it matters not to me HOW the hungry are fed, the thirsty are given to drink, the stranger is welcomed (actually, our activly anti-immigrant society is a problem that DOES require government action), naked are clothed, the sick and inprisoned (again, a government action thing considering our leaders' propensity for torture and killing). If you want to cut an existing program or want to turn down an proposed program that will meet that goal, you have a duty to present an alternative plan that meets the needs just as well and just as quickly. Republican solutions benefit the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class...always and everywhere. >>>>On the issue of euthanasia, unjust wars and the death penalty, I fall on the side of life in every case.<< Look, if you are being a good Catholic, I can understand the opposition to the death penalty. I'm not sure how the Church squares such opposition with the Hebrew Scriptures, but I haven't looked into it all that much.<< Considering the Mosaic Laws given in the Torah are primarily the laws for the ancient nation of Israel and that the Church operates under the Covenant established by Christ, there is no problem. The MORAL aspects of the Ten Commandment remain in full force and effect, but the sub-commandments that deal with sanitation and punishments are all supplanted by the New Covenant. >>Otherwise, I say that we affirm life so much, that someone who intentionally takes innocent (in the legal sense, not the cosmic) human life should pay the severe price of their own guilty life.<< That sounds reasonable...until you realize that INNOCENT people have died at the hands of the State (need I bring up Ruben Cantu again?). The death penalty is a moral option IF AND ONLY IF the two following conditions have been met completely: 1. The guilty party's identity and responsibility have been FULLY determined 2. It is the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to effectively defend human lives against an unjust agressor. That means that if there is ANY excuplatory evidence, then the death penalty should always be commuted to life without the possibility of parole. >>>>First, I will say that if the country were attacked in a military action by another country, I would do what I could to defend her. After 9/11, I was ready to see some action taken to defend the country, but what did I see? After we went to war and changed the regime in a country that WAS involved, we went to war in a country that WASN'T involved.<< So you were (or would have been) against our involvment in Europe during WWII? Germany didn't attack us at Pearl Harbor, after all.<< We were attacked by Japan who had entangling alliances with Germany. When we declared war on Japan, Germany was obligated to declare war on us, obligating us to a response. That's the problem with entangling alliances. >>>>As a same-sex attracted person (there's your disclosure), I try to live in accord with the teachings of the Church...sometimes successfully and sometimes, not as much as I'd like.<< I do not envy you in the slightest. This must be very diffucult.<< I'm so touched by your concern. >>>>Let's see...the Democrats have implemented anti-poverty plans to work towards feeding the hungry, giving the thirsty to drink, and clothing the naked. The Republicans have spent much their time and energy cutting those anti-poverty plans with nothing to replace the cuts.<< Republicans believe private efforts, like those of the Church, should replace the cuts.<< How nice. What a wonderful excuse to do nothing but spout platitudes, "the market and charity should do it." >>The Democrat efforts have encourage dependency on the government and FORCE people to engage in "charity." Instead of charity one-on-one, family-to-family, money is collected, using lots of overhead, and redistributed without regard to worthiness.<< First, if you want to live in a society, you have to abide by the rules, which includes *GASP!* paying TAXES. Second, Jesus never said how we are to do it. Government plan or non-government plan? Whatever. The issue is that it gets DONE. The problem is that the Republicans don't present a PLAN to meet the needs as effectively (or more effectively), they just cut off existing plans and say, "let them eat cake." Third, Jesus never said we should base it on worthiness. He said that we are to DO it...both individually and as a society (remember, He gathers the NATIONS, not just individuals). >>>>The right says, "the market can take care of that." Oh, right. The market where a person can be working two or three jobs and STILL be going hungry. Uh huh. Get real.<< That's why there is family, community, charities, and church.<< No, that's the result of a faulty market system that puts the accumulation of wealth over the needs of human persons. I have no problem with capitalism...where that capitalism doesn't result in an ever increasing number of working poor. I stand with my Church's teaching: "2324 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice. In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good." Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages." >>I think your heart is in the right place. I think we just have different ways of striving for the same goal.<< How nice. The thing is, I don't think people on your side could care one wit about the hungry, thirsty, stranger, naked, sick or inprisoned.
Originally Posted By RC Collins >>How nice. What a wonderful excuse to do nothing but spout platitudes, "the market and charity should do it."<< You have no idea how much or little of my time, money, and energy go to helping people. You need money to be able to give it away in the first place. Look at Bill Gates. >>First, if you want to live in a society, you have to abide by the rules, which includes *GASP!* paying TAXES.<< We didn't always have the kind of tax system we have now. >>Second, Jesus never said how we are to do it.<< Jesus asked his followers to take care of the poor. How many times did he ask Roman soldiers to? Careful study of the teachings and actions of Jesus reveal that He was not indiscriminate about how help was given. He helped those who asked in ways that really mattered. He didn't simply hand money to addicts so that they could get drunk. >>The issue is that it gets DONE.<< And what are the most efficient ways of getting it done? Private efforts. That's the wisest use of charitable money. >>The problem is that the Republicans don't present a PLAN to meet the needs as effectively (or more effectively), they just cut off existing plans and say, "let them eat cake."<< Really... you know about all of the charitable activities or lack thereof of Republicans? Just because (some) of them don't want to use the government to be charitable doesn't mean they aren't charitable at all. >>How nice. The thing is, I don't think people on your side could care one wit about the hungry, thirsty, stranger, naked, sick or inprisoned.<< If you really did have the ability to see our hearts, you'd know that this isn't true. Instead, you just assumed to know our hearts but get it wrong. Give a man a fish or teach a man to fish... Reward self-destructive and dependent behavior in those who should ultimately be able to take care of themselves and their neighbors, or help them along as they pull themselves back to their feet?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <If someone won't rent to you because of your skin pigmentation, they lose because your money, which would be just as useful as the money from anyone else, goes to another landlord. If you don't get hired because of your gender and you take what you have to offer to the competition, the original employer loses. Instead of spending so much time and money trying to FORCE people by gunpoint (government power) to treat everyone equally when it comes to their own private resources, how about let the market work and let people vote with their dollars and their feet> This might work if there were just a few businesses or landlords who did this. It would be easy to take one's business elsewhere. But I'm sure you must be aware that it wasn't that long ago in our history that blacks were essentially shut out of nearly ALL the best jobs because racial discrimination in hiring and promoting was rampant, widespread, and often even unconscious. When everyone's doing it, we really can't vote with our dollars and feet in that way. Similarly, if someone wants to rent in neighborhood A, but no one in neighborhood A will rent to him, that person winds up in neighborhood B, along with others "of his kind." And the landlord in neighborhood A doesn't suffer because there were plenty of people of the "right" kind to rent in the neighborhood where THEY "belonged." The only thing that stopped that pattern, which existed until fairly recently in our history, were in fact federal laws against discrimination in hiring and renting. It would be nice if the market could have done it, but check the history - it didn't.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>>How nice. What a wonderful excuse to do nothing but spout platitudes, "the market and charity should do it."<< You have no idea how much or little of my time, money, and energy go to helping people. You need money to be able to give it away in the first place. Look at Bill Gates.<< That's not an answer. It's not about what YOU personally do because it will never be enough on an individual basis. >>>>First, if you want to live in a society, you have to abide by the rules, which includes *GASP!* paying TAXES.<< We didn't always have the kind of tax system we have now.<< We didn't always have cars or planes, either. What does that have to do with anything? >>>>Second, Jesus never said how we are to do it.<< Jesus asked his followers to take care of the poor. How many times did he ask Roman soldiers to? Careful study of the teachings and actions of Jesus reveal that He was not indiscriminate about how help was given. He helped those who asked in ways that really mattered. He didn't simply hand money to addicts so that they could get drunk.<< First, reread Matthew 25. I point to verse 32 where it says, "Before Him will be gathered all the NATIONS, and He will separage them one from another as a shephered separates the sheep from the goats." To be fair, let's look beyong the RSV:CE to make sure that Jesus is judging NATIONS, not individual believers or individual persons here: Douay Rheims: And all nations shall be gathered together before him: and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: New International Version: All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. King James Version: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: Young's Literal Translation: and gathered together before him shall be all the nations, and he shall separate them from one another, as the shepherd doth separate the sheep from the goats, Latin Vulgate: et congregabuntur ante eum omnes gentes, et separabit eos ab invicem, sicut pastor segregat oves ab hædis. (I translate that to read: and congregated before Him all tribes, and separate them in turn, according to a shepherd segregating sheep from goats.) Hmmm...seems that this WILL apply to the Romans, the Germans, the Manoans, the French, the Incas, the Babylonians, and the United States all as NATIONS...as a collective group. >>>>The issue is that it gets DONE.<< And what are the most efficient ways of getting it done? Private efforts. That's the wisest use of charitable money.<< And the problem is that "charity" is not enough to meet the need. What is your plan to feed the hungry as quickly and in the same number as the current programs that feed the hungry? Hope that people will give to charity? That doesn't do anything but hope. You can't eat hope. >>>>The problem is that the Republicans don't present a PLAN to meet the needs as effectively (or more effectively), they just cut off existing plans and say, "let them eat cake."<< Really... you know about all of the charitable activities or lack thereof of Republicans? Just because (some) of them don't want to use the government to be charitable doesn't mean they aren't charitable at all.<< That's not a plan, that's a rhetorical statement that says NOTHING about how the hungry are to be fed, the thirsty are to be queched, the stranger to be welcomed (I notice that you skip right over that), the naked clothed, the sick and imprisoned visited. Just more platitudes and accusations...no plan. >>>>How nice. The thing is, I don't think people on your side could care one wit about the hungry, thirsty, stranger, naked, sick or inprisoned.<< If you really did have the ability to see our hearts, you'd know that this isn't true. Instead, you just assumed to know our hearts but get it wrong. Give a man a fish or teach a man to fish... Reward self-destructive and dependent behavior in those who should ultimately be able to take care of themselves and their neighbors, or help them along as they pull themselves back to their feet?<< Actions speak louder than words. Republicans are all about cutting benefits to the poor, including refusing to fully fund education and vocational training, rewarding companies that ship good jobs overseas with big-time tax breaks, harassing immigrants, refusing to do anything to help reform the health care system except help insurance companies make more money and killing off prisoners. Those aren't the actions of good Christian persons. They are the actions of GOATS.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >Want to see what happens when the democrats get to put their " ideas " into action? You get the welfare state that is known as New Orleans and Detroit. Both places are hell holes.<< You get the difference in this country between 1933 and 1940. You get to see the difference in Appalachia after the Great Society programs and the TVA. You get to see the poverty rate for the elderly plummet after Social Security and Medicare begin. You get to enjoy the parks and roadways of the West that were built by the CCC. You get Grand Coulee Dam and the boom of agriculture and industry across an entire region because of it's irrigation and power generating capacity. You get fair wages, overtime pay, and worker's compensation. You get a 40 hour work week.
Originally Posted By cmpaley No, nothing of the sort is true. You rabid-righties have a distorted notion of what communism and socialism are. Then again, you also have a distorted notion of what capitalism is, too, so I'm not surprised.
Originally Posted By patrickegan Hmmm, I was really expecting three cheers for the team from you guy’s.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer You'll hear cmpaley and I cheering the arrival of our team captain to the field on December 25th.
Originally Posted By patrickegan The Communist Party and its allies played an important role in the United States labor movement, particularly in the 1930s and 1940s, but never succeeded, with rare exceptions, either in bringing the labor movement around to its agenda or in converting their influence in any particular union into membership gains for the Party. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communists_in_the_U.S._Labor_Movement" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C ommunists_in_the_U.S._Labor_Movement</a>_%281919-1937%29#The_CPUSA_Turns_Left:_The_Trade_Union_Unity_League A cut and paste for Christmas-
