Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Why do Liberals hate Pope John Paul?

Expand Messages
  • barley_shpc
    But in a way Ryan, that s the point - it is mine...I worked for it. We have the right to enjoy the fruits of our labors. Jesus did not advise the Sanhedrin to
    Message 1 of 14 , Nov 1, 2002
      But in a way Ryan, that's the point - it is mine...I worked for it.
      We have the right to enjoy the fruits of our labors.

      Jesus did not advise the Sanhedrin to pass a law requiring anyone
      earning more than 50 shekels (or whatever) to give the excess to them
      to re-distribute; what Jesus did do is say to an individual "Go, sell
      all you own and give to the poor - then, come and follow me."

      Jesus recognized (I believe) that more harm than good come from trying
      to force social change from the top down - rather it has to come from
      the bottom up...or in a better way, from the individual out to
      society, rather from society to the individual.

      Obviously, taxes are a necessary evil in order to have a functioning
      society - but taxes ought only be collected to provide those services
      which individuals and small groups cannot provide for themselves.
      Welfare, health care and such do not fall into this category - just as
      a military cannot be run on a small scale (the local town, say), so
      too welfare cannot be run on a large scale (as I've already said,
      witness the enslavement of multiple generations to the state because
      of welfare).

      People in heaven is the end result of life - the purpose of civil
      government is to simply provide the climate in which justice and peace
      exist so that persons can answer God's call without fear. Justice is
      not served by taking, forcibly, from one to give to another; nor is
      justice served by given handouts and expecting nothing in return.
      Note - I speak here from the standpoint of government, not
      individuals...certainly when I give, I ought to give without expecting
      a return - but when a government does it the end result is to sap the
      recipient of self-esteem and of the will to improve his lot...thus, as
      I said, we now witness the fourth generation of the same family
      enslaved by government "compassion".

      And, as I noted in another club, another result of the welfare state
      is the slow, but sure destruction of the family.

      For all of these reasons I believe the Church's focus should not be on
      working for new laws/taxes, etc. to effect social change - rather, the
      Church should be focusing on individuals, on teaching people to pray,
      teaching people the truths of the Church, teaching people to really
      "be" Christian/Catholic - if she does that, these individuals will, in
      turn, begin seeking ways to help others, to give of their good fortune
      whether in time or money. And when individuals help individuals love
      and hope are fostered, fear is destroyed, and community is built.

      Mark







      --- In catholicquestions@y..., ryanusrex <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > > I used to care about the "unfairness" of our income tax/payroll
      tax
      > > system.
      > >
      > > But I decided to let that concern go...to give to Caesar what is
      > his,
      > > if you will (yes, I know that passage is more nuanced than that--
      > > graven images and all). But Jesus' words speak to me on this
      > > matter. Throughout the Gospel, His warnings are strong on such
      > > matters.
      >
      > Exactly. Once we move beyond the, "It's my money, mine, mine, all
      > mine," mentality, we are free to examine what is actually best for
      > everyone. That might very well be lower taxes. But we cannot make
      > lower taxes and end in itself. People in heaven is the only end in
      > itself, and everything else ought to serve that end.
      >
      > peace,
      > Ryan
    • ryanusrex
      ... functioning ... services ... as ... because ... I don t see taxes as a necessary evil. If they are evil, they are not necessary (God made the word so that
      Message 2 of 14 , Nov 1, 2002
        > Obviously, taxes are a necessary evil in order to have a
        functioning
        > society - but taxes ought only be collected to provide those
        services
        > which individuals and small groups cannot provide for themselves.
        > Welfare, health care and such do not fall into this category - just
        as
        > a military cannot be run on a small scale (the local town, say), so
        > too welfare cannot be run on a large scale (as I've already said,
        > witness the enslavement of multiple generations to the state
        because
        > of welfare).

        I don't see taxes as a necessary evil. If they are evil, they are
        not necessary (God made the word so that good is what we need, not
        evil). If they are necessary, then they are not evil. It is simple
        logic. If the thing is necessary and useful for good purposes, say,
        to build roads, and it is morally without its own implications, then
        it is not evil, but good. Now, perhaps what you mean is the similar
        but somewhat less strong statement that "taxes are not an end in
        themselves," with which I agree. They are a good, but a good only
        inasmuch as they are directed toward other goods: safe roads, good
        schools, effective military, etc.

        Now, of course we have to be careful of two things:
        (1) beguiling terminology and slogans: "social security safety net"
        that mislead from the actual content of the idea;
        (2) the large collective does not usurp prerogatives proper to the
        individual, the family, or the smaller group.

        > And, as I noted in another club, another result of the welfare
        state
        > is the slow, but sure destruction of the family.

        Well, now, to be fair I think you will have to admit that other
        factors are also active in this process, and arguably moreso. The
        destruction of the inner city family through shameful systems
        of "welfare" is not accomplished through entirely the same process as
        the destruction of the suburban family, which, I suspect has much
        more to do with drug use, comfort/pleasure seeking, self-
        centeredness, and sexual incontinence, than it has to do with high
        taxes or welfare.


        > For all of these reasons I believe the Church's focus should not be
        on
        > working for new laws/taxes, etc. to effect social change - rather,
        the
        > Church should be focusing on individuals, on teaching people to
        pray,
        > teaching people the truths of the Church, teaching people to really
        > "be" Christian/Catholic - if she does that, these individuals will,
        in
        > turn, begin seeking ways to help others, to give of their good
        fortune
        > whether in time or money. And when individuals help individuals
        love
        > and hope are fostered, fear is destroyed, and community is built.

        I agree with you. The Church is not a lobby organization and its
        first priority must be the propagation of the true worship of the One
        God, and thus the salvation of souls. That said, we must be careful
        not to dichotomize engagement with government and instruction in
        piety. Again, this (typcal Republican) argument sounds suspiciously
        pro-choice. Of course, I know you believe abortion should be
        illegal, and that the Church has every right and responsibility to
        help to make that happen. I am just trying to point out that there
        seems to be something of an incongruancy here.

        I have always been surprised that the Democratic party, and not the
        Republican party, was suckered into becoming pro-"choice" or pro-
        abortion. It seems so much more aligned to the Republican "let's
        leave each other alone and who the heck is the government to
        interfere anyway" way of thinking.

        peace,
        Ryan
      • barley_shpc
        Ryan, Actually, I think the phrase holds - in much the same way as you might say the pain of getting a shot is a necessary evil...pain in and of itself is
        Message 3 of 14 , Nov 1, 2002
          Ryan,

          Actually, I think the phrase holds - in much the same way as you might
          say the pain of getting a shot is a necessary evil...pain in and of
          itself is evil, yet a good may necessitate it. In much the same way
          taxes are, in and of themselves, evil - baldly put it is the forceful
          taking of ones goods; as you noted (I assume this is what you meant)
          oftentimes tax money is used for things we would not individually
          support. But this is merely a semantic point - your description is
          essentially what I meant.

          I agree (and the post in the other club noted) that there are other
          factors involved in destroying families in this country - welfare is a
          part along with things like abortion, "safe" sex, the education
          establishment (I hate using 'establishment' that way) and so on.

          I did not say that the Church should not be talking with government,
          or trying to affect government - I just wasn't clear in what I meant.
          There is too much emphasis placed by the Church in trying to effect
          change by laws and taxes, rather than on the simple but wholly
          effective message of the Gospel (but I certainly do not mean that the
          Gospel ought to be preached to be "effective" in this manner - merely
          that preaching the Gospel, aside from salvation, has the effect of
          changing persons into 'other' centered people).

          I despise the cretinous way the liberals managed to find a way to try
          and prevent churches from teaching their beliefs by politicizing them
          (of course the rules are different if you're Hilary Clinton speaking
          in a liberal Protestant church). But the Church seeking to end
          abortion, nothing more than legalized torture and wholesale slaughter
          of innocent children, is quite different from advocating frightening
          schemes like universal health care.

          When the Democratic party was taken over by the liberal radicals, they
          became the party of let everyone do what they want (as long as they're
          not Catholic and/or conservative).

          Mark


          --- In catholicquestions@y..., ryanusrex <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          > > Obviously, taxes are a necessary evil in order to have a
          > functioning
          > > society - but taxes ought only be collected to provide those
          > services
          > > which individuals and small groups cannot provide for themselves.

          > > Welfare, health care and such do not fall into this category -
          just
          > as
          > > a military cannot be run on a small scale (the local town, say),
          so
          > > too welfare cannot be run on a large scale (as I've already said,
          > > witness the enslavement of multiple generations to the state
          > because
          > > of welfare).
          >
          > I don't see taxes as a necessary evil. If they are evil, they are
          > not necessary (God made the word so that good is what we need, not
          > evil). If they are necessary, then they are not evil. It is simple
          > logic. If the thing is necessary and useful for good purposes, say,
          > to build roads, and it is morally without its own implications, then
          > it is not evil, but good. Now, perhaps what you mean is the similar
          > but somewhat less strong statement that "taxes are not an end in
          > themselves," with which I agree. They are a good, but a good only
          > inasmuch as they are directed toward other goods: safe roads, good
          > schools, effective military, etc.
          >
          > Now, of course we have to be careful of two things:
          > (1) beguiling terminology and slogans: "social security safety net"
          > that mislead from the actual content of the idea;
          > (2) the large collective does not usurp prerogatives proper to the
          > individual, the family, or the smaller group.
          >
          > > And, as I noted in another club, another result of the welfare
          > state
          > > is the slow, but sure destruction of the family.
          >
          > Well, now, to be fair I think you will have to admit that other
          > factors are also active in this process, and arguably moreso. The
          > destruction of the inner city family through shameful systems
          > of "welfare" is not accomplished through entirely the same process
          as
          > the destruction of the suburban family, which, I suspect has much
          > more to do with drug use, comfort/pleasure seeking, self-
          > centeredness, and sexual incontinence, than it has to do with high
          > taxes or welfare.
          >
          >
          > > For all of these reasons I believe the Church's focus should not
          be
          > on
          > > working for new laws/taxes, etc. to effect social change - rather,
          > the
          > > Church should be focusing on individuals, on teaching people to
          > pray,
          > > teaching people the truths of the Church, teaching people to
          really
          > > "be" Christian/Catholic - if she does that, these individuals
          will,
          > in
          > > turn, begin seeking ways to help others, to give of their good
          > fortune
          > > whether in time or money. And when individuals help individuals
          > love
          > > and hope are fostered, fear is destroyed, and community is built.
          >
          > I agree with you. The Church is not a lobby organization and its
          > first priority must be the propagation of the true worship of the
          One
          > God, and thus the salvation of souls. That said, we must be careful
          > not to dichotomize engagement with government and instruction in
          > piety. Again, this (typcal Republican) argument sounds suspiciously
          > pro-choice. Of course, I know you believe abortion should be
          > illegal, and that the Church has every right and responsibility to
          > help to make that happen. I am just trying to point out that there
          > seems to be something of an incongruancy here.
          >
          > I have always been surprised that the Democratic party, and not the
          > Republican party, was suckered into becoming pro-"choice" or pro-
          > abortion. It seems so much more aligned to the Republican "let's
          > leave each other alone and who the heck is the government to
          > interfere anyway" way of thinking.
          >
          > peace,
          > Ryan
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.