Abortion And Other Political Issues

[crusader1234]

to beenabobba and others: just before you get confused i'm also heavily anti abortion. but, if youve ever been in debate you'll know somethign. you cannot debate on religious points. the government cant reasonably pass a law based on religion. you have to give sound issues (although the reason religion is aginast abortion has a lot of reasons so yuo can use those). also, this thread wasnt supposed to be about gay marriage either. it is about bush and kerry though. i think both of them are [expletive deleted] heads. lol. kerry had my full support then he pulls this abortion stuff, oh wow hes changed a lot since MTV statred interviewing him a while back.

[Iacobus]

crusader1234, I am just like you. This vote won't be fun at all.

[crusader1234]

I live in Canada. Unfortunately, you guys are bigger. We risked being turned into a pariah for not ganging up on Iraq... but whatever. Whatever you guys do affects us so I pray that by some fluke (both of them go into a coma until after elections maybe?) Clinton gets to be president again. At least we never had to deal with your government as much before. With Bush it seemed like he was picking fights with the whole world and trying to find out which countries would be his goons. Im kind of proud Chretien backed down. A catholic saying no to someone who went against the UN. He's not a perfect leader but that made me respect him a whole lot more.

[Shawn_H]

"With Bush it seemed like he was picking fights with the whole world and trying to find out which countries would be his goons. Im kind of proud Chretien backed down. A catholic saying no to someone who went against the UN. He's not a perfect leader but that made me respect him a whole lot more."

For condemning the Iraqi people to continue to be oppressed by one of the most murderous and genocidal dictators in the world? Why is that something to be proud of? Children as young as 2 years old were tortured and worst in special childrens prisons that Saddam's regime set up. Sometimes this horrific abuse of children was deliberaltely done in front of their own parents to force them to name anti-Saddam dissidents.. And Chretien, by refusing to join the coalition, by default wanted this to continue.

Sorry to use strong langauge, but he was a dispicable coward. Exactly what leaving little children to continue to be tortured and murdered has to do with being Catholic is beyond me. To me it just shows a total lack of moral courage.

And so what about going against the U.N? This is an organisation that does more to promote abortion than any other in the world. Did God set up the U.N.? Does it have some kind of devine mandate to tell other countries what to do, or what not to do? For decades the U.N. has been promoting anti-Catholic secular morality/

People seem to forget that the U.S. suffered the worst ever attack upon its people on Sept.11, and this is what Bush is fighting against. Countries that dont support us in this fight are by default supporting Islamic terrorism.

Thankfully the new Canadian Prime Minister seem to understand this.

[JP2Iloveyou]

my last post didn't get posted for some reason. Oh well, no worries. I agree with Shawn_H. He hit the nail on the head. I couldn't have said it better.

Also, why do people always bring up the death penalty? Since the 1970s, exactly two people have been executed under the federal death penalty. That is a far cry from the thousands killed every day by abortion. Even if you want to go all the way back to when Bush was governor of Texas, it doesn't prove much since the executive branch in Texas is very limited in what it can do in penal law. In any event, the Church isn't even 100% opposed to the death penalty and to portray it as such is simply incorrect.

Now regarding taxes and helping the poor. I hope you all realize that the more money the government confiscates from you in higer taxes to "help the poor" is more money that is being funneled down some rat hole and hopelessly wasted when it could be doing so much more good by letting private citizens help the poor, or, God forbid, a rich businessman hiring a new employee! OK, I'm being sarcastic, but seriously. The more we pay in taxes, the more the government is going to give to groups like unPlanned Parenthood, the radical homosexual lobby, the arts, which mock the Church and the Blessed Virgin, and sex-education programs in the public schools which hand out free condoms and tell kids exactly how to have the most "fun" possible with the least risk. Personally, I'd gladly take giving less of my money to these "programs" even if it meant less money for the poor. These are goods that can more efficiently be provided by the private sector.

[Iacobus]

[quote] I hope you all realize that the more money the government confiscates from you in higer taxes to "help the poor" is more money that is being funneled down some rat hole[/quote]
Rat hole like the Dept of Defense and halibeutron?


[quote]much more good by letting private citizens help the poor, or, God forbid, a rich businessman hiring a new employee![/quote]
One problem. If Bill Gates wants a new programmer and his company has MANY billion dollars on hand, will a $5000 rebate make him hire?

[quote]The more we pay in taxes... the arts, which mock the Church and the Blessed Virgin[/quote]
How so? When has PBS mocked the Church or Mary? Give proof.

[quote]Personally, I'd gladly take giving less of my money to these "programs" even if it meant less money for the poor.[/quote]
You mean DoD. THE BIGGEST GOVERMENT DRAIN?

[Shawn_H]

The taxpayer funded welfare state has actually created more pverty, not less. It helps to create an addictive dependence mentality in people that robs them of their self-reliance. Private charity is a positive good, because it generally does a better job of targeting the genuinely needy, and by being limited in scope, but state tax funded welfare helps in creating an immoral society. Moreover, it increases the power and influence of the liberal state which is at war with Christianity.

[Shawn_H]

"You mean DoD. THE BIGGEST GOVERMENT DRAIN?"

Defense is a legitimate function of government. In fact the state has only 4 legitimate functions: Justice (the law and courts), Police (to enforce the law), Defense (to defend against foriegn aggressors) and Border Control (to maintain the integrity of the nation).

Welfare is the responsibilty of the church and private citizens.

Remember the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. What can be done at the private and local sphere should be done there. Centralising all power and all responsibility in the state destroys this principle.

"How so? When has PBS mocked the Church or Mary? Give proof."

If I dont watch PBS, why should I be forced to pay for it? And PBS does have a left wing/liberal bias. Why should I be forced to pay for the enemies propaganda?

Edited April 18, 2004 by Shawn_H

[Iacobus]

Art is a vitial thing to society. You may not agree with that but it has been shown to be very important and refelctive.

How does welfare ruin the roles of the Church? Is there a line in the CCC or Canon Code that says if the goverment makes attmepts to aid the poor the Church can no longer try?

DoD, has a huge budget. And that money is being spent on an unjust war.

[Shawn_H]

" Art is a vitial thing to society. You may not agree with that but it has been shown to be very important and refelctive. "

But art does not need state funding. Artists should be able to support themselves, or get grants from private citizens. There is no need for state funded art, and I should not be forced to fund art I dont agree with. If some of that art is blasphemous and attacks the Catholic Church, and some of it has been, then it is wrong to force Catholics to fund it through taxation. Let people have the choice to fund or buy the art they want, not force them to hand over hard earned money in tax that could be spent on art they like and agree with, or on their childrens education or health care.

"How does welfare ruin the roles of the Church? Is there a line in the CCC or Canon Code that says if the goverment makes attmepts to aid the poor the Church can no longer try?"

Charity is the responsibility of private citizens and civil society such as charities and churches, not the role of the state. State welfare gives the state too much power and is generally inefective and wasteful. Moreover state welfare, unlike private charity, erodes the moral responsibility of citizens.

"DoD, has a huge budget." Yes. But defense is a necessary and legitimate function of the state, so that budget is justified.

"And that money is being spent on an unjust war."

No. Its being spent on a just war. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq is a war in direct response to the horrific attack upon the United States on Sept.11 by terrorists and their state funders. Iraq under Saddam helped to fund terrorism.

Edited April 18, 2004 by Shawn_H

[Iacobus]

JP2 doesn't think so.

Did the Church, as a state (The Papal States) fund art?

[JP2Iloveyou]

Shawn has already taken care of a couple of my points, but let me just reiterate that defense is a legitimate function of government. It is something everyone pays for that everyone benefits from. As for Haliburton, I was unaware they were receiving government funds. Do you have evidence of this accusation?

As for Bill Gates, whether or not it makes him hire a new employee or not, is beside the point IMO. It is his money! He earned it. Does he have more than he needs? Yes. Absolutely. Does that give the federal government the right to confiscate it? I don't believe it does. Reasonable people can disagree on this point just as reasonable people can disagree on how best to help the poor. Both sides have the same end in mind, the means of accomplishing it are different. Since neither side is advocating anything intrinsically evil, both claims are legitimate.

As for the arts mocking the Blessed Mother, I clearly remember a case a year or two ago when an image of Our Lady was "adorned" in human waste, funded by Uncle Sam, who is really funded by Joe Taxpayer.

You may call DoD a government drain. I disagree. But that's OK. Reasonable people can disagree on this point as well. That's one of the benefits of living in a country like the United States. One needn't worry that having a different viewpoint will cost him his life like people once had to in Iraq, for example. An inalienable right which was won, by the way, by the Americans winning the Revolutionary War. So, if an anti-war protester is going to be accurate, he or she should not exercise his or her right to free speech. (This is not directed at you Iacobus because I don't believe you have said you are anti-war, nor do I interpret that from your posts, but some people are, so I thought I would share my point.)

Finally, the war in Iraq. I fully support our efforts and I believe the war is just. I think that the burden of proof lies with me, since I am advocating supporting the war, but to save time, exactly which criteria of the Just War doctrine do you disagree with?

Also, I don't think John Paul has ever said the war was unjust. I've heard a lot of reporters put words into his mouth making it sound as though that were what he were saying, but I've never seen a direct quote. If you can find me one, I'd be happy to look at it.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
4/18 - Divine Mercy Sunday

Regarding the Pope's stance on the war in Iraq, he's never actually made an "official" statement. In fact, when the Papal spokesman was asked at a press conference (before the war) what the Pope thought of an American war with Iraq, the spokesman's answer, to paraphrase, was...

"No one wants war, ever. But the Pope is not a pacifist."

[Iacobus]

But Rome did much to try and prevent the war.

[CreepyCrawler]

Sometimes I get mad about the war because it's caused so much anger to build up in Iraq and terrorism is flourishing, but then I think about if I were an Iraqi, I'd be happy to be rid of Hussein because before the war, no one was helping them, other countries were just embargo-ing them. After the war, the international spotlight is on them and I think other countries are getting involved to help build a better state than there was before. So at least there's hope. I'm not for the war, but I have to force myself to not look at it from my American perspective (I'm talking about myself, not anyone in particular on this board). And since we're in now, we can't leave, so we'd better try and do the best job we can. I'm not a polsci major, though, so forgive me if this is overly simplistic.

[Iacobus]

We need to stay. But I think the reasons for going in were iffy.