If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   Paul Ryan: My budget is based on Catholic values. Bishops: No, it's based on Ayn Rand - now go read this Catholic Social Doctrine and try again   (dailykos.com) divider line 319
    More: Amusing, Paul Ryan, Catholic Social, Ayn Rand, Catholics, Catholic Faith, rich get richer, suede, Health Care, International  
•       •       •

6815 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Apr 2012 at 8:32 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



319 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-04-25 03:42:58 PM
And on the 7th day, the Lord said: OH SNAP.
 
2012-04-25 03:52:34 PM
"Our problem with Representative Ryan is that he claims his budget is based on Catholic social teaching,"

I have a problem with that for entirely different reasons.
 
2012-04-25 03:55:40 PM
Father Reese: "Survival of the fittest may be okay for Social Darwinists but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love."

Well said. Though I still maintain that the budget shouldn't be based on ANY religion. Well, maybe Voodoo.
 
2012-04-25 03:57:04 PM
If one thinks of the government as a priest and the taxpayer as a vulnerable young altar boy...
 
2012-04-25 04:09:16 PM
oh, for the love of Jesus!

Sin_City_Superhero: Well said. Though I still maintain that the budget shouldn't be based on ANY religion.


THIS, so very much THIS!
 
2012-04-25 04:14:35 PM
Is this the thread where Catholicism is OK now? I can't keep up with which Catholics are evil bastards hell-bent on destroying the world and remaking it in their image, which ones are rape raping, which ones are imposing theocratic rule on America, and which ones are nice kind loving people who actually think with their farking brains and not only with what is written in a two thousand year old book.
 
2012-04-25 04:19:17 PM

Elandriel: Is this the thread where Catholicism is OK now? I can't keep up with which Catholics are evil bastards hell-bent on destroying the world and remaking it in their image, which ones are rape raping, which ones are imposing theocratic rule on America, and which ones are nice kind loving people who actually think with their farking brains and not only with what is written in a two thousand year old book.


You make it sound like I have to choose between disliking Paul Ryan and disliking the Catholic Church.
 
2012-04-25 04:19:51 PM
This kind of thing seems to happen quite frequently for Republican Catholics.

They always seem to forget that the Church doesn't have the overwhelming hatred of the poor that the GOP does.
 
2012-04-25 04:20:18 PM

Elandriel: can't keep up with which Catholics are evil bastards hell-bent on destroying the world and remaking it in their image, which ones are rape raping, which ones are imposing theocratic rule on America, and which ones are nice kind loving people who actually think with their farking brains and not only with what is written in a two thousand year old book.


There's some from column A and some from column B.
 
2012-04-25 04:44:35 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

F*ck you, Paul Ryan.
 
2012-04-25 04:44:47 PM

Elandriel: Is this the thread where Catholicism is OK now? I can't keep up with which Catholics are evil bastards hell-bent on destroying the world and remaking it in their image, which ones are rape raping, which ones are imposing theocratic rule on America, and which ones are nice kind loving people who actually think with their farking brains and not only with what is written in a two thousand year old book.


Then go take a nap or something.
 
2012-04-25 04:46:36 PM

Quasar: You make it sound like I have to choose between disliking Paul Ryan and disliking the Catholic Church.


Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: There's some from column A and some from column B.


All I know is I'm tired of having to think for myself with all these differing views and shades of grey. Isn't there a news network or something that can package this all into nice little soundbytes so I can be told how to think? I need to know Who The Bad Guys Are. Things need to be easily compartmentalized, set apart from one another, given a stark contrast. When Catholics are advancing the cause of socialist liberal hell, it blurs the lines, and I find myself adrift without an anchor.

This is not okay.
 
2012-04-25 04:50:01 PM

Elandriel: I need to know Who The Bad Guys Are.


The terrorists are bad. Puppies are cute. America is the best nation on earth.

I hope this helps.
 
2012-04-25 05:13:15 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: The terrorists are bad. Puppies are cute. America is the best nation on earth.

I hope this helps.


Sparkly Eagle gif or GTFO.
 
2012-04-25 05:36:43 PM
"It is also demanded by the common good that civil authorities should make earnest efforts to bring about a situation in which individual citizens can easily exercise their rights and fulfill their duties as well. For experience has taught us that, unless these authorities take suitable action with regard to economic, political and cultural matters, inequalities between the citizens tend to become more and more widespread, especially in the modern world, and as a result human rights are rendered totally ineffective and the fulfillment of duties is compromised."

- Pope John XXIII, Pacem en Terris
 
2012-04-25 05:39:38 PM

Elandriel: I can't keep up with which Catholics are evil bastards hell-bent on destroying the world and remaking it in their image,


Those guys are over here in this thread.
 
2012-04-25 05:40:08 PM

Elandriel: Is this the thread where Catholicism is OK now?


Just because they're rapists doesn't mean they're not right sometimes. Even the worst people aren't bad in every single facet of their lives.
 
2012-04-25 05:40:55 PM
t2.gstatic.com
 
2012-04-25 05:41:53 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-04-25 05:43:18 PM
27.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-04-25 05:44:05 PM
28.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-04-25 05:44:51 PM
26.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-04-25 05:49:24 PM
Why would you base a budget on a religious teaching?

That just makes no goddamn sense at all.

This is why I'm not a Republican anymore. They are just completely nonsensical nowadays.
 
2012-04-25 05:49:31 PM
I like what vernonFL is doing. This one is my favorite:

29.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-04-25 05:51:30 PM

Lando Lincoln: Why would you base a budget on a religious teaching?


He's not basing it on a religious teaching. He's basing it on a bastardized and corrupt reading of a religious teaching. There's a big difference between those two.
 
2012-04-25 05:53:41 PM

Serious Black: I like what vernonFL is doing. This one is my favorite:


Her hair looks awfully good for someone without access to showers, shampoo, and conditioner.
 
2012-04-25 05:56:43 PM
And Jesus said unto them: Verily, fark the poor
 
2012-04-25 06:04:51 PM
"But Jesus wants you to be rich"

elbourne.org
 
2012-04-25 06:32:11 PM
What the Bishops think Ryan's budget may look like:

www.minilps.net
 
2012-04-25 06:35:02 PM
Call me crazy, but I think would should base out budget on... MATH.

You know... We take in as much as we spend or more so we can pay off the sh*t we bought 30 years ago.

I'm not feeling to many takers on my idea.
 
2012-04-25 06:47:15 PM
You have a better chance of fitting a camel through the eye of a needle than finding a Republican who can recite the Golden Rule.
 
2012-04-25 06:59:51 PM

NewportBarGuy: We take in as much as we spend or more so we can pay off the sh*t we bought 30 years ago.

I'm not feeling to many takers on my idea


At least not on the Republican side of the aisle, no.
 
2012-04-25 07:00:23 PM

Ed Finnerty: a Republican who can recite the Golden Rule.


Do unto others...then run.
 
2012-04-25 07:12:33 PM
Republican "Christians" are the biggest social Darwinists around.
 
2012-04-25 07:13:16 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Father Reese: "Survival of the fittest may be okay for Social Darwinists but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love."

Well said. Though I still maintain that the budget shouldn't be based on ANY religion. Well, maybe Voodoo.


My personal budget is based on snake handling.
 
2012-04-25 07:21:37 PM

Rapmaster2000: Sin_City_Superhero: Father Reese: "Survival of the fittest may be okay for Social Darwinists but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love."

Well said. Though I still maintain that the budget shouldn't be based on ANY religion. Well, maybe Voodoo.

My personal budget is based on snake handling.


I'll bet it is. :)
 
2012-04-25 07:22:37 PM

Ed Finnerty: You have a better chance of fitting a camel through the eye of a needle than finding a Republican who can recite the Golden Rule.


Buy high, sell low? Wait...
 
2012-04-25 07:30:35 PM
Sometimes the Catholic Church is awesome.
Paul Ryan is always a dick/tool
 
2012-04-25 07:56:56 PM
Ryan has angered the Jesuits. This is not what can be termed a good move.
 
2012-04-25 08:14:25 PM
i47.tinypic.com

"Look, guys... I'm white, I've proven that I can have white children with a white woman. These religious people will totally be on board with my message. We'll gather up the flock and just smash the sh*t out of these poor people. It'll be fun! You can make the check out to "P-A-U-L..."
 
2012-04-25 08:35:14 PM
www.msmary.edu

RIP Cardinal Newman
 
2012-04-25 08:37:08 PM
Someone saying that Paul Ryan's budget is not based on his religious leanings is the nicest thing anyone could say about Paul Ryan's budget.
 
2012-04-25 08:37:16 PM
I'm OK with the religion of child rapists getting into a fight with the cult of ego. Hopefully they'll kill each other off and leave the world a better place.
 
2012-04-25 08:37:38 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Father Reese: "Survival of the fittest may be okay for Social Darwinists but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love."

Well said. Though I still maintain that the budget shouldn't be based on ANY religion. Well, maybe Voodoo.


golfclap.jpg

George H. W. approves
 
2012-04-25 08:39:58 PM
So who will be the first Republican to call the Jesuits socialists? Hell, for all I know it has already been done.
 
2012-04-25 08:40:15 PM
Should have stuck with the much more vague and decentralized "Christian values" label. No one can claim to speak for all Christians, but the Catholics have their specific brand pretty well locked down.
 
2012-04-25 08:42:33 PM
This is the side of the Catholic Church that I admire. Awesome slapdown.
 
2012-04-25 08:42:36 PM
While I loathe the Catholic bishops for unrelated reasons, I have no problem supporting them when it comes to calling out Ryan's bullshiat.

Fark Paul Ryan. And Ayn Rand. gets several helpings of 'Rot in hell you hateful, hypocritical biatch, your shiatty novel and its fanbase have skullfarked America'.
 
2012-04-25 08:48:12 PM
upload.wikimedia.org
Dear Republicans, your messiah you worship was an atheist and her doctrine was the basis for the Church of Satan.

upload.wikimedia.org

And it's the antithesis of what this person teaches:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-04-25 08:48:18 PM

Ed Finnerty: You have a better chance of fitting a camel through the eye of a needle than finding a Republican who can recite the Golden Rule.


He who has the Gold makes the rules
 
2012-04-25 08:48:38 PM
That's just weird.

I would hope that any budget would be based on sound financial practices.
 
2012-04-25 08:50:10 PM

coco ebert: This is the side of the Catholic Church that I admire. Awesome slapdown.


I like how they are consistent in their stance on human life by being against the death penalty and against birth control and abortion. It pisses off both the right and left and they don't care.
 
2012-04-25 08:51:46 PM
Objectivism is autism expressed as a personal philosophy.
Libertarianism is autism expressed as a political philosophy.
 
2012-04-25 08:52:59 PM
The best representative the catholic church has is Stephen Colbert
 
2012-04-25 08:53:54 PM

Serious Black: Lando Lincoln: Why would you base a budget on a religious teaching?

He's not basing it on a religious teaching. He's basing it on a bastardized and corrupt reading of a religious teaching. There's a big difference between those two.


Given Randists' fanatical zeal for their Most Unholy Lady of Narcissistic Bloviation, I'd say it's arguable he IS basing his budget on a religious teaching. But not Christianity.
 
2012-04-25 08:54:11 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Sometimes the Catholic Church is awesome.
Paul Ryan is always a dick/tool


Truer words have never been spoken.
 
2012-04-25 08:54:12 PM

Quasar: Elandriel: Is this the thread where Catholicism is OK now? I can't keep up with which Catholics are evil bastards hell-bent on destroying the world and remaking it in their image, which ones are rape raping, which ones are imposing theocratic rule on America, and which ones are nice kind loving people who actually think with their farking brains and not only with what is written in a two thousand year old book.

You make it sound like I have to choose between disliking Paul Ryan and disliking the Catholic Church.


so you're saying...

both sides are bad?
 
2012-04-25 08:56:24 PM

Erebus1954: coco ebert: This is the side of the Catholic Church that I admire. Awesome slapdown.

I like how they are consistent in their stance on human life by being against the death penalty and against birth control and abortion. It pisses off both the right and left and they don't care.


It's hard to be consistent these days so yes, that is very admirable.

As a Catholic, it helps reaffirm my belief that not every Catholic has fallen for the bastardized version of Catholicism which mixes the Prosperity Gospel in there and that there are still good Catholic out there.
 
2012-04-25 08:56:59 PM
Its right in the bible: "and behold, for the lord doth sayth "render unto ceasar a tax cut for he is a job creator and unto the poor render a swiftous kick to theiner buttockss for they be as to the spongeous; what was I thinking creating them?"
 
2012-04-25 08:57:46 PM
Surely the GOP will now rush to defend the honor of the Catholic Church by burning Ryan's cockamamie budget plan to the ground. After all, we learned from the contraception debate that the GOP is all about protecting Catholic values.
 
2012-04-25 08:58:22 PM

Lando Lincoln: Why would you base a budget on a religious teaching?


Especially catholic-based! Seems to me like a tithe would be too similar to a tax, but it's ten percent for everyone, so...flat tax? Hurray?
 
2012-04-25 09:00:34 PM
Why do Catholics hate America?
 
2012-04-25 09:05:21 PM
But Ayn Rand was Catholic, so it's all good.
 
2012-04-25 09:06:48 PM

Rapmaster2000: Sin_City_Superhero: Father Reese: "Survival of the fittest may be okay for Social Darwinists but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love."

Well said. Though I still maintain that the budget shouldn't be based on ANY religion. Well, maybe Voodoo.

My personal budget is based on snake handling.


crooksandliars.com

Approves.
 
2012-04-25 09:07:29 PM
These people are actually starting to make me feel bad for Ayn Rand.
 
2012-04-25 09:09:18 PM
This is one of the finest summaries of Catholic Social doctrine, from a letter by Pope John Paul II called Evangelium Vitae, but sadly most Republicans and too many Catholic bishops stop reading after the first two lines:


I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience: "Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator".
 
2012-04-25 09:09:33 PM

Erebus1954: coco ebert: This is the side of the Catholic Church that I admire. Awesome slapdown.

I like how they are consistent in their stance on human life by being against the death penalty and against birth control and abortion. It pisses off both the right and left and they don't care.


Except I don't see anybody denying Paul communion. They aren't really all that consistent.

/Jesuits are pretty ok in my book, though.
 
2012-04-25 09:10:12 PM

supageil: These people are actually starting to make me feel bad for Ayn Rand.


Anthem was a decent book, better insofar as it inspired 2112.
 
2012-04-25 09:12:07 PM
I do get a kick out of the GOP.

Darwin.... bad.
Social Darwin... good.
 
2012-04-25 09:14:25 PM

Pincy: So who will be the first Republican to call the Jesuits socialists? Hell, for all I know it has already been done.


One does not simply call "God's Marines" socialists
 
2012-04-25 09:14:35 PM
"Survival of the fittest may be okay for Social Darwinists but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love."
Or the Buddhist, Hindus and other various and sundry theological views. Compassion springs from varying theological bases. And that is why one is faulty to think they can can say that their perspective is the highest flying kite.
Good on the Jesuits to join the Bishops and give voice to the heart of the matter.
As the bracelets ask, WWJD? Mine would say WWJFKND, lol.
--- Regarding the term, "survival of the fittest", I think that one must decide on the definition of fittest. Is it physical or brain power? Is it core strength? Wisdom?
Many people I encounter that give credence to the philosophy survival of the fittest tend to think of it in brute force terms. I dunno, seems there is more to it that.
 
2012-04-25 09:15:39 PM

Magorn: This is one of the finest summaries of Catholic Social doctrine, from a letter by Pope John Paul II called Evangelium Vitae, but sadly most Republicans and too many Catholic bishops stop reading after the first two lines:


I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience: "Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator".


This was the pope that the current pope was hiding the child rapists for, right?
 
2012-04-25 09:16:05 PM
It is a great quote, but it's not JPII; it's a quotation from Vatican II's Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes)' from 1965.



Magorn: This is one of the finest summaries of Catholic Social doctrine, from a letter by Pope John Paul II called Evangelium Vitae, but sadly most Republicans and too many Catholic bishops stop reading after the first two lines:


I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience: "Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator".

 
2012-04-25 09:19:53 PM
Stick the fiscal conservatives and social conservatives in Thunderdome and let them fight it out.

Then unleash the tigers on the survivors.
 
2012-04-25 09:20:51 PM

coco ebert: This is the side of the Catholic Church that I admire.


Say what you will about the Church, and I've said plenty, the Jesuits are alright.
 
2012-04-25 09:21:08 PM
 
2012-04-25 09:21:30 PM

Sabyen91: Erebus1954: coco ebert: This is the side of the Catholic Church that I admire. Awesome slapdown.

I like how they are consistent in their stance on human life by being against the death penalty and against birth control and abortion. It pisses off both the right and left and they don't care.

Except I don't see anybody denying Paul communion. They aren't really all that consistent.

/Jesuits are pretty ok in my book, though.


Yeah, I tend to like the Catholics the CIA trained commandos to exterminate.
 
2012-04-25 09:22:03 PM

smeegle:
--- Regarding the term, "survival of the fittest", I think that one must decide on the definition of fittest. Is it physical or brain power? Is it core strength? Wisdom?
Many people I encounter that give credence to the philosophy survival of the fittest tend to think of it in brute force terms. I dunno, seems there is more to it that.


Obviously we don't want to define exactly what characteristics make someone "fittest". It's best just to look for the inevitable outcome of fitness, which is the accumulation of lots of money.
 
2012-04-25 09:22:25 PM
www.lolroflmao.com
 
2012-04-25 09:24:00 PM

Hobodeluxe: The best representative the catholic church has is Stephen Colbert


You ain't kidding - his remarks about his religion in that big NY Times Sunday Magazine article a while ago made me think "maybe I should consider going back to the Church". For a couple seconds, at least.
 
2012-04-25 09:24:19 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-04-25 09:24:43 PM

Rapmaster2000: My personal budget is based on snake handling.


I bet your hooker expenses are almost nil then.
 
2012-04-25 09:26:10 PM

grotto_man: Ryan's right - http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/rose-delauro-cns-and-the-disorient e d-catholic-left .

Now, to make matters worse, here is Paul Ryan, a congressman of uncommon intelligence...


Excuse me while I barf.

who can ably argue the public policy implications of Catholic social doctrine and who understands that what the Church asks of a just society is the empowerment of the poor: breaking the cycle of welfare dependency and unleashing the creativity the Church believes God builds into every human soul.

What a load of BS that is. Paul Ryan isn't going to sleep with you George.

Tell me where it says that we should tell the poor to fark off anytime they ask for help. Because that's what Paul Ryan's bullshiat budget is suggesting.
 
2012-04-25 09:26:54 PM

Bhasayate: But Ayn Rand was Catholic, so it's all good.


You're thinking of Hitler. The other crazy person with a weird accent and a stupid haircut that hated Communists and worked to erase their Jewish heritage so that Nazis didn't take note of it. It's okay to get them confused.
 
2012-04-25 09:29:34 PM

Falcc: Bhasayate: But Ayn Rand was Catholic, so it's all good.

You're thinking of Hitler. The other crazy person with a weird accent and a stupid haircut that hated Communists and worked to erase their Jewish heritage so that Nazis didn't take note of it. It's okay to get them confused.


Oh, I'm just kidding. Ayn Rand was totally not Catholic. Everyone knows she was Buddhist. =p
 
2012-04-25 09:31:00 PM

grotto_man: Ryan's right - http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/rose-delauro-cns-and-the-disorient e d-catholic-left .


Like hell he is. Crisis magazine exists for the sole purpose of adapting Catholicism to far right political ideology. It's about as accurate as Fox News.
 
2012-04-25 09:32:19 PM

smeegle: "Survival of the fittest may be okay for Social Darwinists but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love."
Or the Buddhist, Hindus and other various and sundry theological views. Compassion springs from varying theological bases. And that is why one is faulty to think they can can say that their perspective is the highest flying kite.
Good on the Jesuits to join the Bishops and give voice to the heart of the matter.
As the bracelets ask, WWJD? Mine would say WWJFKND, lol.
--- Regarding the term, "survival of the fittest", I think that one must decide on the definition of fittest. Is it physical or brain power? Is it core strength? Wisdom?
Many people I encounter that give credence to the philosophy survival of the fittest tend to think of it in brute force terms. I dunno, seems there is more to it that, my precious


FTFY
 
2012-04-25 09:32:46 PM
when are the teabaggers going to flood the thread and explain to everyone that the Catholic Bishops don't know shiat about Catholicism and Ryan has a masters degree in everything relevant including religion and economics
 
2012-04-25 09:32:53 PM

Scaevola: grotto_man: Ryan's right - http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/rose-delauro-cns-and-the-disorient e d-catholic-left .

Like hell he is. Crisis magazine exists for the sole purpose of adapting Catholicism to far right political ideology. It's about as accurate as Fox News.


Yeah, they and Bill Donohue are compatriots.
 
2012-04-25 09:33:59 PM

grotto_man: Ryan's right - http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/rose-delauro-cns-and-the-disorient e d-catholic-left .


Let's see, who to believe. Bishops who cite Catholic doctrine, or this guy?
 
2012-04-25 09:34:47 PM
Read the Beatitudes, Jesus was a dirty socialist.
 
2012-04-25 09:38:45 PM

falcon176: when are the teabaggers going to flood the thread and explain to everyone that the Catholic Bishops don't know shiat about Catholicism and Ryan has a masters degree in everything relevant including religion and economics


grotto_man got a head start with that whopper of an article he posted talking about the "uncommon intelligence" of Paul Ryan.

And if by "uncommon intelligence", he means dumb as a box of rocks to design a budget based on 2% unemployment and when asked about the details of his plans such as which loopholes to close, he basically said "i dunno".

Then yes....yes he is
 
2012-04-25 09:39:18 PM
Allow me to paraphrase from Jesus (Family Guy)

" I heard what you were saying. You know nothing of my of work. How you ever got to be congressman of anything is totally amazing. "
 
2012-04-25 09:40:19 PM
This is a man who is ON RECORD saying that the military budget should be based on how much money they want.

"President Obama put out his budget number for the Pentagon first ... and then they began the strategy review to conform the budget to meet that number. We think it should have been the other way around."

And people take him seriously.

Seriously, what the fark?
 
2012-04-25 09:41:24 PM
When even Newt Gingrich blasts your healthcare plan as right-wing social engineering you've gone too far.
 
2012-04-25 09:41:31 PM
It used to be satire, but the Randbots have brought it into the real world: Link
 
2012-04-25 09:41:40 PM

Once again, it's the left that gets Catholic Social Doctrine right. If you want to know the real position of the Church, don't trust a group of politicized bishops, read what the Popes have to say.

Pope John Paul II already spoke on this subject, and quite definitively:

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called "Welfare State". This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.


Centesimus annus, 1991

His reference to the doctrine of subsidiarity was no accident:

79. As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.


Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 1931.

The US Catholic Bishops can complain all they want about the Ryan budget, but their nakedly political statements do not reflect the actual teachings of the Catholic Church.
 
2012-04-25 09:41:43 PM

Erix: inevitable outcome of fitness, which is the accumulation of lots of money.


How is the accumulation of wealth a single measure of being fittest?
 
2012-04-25 09:42:42 PM

jso2897: Objectivism is psychopathy autismexpressed as a personal philosophy.
Libertarianism is psychopathy autism expressed as a political philosophy.


Adjusted for accuracy.
 
2012-04-25 09:42:52 PM

smeegle: Erix: inevitable outcome of fitness, which is the accumulation of lots of money.

How is the accumulation of wealth a single measure of being fittest?


Especially if there was a revolution.
 
2012-04-25 09:46:07 PM

WombatControl: Once again, it's the left that gets Catholic Social Doctrine right.


Yes. Yes we do.
 
2012-04-25 09:46:49 PM

WombatControl: do not reflect the actual teachings of the Catholic Church.


Actually they do. Everyone is expected at all times to help those in need. Also you may want to read the rest of those encyclicals you linked to.
 
2012-04-25 09:48:19 PM

Falcc: Bhasayate: But Ayn Rand was Catholic, so it's all good.

You're thinking of Hitler. The other crazy person with a weird accent and a stupid haircut that hated Communists and worked to erase their Jewish heritage so that Nazis didn't take note of it. It's okay to get them confused.


I came to point out that Ryan was just looking for a final solution to the poor problem, but see that my work was half done.
 
2012-04-25 09:49:00 PM
Paul Ryan is the sort of person that makes Spiro Agnew look like an upright guy. Paul Ryan is the sort of person that makes Huey Long look like a honest, fair politician. Boss Tweed? Nice guy, up front about what he wanted, unlike Paul Ryan.

Best part is that none of these men looked like a washed up child star from a sub-par TV sitcom in the '60s.

Paul Ryan can, frankly, fark himself.
 
2012-04-25 09:49:53 PM

WhyteRaven74: WombatControl: do not reflect the actual teachings of the Catholic Church.

Actually they do. Everyone is expected at all times to help those in need. Also you may want to read the rest of those encyclicals you linked to.


Butbutbut they don't support his position!
 
2012-04-25 09:51:50 PM

Magorn: This is one of the finest summaries of Catholic Social doctrine


Wow, I'd like to know what someone like Ryan would think about workers "treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons" being put on the same level as abortion.

It's not like he can say the Pope was wrong, or anything.
 
2012-04-25 09:54:42 PM

WhyteRaven74: WombatControl: do not reflect the actual teachings of the Catholic Church.

Actually they do. Everyone is expected at all times to help those in need. Also you may want to read the rest of those encyclicals you linked to.


I have.

And you miss the point. Everyone is expected to help others. Personally. Just saying "well, I support higher taxes on the rich and the welfare state, so I'm good to go" is the height of hypocrisy. The obligation to help others is personal, and is not satisfied by merely supporting the state.

Again, if I'm so wrong, I provided links to both encyclicals - feel free to quote the passages that support your position.
 
2012-04-25 09:54:44 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Butbutbut they don't support his position!


well yeah, but that's not my problem ;)

Zulu_as_Kono: It's not like he can say the Pope was wrong, or anything.


Part of being a Catholic is you're supposed to abide by the teachings of the church including the content of encyclicals. So yeah, someone should ask him how he considers himself a good Catholic when he stands opposed to the teachings that as a Catholic he's expected to adhere to. To say nothing of standing opposed to the teachings of Jesus.
 
2012-04-25 09:56:30 PM

mahuika: Someone saying that Paul Ryan's budget is not based on his religious leanings is the nicest thing anyone could say about Paul Ryan's budget.


Ah, but they are. Paul may claim to be a Catholic, but like so many Evangelicals, he worships Supply-Side Jesus.
 
2012-04-25 09:56:46 PM

WombatControl: Everyone is expected to help others. Personally


Everyone is expected to have compassion and empathy for all others at all times. And you are expected to help others by those means you personally have. Ergo, if you're a legislator you don't cut off assistance to those in need. Nor do you demonize those in need, or minorities, or women etc etc. Basically what Catholic teachings say is that if you're a CEO and take a bonus for yourself while cutting bonuses for your employees, you fail. If you're a legislator and allow people to go without help, you fail.
 
2012-04-25 09:57:53 PM

WombatControl: If you want to know the real position of the Church, don't trust a group of politicized bishops...


I remember when you said the same thing when those same bishops came out against Obama's health plan.

Oh wait, no I don't.
 
2012-04-25 09:58:19 PM
Wait a minute...now Kos wants us to respect something that reads, in part, "The first right presented in this list is the right to life, from conception to its natural end, which is the condition for the exercise of all other rights and, in particular, implies the illicitness of every form of procured abortion and of euthanasia?"

This must be one of those "cunning plans."
 
2012-04-25 09:59:16 PM

eudemonist: Wait a minute...now Kos wants us to respect something that reads, in part, "The first right presented in this list is the right to life, from conception to its natural end, which is the condition for the exercise of all other rights and, in particular, implies the illicitness of every form of procured abortion and of euthanasia?"

This must be one of those "cunning plans."


No, they're just calling bullshiat on Paul when he says he respects it.
 
2012-04-25 09:59:34 PM
Catholic values? Yeah, you mean like castrating young boys in Holland, and maybe elsewhere; stolen babies in Spain, and maybe elsewhere; the Magdalene laundries in Ireland, and maybe elsewhere; Mt. Cashel, in Newfoundland; *residential* schools; every conceivable form of sexual abuse, the world around. And, lest we forget, the endless rumors and reports of the mayhem, murder, money laundering, and ties to the mafia that constantly swirl around the Vatican. When the likes of JP Morgan closes a bank account, as they've done with the Vatican, you don't have to be told that the joint stinks to high heaven and beyond. The action speaks for itself. Catholic values, my *ass. Oooops, I really should be careful, there, shouldn't I?
 
2012-04-25 10:01:21 PM

edmo: "But Jesus wants you to be rich"

[elbourne.org image 260x260]


Approves!

img.thoughts.com
 
2012-04-25 10:01:22 PM

smeegle: Erix: inevitable outcome of fitness, which is the accumulation of lots of money.

How is the accumulation of wealth a single measure of being fittest?


Don't ask me, ask Darwin. He's the one that first noted it. During his studies of the Galapagos finches, he observed that some finches (at least among the Large Ground Finch Geospiza magnirostris) were able to gather larger piles of seeds (or "wealth" as he called it) by virtue of their more robust beaks. In the rudimentary finch "society" these successful seed gatherers came out on top, and were typically more able to find a mate and produce more offspring. Additionally, the larger the finch's seed bank, the more deferential other finches were to their calls, essentially equating "wealth" with "speech", as was keenly noted by Justice Kennedy in his majority opinion on the Citizens United case.

So, the size of the beak was the true phenotypic expression of fitness, but it was really the amount of wealth the the birds gathered (its extended phenotype) that determined reproductive success, and which was much easier to measure for an amateur naturalist. That's why social Darwinism works so well.
 
2012-04-25 10:03:11 PM
The Ayn Rand reading retards thinking Paul Ryan is a true Catholic forgot this part as well:

42. Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?

The answer is obviously complex. If by "capitalism" is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a "business economy", "market economy" or simply "free economy". But if by "capitalism" is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.


Link
 
2012-04-25 10:03:35 PM

Erix: . He's the one that first noted it.


Darwin explicitly stated that what goes for nature does not go for human institutions. Darwin thought social darwinism was a complete sham.
 
2012-04-25 10:05:53 PM
More:

48. These general observations also apply to the role of the State in the economic sector. Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principle task of the State is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labours and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. The absence of stability, together with the corruption of public officials and the spread of improper sources of growing rich and of easy profits deriving from illegal or purely speculative activities, constitutes one of the chief obstacles to development and to the economic order.
 
2012-04-25 10:06:52 PM
Wait. What? I'm actually LIKING Catholics right now? And Catholic BISHOPS, no less??!

How the F did this happen?
 
2012-04-25 10:07:38 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Father Reese: "Survival of the fittest may be okay for Social Darwinists but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love."

Well said. Though I still maintain that the budget shouldn't be based on ANY religion. Well, maybe Voodoo.


There is nothing wrong with setting a budget in line with any set of religious values simple due to the fact that the values are religious. The question will always be, what specific values whether they happen to be aligned with any religion or not. Your comment makes it sound as if being aligned with religious values is a disqualification, as opposed to an irrelevant correlation.
 
2012-04-25 10:09:13 PM

TV's Vinnie: Wait. What? I'm actually LIKING Catholics right now? And Catholic BISHOPS, no less??!

How the F did this happen?


Even a busted clock is right twice each day.

/Catholic
 
2012-04-25 10:09:55 PM

Elandriel: Is this the thread where Catholicism is OK now? I can't keep up with which Catholics are evil bastards hell-bent on destroying the world and remaking it in their image, which ones are rape raping, which ones are imposing theocratic rule on America, and which ones are nice kind loving people who actually think with their farking brains and not only with what is written in a two thousand year old book.


I was thinking the same thing myself (see above post), but then I realized something......

Lex Luthor is bad, but at least he's not really, REALLY evil, like Darkseid.

Which goes to show that Ryan is such a flaming monstrous asswipe that even Nazi sympathizing child-molesters look good compared to him.
 
2012-04-25 10:10:23 PM

WhyteRaven74: Erix: . He's the one that first noted it.

Darwin explicitly stated that what goes for nature does not go for human institutions. Darwin thought social darwinism was a complete sham.


Well, yeah. He hated the name Darwinism and instead referred to it as Wallacism, particularly when applying it in a social context, even though he developed most of the theory himself. His experiences with raising his pigeons showed him that if you gave a pigeon too much feed, it would lose the desire to gather food for itself. Instead, he allowed his pigeons to fight over a limited amount of grain, leading to a far more cohesive flock of stronger birds, albeit with the minor, unfortunate side effect of some poor birds starving to death.
 
2012-04-25 10:11:57 PM

WombatControl: Once again, it's the left that gets Catholic Social Doctrine right.


Yeah, Charlie Pierce has this well-covered: Link
 
2012-04-25 10:13:20 PM

Erix: WhyteRaven74: Erix: . He's the one that first noted it.

Darwin explicitly stated that what goes for nature does not go for human institutions. Darwin thought social darwinism was a complete sham.

Well, yeah. He hated the name Darwinism and instead referred to it as Wallacism, particularly when applying it in a social context, even though he developed most of the theory himself. His experiences with raising his pigeons showed him that if you gave a pigeon too much feed, it would lose the desire to gather food for itself. Instead, he allowed his pigeons to fight over a limited amount of grain, leading to a far more cohesive flock of stronger birds, albeit with the minor, unfortunate side effect of some poor birds starving to death.


Seriously? A true Social Darwinist on Fark? Heil!
 
2012-04-25 10:16:59 PM
What would a budget "based on Catholic values" even look like? A trust fund set aside to pay the victims' families to keep them quiet?
 
2012-04-25 10:17:10 PM
The Catholic Church isn't too fond of individualism as well as collectivism.

46. Accordingly, twin rocks of shipwreck must be carefully avoided. For, as one is wrecked upon, or comes close to, what is known as "individualism" by denying or minimizing the social and public character of the right of property, so by rejecting or minimizing the private and individual character of this same right, one inevitably runs into "collectivism" or at least closely approaches its tenets. Unless this is kept in mind, one is swept from his course upon the shoals of that moral, juridical, and social modernism which We denounced in the Encyclical issued at the beginning of Our Pontificate.[29] And, in particular, let those realize this who, in their desire for innovation, do not scruple to reproach the Church with infamous calumnies, as if she had allowed to creep into the teachings of her theologians a pagan concept of ownership which must be completely replaced by another that they with amazing ignorance call "Christian."
 
2012-04-25 10:18:25 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: What would a budget "based on Catholic values" even look like?


Imagine no one having to beg for money for food or sleeping on the street or lacking medical care. That would be the most basic parts of it.
 
2012-04-25 10:19:29 PM
I hate to Godwin the thread (too late!) but I wonder if this is how it felt in the 30s in Germany? I mean, all these people who think they're fighting the good fight and supporting the god-fearing, patriotic leaders who will save them, but who later come to realize they've been unwittingly supporting fascism and empowering wealthy men with no ethics who will eventually bring ruin upon their nation.

While the proles still argue about Republic vs Democrat, or Liberal vs Conservative, the plutocrats and true villains are shaking hands, making deals, and carving up our nation like a cherry pie.

And guess what, kiddies! Us poor folks who make under $500,000 a year? We get the pits.
 
2012-04-25 10:19:51 PM

WhyteRaven74: LouDobbsAwaaaay: What would a budget "based on Catholic values" even look like?

Imagine no one having to beg for money for food or sleeping on the street or lacking medical care. That would be the most basic parts of it.


Of course you would still have to be a slave...

/Ok, I suppose we are talking about the Jesus part.
 
2012-04-25 10:21:25 PM
I'm absolutely shocked that a teabagging republican would pull shiat out of his ass.
 
2012-04-25 10:22:11 PM

Ned Stark: both sides are bad?


Yes, both sides are bad, but in this case, one side is correct,
 
2012-04-25 10:22:18 PM

Lord_Baull: I'm absolutely shocked that a teabagging republican would pull shiat out of his ass.


I am just surprised he didn't stick it up his nose.
 
2012-04-25 10:23:12 PM

Sabyen91: Erix: WhyteRaven74: Erix: . He's the one that first noted it.

Darwin explicitly stated that what goes for nature does not go for human institutions. Darwin thought social darwinism was a complete sham.

Well, yeah. He hated the name Darwinism and instead referred to it as Wallacism, particularly when applying it in a social context, even though he developed most of the theory himself. His experiences with raising his pigeons showed him that if you gave a pigeon too much feed, it would lose the desire to gather food for itself. Instead, he allowed his pigeons to fight over a limited amount of grain, leading to a far more cohesive flock of stronger birds, albeit with the minor, unfortunate side effect of some poor birds starving to death.

Seriously? A true Social Darwinist on Fark? Heil!


Honestly, I've been grading really bad student papers all day, and I'm so bored that I've stooped to posting ridiculous shiat on Fark to entertain myself.
 
2012-04-25 10:24:26 PM

WhyteRaven74: LouDobbsAwaaaay: What would a budget "based on Catholic values" even look like?

Imagine no one having to beg for money for food or sleeping on the street or lacking medical care. That would be the most basic parts of it.


I don't know what Catholicism you are talking about. I'm talking about the one that exists in the real world; the one that in the Middle Ages built palaces of gold and its leaders lived in unimaginable luxury while people starved to death in the streets and died of the Plague.
 
2012-04-25 10:25:22 PM

Erix: Sabyen91: Erix: WhyteRaven74: Erix: . He's the one that first noted it.

Darwin explicitly stated that what goes for nature does not go for human institutions. Darwin thought social darwinism was a complete sham.

Well, yeah. He hated the name Darwinism and instead referred to it as Wallacism, particularly when applying it in a social context, even though he developed most of the theory himself. His experiences with raising his pigeons showed him that if you gave a pigeon too much feed, it would lose the desire to gather food for itself. Instead, he allowed his pigeons to fight over a limited amount of grain, leading to a far more cohesive flock of stronger birds, albeit with the minor, unfortunate side effect of some poor birds starving to death.

Seriously? A true Social Darwinist on Fark? Heil!

Honestly, I've been grading really bad student papers all day, and I'm so bored that I've stooped to posting ridiculous shiat on Fark to entertain myself.


You need a teacher's aide, dude. I hear they work for pennies. Of course we would have to give that person food stamps...or not (if Ryan has his way).
 
2012-04-25 10:27:48 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: . I'm talking about the one that exists in the real world; the


The one in the real world isn't the one that was around back then. The encyclicals that make up the church's stance on social policy don't go back all that far, in part because how things are now is not how they've been for very long and also because the people running the place actually tend to care about things unlike in the past. In the past you could pretty well buy the election to be pope, that's how you ended up with a Borgia as pope and a de Medici as pope. Neither was remotely qualified, but they could grease the right palms and be pope. Once such things disappeared things started changing.
 
2012-04-25 10:31:11 PM
Ayn Rand the tool of tools...Also the fool of fools. Check out Greenspans relationship with her...Madame RW Wacko Supreme. Madame Cloudcookooville!
 
2012-04-25 10:31:12 PM

Sabyen91:
You need a teacher's aide, dude. I hear they work for pennies. Of course we would have to give that person food stamps...or not (if Ryan has his way).


Ha.. I AM the teacher's aide, aka grad student. We work for pennies and decent health care.
 
2012-04-25 10:32:27 PM

WhyteRaven74: The one in the real world isn't the one that was around back then. The encyclicals that make up the church's stance on social policy don't go back all that far, in part because how things are now is not how they've been for very long and also because the people running the place actually tend to care about things unlike in the past.


The Church's official statement on the cause of child-rape in the Church since the 1950s: Gay Al Qaeda and time-traveling hippies.

They care about what they've always cared about: considering themselves to be blameless for all acts of evil they commit, and money.
 
2012-04-25 10:33:15 PM

Erix: Sabyen91:
You need a teacher's aide, dude. I hear they work for pennies. Of course we would have to give that person food stamps...or not (if Ryan has his way).

Ha.. I AM the teacher's aide, aka grad student. We work for pennies and decent health care.


Hah, a TA! You guys get all the good jobs! Lucky ducky.
 
2012-04-25 10:33:57 PM
Why are all of these right wingers suddenly all trying to suck the Catholic Church's dick like an alter boy plied with communion wine?
 
2012-04-25 10:34:00 PM
The only thing funnier than Paul Ryan being called on his bullshiat is how far his fortunes have fallen. Over 16 months ago this gollum-like loser was positioning himself to be the Republican nominee. He was all ready and set to give the rebuttal to the State of the Union address and finally make it big time. He was actually cunning enough to realize that maybe the next Republican nominee should start early and get on top of a Republican 'win' (that just happened to shiat itself when coming close to gaining the Senate).

Then three things happened: the Medicare bill was revealed to be a way of getting rid of the program and Ryan took credit for it, Bachmann upstaged him during the 'Teabagger Response' where she looked like she was about to behead a soldier, and then the Republicans figured that Donald Trump would be a better candidate than Paul Ryan. And now that stupid shiathead is begging to be second fiddle to the Romney campaign by doing everything short of sticking his nose up a Book of Mormon.

The fact that Paul Ryan has failed at even trying to attempt to gain power and now has to resort to asking for the VP slot in a doomed campaign tells you everything you need to know about the man. The fact that he looks like his mother still dresses him. The way he shoots off the Republican rhetoric in the most half-assed way. The way he looks like Kirk Cameron pushing another crocoduck and selling it with all the glee of a door-to-door salesman five days away from hanging himself with his unclean socks.

Paul Ryan isn't smart enough to realize Romney is a sinking ship. What the fark does anybody think he has to add to the national discourse if he's this pathetic?
 
2012-04-25 10:34:53 PM

ongbok: Why are all of these right wingers suddenly all trying to suck the Catholic Church's dick like an alter boy plied with communion wine?


Because the Mormon is going to be a hard sell to those seeking ideological purity?
 
2012-04-25 10:39:38 PM
Faith is a very shiatty economic policy.
 
2012-04-25 10:39:40 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Father Reese: "Survival of the fittest may be okay for Social Darwinists but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love."

Well said. Though I still maintain that the budget shouldn't be based on ANY religion. Well, maybe Voodoo.


I'm trying to figure out how you even CREATE a budget based on religion.

"And on the fourth day, we shall allocate education and social services programs!"
 
2012-04-25 10:40:14 PM
Most Catholics are pretty decent folks, or at least on the same level as most other people.

Most Catholic politicians seem to think that the best idea the church ever had was the Inquisition.

//still trying to figure out how Newt and Santorum could claim to be Catholic with a straight face.
 
2012-04-25 11:05:48 PM

Hobodeluxe: Ed Finnerty: You have a better chance of fitting a camel through the eye of a needle than finding a Republican who can recite the Golden Rule.

He who has the Gold makes the rules


images4.fanpop.com
 
2012-04-25 11:10:57 PM

WhyteRaven74: WombatControl: Everyone is expected to help others. Personally

Everyone is expected to have compassion and empathy for all others at all times. And you are expected to help others by those means you personally have. Ergo, if you're a legislator you don't cut off assistance to those in need. Nor do you demonize those in need, or minorities, or women etc etc. Basically what Catholic teachings say is that if you're a CEO and take a bonus for yourself while cutting bonuses for your employees, you fail. If you're a legislator and allow people to go without help, you fail.


And again:

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.


Opposition to the welfare state isn't just consistent with Catholic social thought, it's necessitated by it. The welfare state is not in accord with charity - it is a system which systematically robs individuals of their human agency and subordinates them to the state in a way that is not acceptable to Catholic social teachings.

Rep. Ryan's budget does not cut programs to the poor out of spite, it does it because many of these programs no longer serve the poor, but entrap them into a culture of dependency and subservience.

To argue that it is moral to create a system of permanent welfare entitlement that can never be challenged, never be changed, never be cut is an idea that is not only incorrect as a matter of Catholic social teaching, but common sense and logic also.
 
2012-04-25 11:11:53 PM

Quasar: Elandriel: Is this the thread where Catholicism is OK now? I can't keep up with which Catholics are evil bastards hell-bent on destroying the world and remaking it in their image, which ones are rape raping, which ones are imposing theocratic rule on America, and which ones are nice kind loving people who actually think with their farking brains and not only with what is written in a two thousand year old book.

You make it sound like I have to choose between disliking Paul Ryan and disliking the Catholic Church.


Well to be fair it is a choice between and organization that wants to fark little boys, and an organization that wants to fark everyone. Either way, someone is going to get it in the end.
 
2012-04-25 11:12:11 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: The Church's official statement on the cause of child-rape in the Church since the 1950s: Gay Al Qaeda and time-traveling hippies.


Isn't Jesus a time-travelling hippie?
 
2012-04-25 11:14:10 PM

WombatControl: welfare state


I yawned.
 
2012-04-25 11:15:08 PM

WombatControl: r, but entrap them into a culture of dependency and subservience.


So the poor should then suffer until someone shows up to take care of them? And the problems with the social programs we have is because so many people try to make them fail. Also you might want to look up on the difference between having social programs and being a welfare state. But at the end of the day, if you allow just one person to suffer because of your decisions, you are fully responsible and liable for that person's suffering. It is in every way your fault.
 
2012-04-25 11:15:28 PM
Oh Snapus Magnus
 
2012-04-25 11:15:54 PM

WombatControl: And again:


Also read the linked to encyclicals in TFA.
 
2012-04-25 11:17:28 PM

Guntram Shatterhand: The only thing funnier than Paul Ryan being called on his bullshiat is how far his fortunes have fallen. Over 16 months ago this gollum-like loser was positioning himself to be the Republican nominee. He was all ready and set to give the rebuttal to the State of the Union address and finally make it big time. He was actually cunning enough to realize that maybe the next Republican nominee should start early and get on top of a Republican 'win' (that just happened to shiat itself when coming close to gaining the Senate).

Then three things happened: the Medicare bill was revealed to be a way of getting rid of the program and Ryan took credit for it, Bachmann upstaged him during the 'Teabagger Response' where she looked like she was about to behead a soldier, and then the Republicans figured that Donald Trump would be a better candidate than Paul Ryan. And now that stupid shiathead is begging to be second fiddle to the Romney campaign by doing everything short of sticking his nose up a Book of Mormon.

The fact that Paul Ryan has failed at even trying to attempt to gain power and now has to resort to asking for the VP slot in a doomed campaign tells you everything you need to know about the man. The fact that he looks like his mother still dresses him. The way he shoots off the Republican rhetoric in the most half-assed way. The way he looks like Kirk Cameron pushing another crocoduck and selling it with all the glee of a door-to-door salesman five days away from hanging himself with his unclean socks.

Paul Ryan isn't smart enough to realize Romney is a sinking ship. What the fark does anybody think he has to add to the national discourse if he's this pathetic?


So...what I'm hearing is that you think he's a shoe-in for the VP slot. Cool! ;)
 
2012-04-25 11:18:08 PM

WombatControl: o argue that it is moral to create a system of permanent welfare entitlement that can never be challenged,


And who is advocating that? Social programs do not a welfare state make. Indeed many encyclicals are very clear that social programs that are accessible to all are not only good but essential.
 
2012-04-25 11:18:29 PM

StoneColdAtheist: Guntram Shatterhand: The only thing funnier than Paul Ryan being called on his bullshiat is how far his fortunes have fallen. Over 16 months ago this gollum-like loser was positioning himself to be the Republican nominee. He was all ready and set to give the rebuttal to the State of the Union address and finally make it big time. He was actually cunning enough to realize that maybe the next Republican nominee should start early and get on top of a Republican 'win' (that just happened to shiat itself when coming close to gaining the Senate).

Then three things happened: the Medicare bill was revealed to be a way of getting rid of the program and Ryan took credit for it, Bachmann upstaged him during the 'Teabagger Response' where she looked like she was about to behead a soldier, and then the Republicans figured that Donald Trump would be a better candidate than Paul Ryan. And now that stupid shiathead is begging to be second fiddle to the Romney campaign by doing everything short of sticking his nose up a Book of Mormon.

The fact that Paul Ryan has failed at even trying to attempt to gain power and now has to resort to asking for the VP slot in a doomed campaign tells you everything you need to know about the man. The fact that he looks like his mother still dresses him. The way he shoots off the Republican rhetoric in the most half-assed way. The way he looks like Kirk Cameron pushing another crocoduck and selling it with all the glee of a door-to-door salesman five days away from hanging himself with his unclean socks.

Paul Ryan isn't smart enough to realize Romney is a sinking ship. What the fark does anybody think he has to add to the national discourse if he's this pathetic?

So...what I'm hearing is that you think he's a shoe-in for the VP slot. Cool! ;)


You, of course, mean VP nominee, not actually VP.
 
2012-04-25 11:19:01 PM

Gyrfalcon: Sin_City_Superhero: Father Reese: "Survival of the fittest may be okay for Social Darwinists but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love."

Well said. Though I still maintain that the budget shouldn't be based on ANY religion. Well, maybe Voodoo.

I'm trying to figure out how you even CREATE a budget based on religion.

"And on the fourth day, we shall allocate education and social services programs!"


The Bible has a Book of Numbers, and the budget is numbers in book form...
 
2012-04-25 11:19:41 PM

qorkfiend: Gyrfalcon: Sin_City_Superhero: Father Reese: "Survival of the fittest may be okay for Social Darwinists but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love."

Well said. Though I still maintain that the budget shouldn't be based on ANY religion. Well, maybe Voodoo.

I'm trying to figure out how you even CREATE a budget based on religion.

"And on the fourth day, we shall allocate education and social services programs!"

The Bible has a Book of Numbers, and the budget is numbers in book form...


Whar Book of Job Bill whar?
 
2012-04-25 11:20:30 PM

Mrtraveler01: The Ayn Rand reading retards thinking Paul Ryan is a true Catholic forgot this part as well:

42. Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?

The answer is obviously complex. If by "capitalism" is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a "business economy", "market economy" or simply "free economy". But if by "capitalism" is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.

Link


OK, now explain what you think that actually means - because it doesn't contradict what Pope John Paul II wrote later on in that same encyclical. Yes, the Catholic Church teaches that capitalism has to be tempered with moral concerns - but that doesn't tell you anything unless you understand the nuances of that position and what it actually means as applied to the circumstances of the moment.

This is the problem for what passes for "logic" around here. The left creates a silly little straw man, beats the living hell out of it, and thinks they've won. The idea that their silly little straw man has nothing to do with the real substance of the other side's arguments never seems to enter into the equation.

Instead of thought, it's just more drive-by snark and calling people "retards." I thought calling someone a "retard" went out of fashion after you graduated the fourth grade. But then again, there are probably a good percentage of fourth graders with better developed reasoning skills than the average commenter here.

(For the record, I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand. And if you actually want to understand how Catholic social teaching fits into capitalism, I strongly suggest reading The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism by Michael Novak, which does an excellent job of laying out the arguments in great detail.)
 
2012-04-25 11:21:42 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Father Reese: "Survival of the fittest may be okay for Social Darwinists but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love."

Well said. Though I still maintain that the budget shouldn't be based on ANY religion. Well, maybe Voodoo.


cfcoleman1992.files.wordpress.com
Approves.
 
2012-04-25 11:22:14 PM

skullkrusher: qorkfiend: Gyrfalcon: Sin_City_Superhero: Father Reese: "Survival of the fittest may be okay for Social Darwinists but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love."

Well said. Though I still maintain that the budget shouldn't be based on ANY religion. Well, maybe Voodoo.

I'm trying to figure out how you even CREATE a budget based on religion.

"And on the fourth day, we shall allocate education and social services programs!"

The Bible has a Book of Numbers, and the budget is numbers in book form...

Whar Book of Job Bill whar?


That was more than clever. Well done.
 
2012-04-25 11:22:55 PM

Gov Ryan,

collider.com


what you've just said ... is one of the most insanely immoral things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a charitable thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points.
 
2012-04-25 11:23:04 PM
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
 
2012-04-25 11:23:18 PM

WombatControl: but that doesn't tell you anything unless you understand the nuances of that position and what it actually means as applied to the circumstances of the moment.


It tells you that if you raise your own pay without raising the pay of those who work for you or if you cut their benefits, you are doing something that is morally wrong and indefensible.

which does an excellent job of laying out the arguments in great detail.)

Or you could talk to a Catholic priest. Or listen to what the ones in TFA have to say.
 
2012-04-25 11:24:06 PM

Sabyen91: skullkrusher: qorkfiend: Gyrfalcon: Sin_City_Superhero: Father Reese: "Survival of the fittest may be okay for Social Darwinists but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love."

Well said. Though I still maintain that the budget shouldn't be based on ANY religion. Well, maybe Voodoo.

I'm trying to figure out how you even CREATE a budget based on religion.

"And on the fourth day, we shall allocate education and social services programs!"

The Bible has a Book of Numbers, and the budget is numbers in book form...

Whar Book of Job Bill whar?

That was more than clever. Well done.


*curtsey*
 
2012-04-25 11:24:08 PM

andrewagill: Gov Ryan


Nooo! Wrong Ryan!
 
2012-04-25 11:24:51 PM

WombatControl: OK, now explain what you think that actually means - because it doesn't contradict what Pope John Paul II wrote later on in that same encyclical. Yes, the Catholic Church teaches that capitalism has to be tempered with moral concerns - but that doesn't tell you anything unless you understand the nuances of that position and what it actually means as applied to the circumstances of the moment.


It's telling us that an unregulated free market will end up hurting us in the long run is basically what I got out of the bolded part. Even though this is what "conservatives" are striving for because they believe that it will help us in the long run.

In other words the Catholic Church is smart enough to know that an unregulated market will result in some people taking advantage of it and hurting the population as a whole in the long run. A State is needed to ensure that everyone plays fair.
 
2012-04-25 11:27:03 PM

andrewagill: andrewagill: Gov Ryan

Nooo! Wrong Ryan!


mimg.ugo.com
RIP Jack Ryan

/wrong meme?
 
2012-04-25 11:28:16 PM

WhyteRaven74: WombatControl: r, but entrap them into a culture of dependency and subservience.

So the poor should then suffer until someone shows up to take care of them? And the problems with the social programs we have is because so many people try to make them fail. Also you might want to look up on the difference between having social programs and being a welfare state. But at the end of the day, if you allow just one person to suffer because of your decisions, you are fully responsible and liable for that person's suffering. It is in every way your fault.


You know what? Fark you.

We've given the voodoo economics and "trickle down" bullsh*t plenty of time to work. After a third of a century later, things have gotten worse not better. The rich got more money, but the sick bastards decided to hold onto it instead or spend it in ways deliberately designed to be of as little "trickle down" value as possible.

Maybe from all the screaming and wailing you goobs do every time at the slightest hint of caring for people who AREN'T filthy rich, perhaps we SHOULD go full-tilt into a bona-fide and unabashed welfare state. If you guys hate it so god-damned much, perhaps it IS the best way to go.

Don't want everyone on the dole? CREATE SOME FUGGIN' JOBS THEN SO WE WON'T HAVE TO BE ON THE DOLE!!
 
2012-04-25 11:31:05 PM

skullkrusher: andrewagill: andrewagill: Gov Ryan

Nooo! Wrong Ryan!

[mimg.ugo.com image 288x288]
RIP Jack Ryan

/wrong meme?


What...you gay? :)

www.wearetheborg.com
 
2012-04-25 11:32:21 PM

WhyteRaven74: WombatControl: r, but entrap them into a culture of dependency and subservience.

So the poor should then suffer until someone shows up to take care of them? And the problems with the social programs we have is because so many people try to make them fail. Also you might want to look up on the difference between having social programs and being a welfare state. But at the end of the day, if you allow just one person to suffer because of your decisions, you are fully responsible and liable for that person's suffering. It is in every way your fault.


The point of Rep. Ryan's budget is that we already have a welfare state, and it isn't working.

Do a modicum of research into the system of social welfare we have in this country. Yes, we have a welfare state. Not just in the level of spending, but in the culture of dependency it creates. We spend over $1 trillion on various welfare programs, and that number increases each and every year. Yet the poverty level has remained relatively consistent. Does that not suggest to you that the amount of spending has very little to do with its actual effect on poverty?

And if you really believe that everyone is personally responsible for the suffering they create, directly or indirectly, than the architects of the welfare system bare a massive amount of blame for creating a system that has failed to fight poverty but has created a near-permanent underclass locked in a brutal and inhuman cycle of poverty and dependence. That is a moral problem that this country faces, and we cannot face it without jettisoning the tired slogans of the past.

Rep. Ryan's budget is a start - but to say that a budget which does not actually cut spending, merely the rate of increase and spends more as a percentage of GDP than under President Clinton is somehow terribly immoral is a deeply irresponsible and illogical argument.
 
2012-04-25 11:33:57 PM

WombatControl: The point of Rep. Ryan's budget is that we already have a welfare state, and it isn't working.


No, the point of his budget is "fark everybody but the rich".
 
2012-04-25 11:38:11 PM

WombatControl: And if you really believe that everyone is personally responsible for the suffering they create, directly or indirectly


I don't.

than the architects of the welfare system bare a massive amount of blame for creating a system that has failed to fight poverty but has created a near-permanent underclass locked in a brutal and inhuman cycle of poverty and dependence. That is a moral problem that this country faces, and we cannot face it without jettisoning the tired slogans of the past.


Compared to how impoverished people lived before these programs. I don't think you can make that argument with a straight face. I do admit that there are people taking advantage of these programs but I don't think that we should punish everyone for what a few people are doing.

WombatControl: Rep. Ryan's budget is a start - but to say that a budget which does not actually cut spending, merely the rate of increase and spends more as a percentage of GDP than under President Clinton is somehow terribly immoral is a deeply irresponsible and illogical argument.


It's the combination of this as well as the tax plan he has in place which has a heavy bias towards the rich is what is ridiculous about his plan.

It's also ridiculous that this is a serious plan when Paul Ryan can't even answer questions about the specifics in HIS OWN FARKING PLAN!!!
 
2012-04-25 11:38:33 PM

Sabyen91: WombatControl: The point of Rep. Ryan's budget is that we already have a welfare state, and it isn't working.

No, the point of his budget is "fark everybody but the rich".


It isn't working because half of our elected officials have a vested interest in making sure it doesn't work.
 
2012-04-25 11:38:46 PM

Sabyen91: StoneColdAtheist: So...what I'm hearing is that you think he's a shoe-in for the VP slot. Cool! ;)

You, of course, mean VP nominee, not actually VP.


I guess that word "slot" slipped right past you, eh? You know...slot, as in "place on the ticket".

So yeah... :)
 
2012-04-25 11:43:30 PM

StoneColdAtheist: Sabyen91: StoneColdAtheist: So...what I'm hearing is that you think he's a shoe-in for the VP slot. Cool! ;)

You, of course, mean VP nominee, not actually VP.

I guess that word "slot" slipped right past you, eh? You know...slot, as in "place on the ticket".

So yeah... :)


Palin wasn't ever the VP so slot doesn't apply.
 
2012-04-25 11:45:01 PM

qorkfiend: Sabyen91: WombatControl: The point of Rep. Ryan's budget is that we already have a welfare state, and it isn't working.

No, the point of his budget is "fark everybody but the rich".

It isn't working because half of our elected officials have a vested interest in making sure it doesn't work.


Yeah, the government ROI is incredible on food stamps but conservatives don't actually use facts when it comes to their pet projects.
 
2012-04-25 11:45:30 PM

Mrtraveler01: It's telling us that an unregulated free market will end up hurting us in the long run is basically what I got out of the bolded part. Even though this is what "conservatives" are striving for because they believe that it will help us in the long run.

In other words the Catholic Church is smart enough to know that an unregulated market will result in some people taking advantage of it and hurting the population as a whole in the long run. A State is needed to ensure that everyone plays fair.


For one, conservatives do not believe in a totally unregulated market. This is grown-up time, and you don't need to believe in straw men any more. You don't actually believe that conservatives support no regulation - you don't strike me as being that naive. So let's drop the silly little internet forum B.S. and get into the real issues.

Now, your interpretation is not totally off-kilter, but you're making a couple of ingrained assumptions here. You say that "[a] State is needed to ensure that everyone plays fair." OK, now go deeper with that concept. What specifically does that mean?

Does it mean that the state should punish fraud? No one really disagrees with that concept.

Does that mean that the state should determine what is "fair?" Well, that doesn't mean anything by itself. "Fairness" is arbitrary. I don't think it's "fair" that someone who does not work and does not want to work can receive long-term government assistance. Others disagree. Whose side should government take and why?

Should the government regulate industry? Guess what, no one actually disagrees with that. Not me, not Paul Ryan, not Obama, not Bush. The question is to what degree?

If you want to play the silly little game that Paul Ryan's budget gets rid of all regulation and ends all welfare, fine. But that's intellectual masturbation, because that's not even remotely the case and anyone with even the tiniest sliver of an open mind can see through it.

So again, take the part you quoted and the part I quoted and try to fit them together - since they're meant to be read together. Pope John Paul II is indeed saying that anarcho-capitalism and Ayn Rand-style ideas don't work - but he's also criticizing the welfare state.

So what does the Pope mean when he talks about "a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious"? How does that boil down to making people "play fair?"
 
2012-04-25 11:47:51 PM

Elandriel: Is this the thread where Catholicism is OK now? I can't keep up with which Catholics are evil bastards hell-bent on destroying the world and remaking it in their image, which ones are rape raping, which ones are imposing theocratic rule on America, and which ones are nice kind loving people who actually think with their farking brains and not only with what is written in a two thousand year old book.


This is the thread where the party who most pushes religion, religious morality, and all that rubbish gets called out for hypocrisy.

Don't be purposefully ignorant.
 
2012-04-25 11:50:22 PM

TV's Vinnie: Don't want everyone on the dole? CREATE SOME FUGGIN' JOBS THEN SO WE WON'T HAVE TO BE ON THE DOLE!!


so... instead of money you want job handouts?
 
2012-04-25 11:51:19 PM
The budget should be based on The Hobbit. It's a much better read.
 
2012-04-25 11:52:26 PM

WombatControl: WhyteRaven74: WombatControl: Everyone is expected to help others. Personally

Everyone is expected to have compassion and empathy for all others at all times. And you are expected to help others by those means you personally have. Ergo, if you're a legislator you don't cut off assistance to those in need. Nor do you demonize those in need, or minorities, or women etc etc. Basically what Catholic teachings say is that if you're a CEO and take a bonus for yourself while cutting bonuses for your employees, you fail. If you're a legislator and allow people to go without help, you fail.

And again:

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.
.


So your argument is that the church is opposed to the government competing for the disenfranchised?
Even if I bought into some of the assumptions present, the one I can't buy, as a matter of observation, is that government is any more prone to "bureaucratic ways of thinking" than an organization like the Catholic Church. This whole line of argumentation presented is documentation of that very mindset which is about preserving the institution rather over fulfilling it's mission. This isn't a particular failure of any specific religion, it's a consequence of large organizations become composed of people and the simple fact of how people in large organizations act. Denying this, and hiding behind a cloak of sanctimonious virtue compounds the problem.
 
2012-04-25 11:52:47 PM
Is the church on that long ass list of enemies of the gop?
 
2012-04-25 11:53:18 PM

WombatControl: Do a modicum of research into the system of social welfare we have in this country. Yes, we have a welfare state. Not just in the level of spending, but in the culture of dependency it creates.


I would suggest that you are the one who needs to do a little research. I have no doubt your assumed knowledge on the subject rivals your revealed expertise in the cost of building permits. You seem to be under the impression that there is some sort of welfare program that able bodied people can leech off of for an unlimited amount of time. This is not the case. Even the program that is closest to what ignorant people like yourself who don't actually have the slightest farking clue what they are talking about imagine "welfare" to be, TANF, has "temporary" as the first word in its name.
 
2012-04-25 11:53:35 PM

skullkrusher: TV's Vinnie: Don't want everyone on the dole? CREATE SOME FUGGIN' JOBS THEN SO WE WON'T HAVE TO BE ON THE DOLE!!

so... instead of money you want job handouts?


Please let me work for you!

/More reality than I like.
 
2012-04-25 11:54:40 PM

WombatControl: If you want to play the silly little game that Paul Ryan's budget gets rid of all regulation and ends all welfare, fine. But that's intellectual masturbation, because that's not even remotely the case and anyone with even the tiniest sliver of an open mind can see through it.


He doesn't want to end it. Just radically reform it. I mean look at Medicare, before he got called out on it, his plan was to ditch the system we have now and replace it with a voucher-system that will become more worthless and less valuable with each passing yea since it's only pegged to the inflation rate whereas health-care costs are being inflated at an even higher rate.

But I digress...

So what does the Pope mean when he talks about "a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious"? How does that boil down to making people "play fair?"

Like I said before, the goal of the State in this case should be to ensure that no one takes advantage of the system and negative impacts everyone else.
 
2012-04-25 11:56:27 PM

WhyteRaven74: Erix: . He's the one that first noted it.

Darwin explicitly stated that what goes for nature does not go for human institutions. Darwin thought social darwinism was a complete sham.


There's something called the is::ought fallacy. Noting that something is does not imply one thinks it ought to be.
I believe in gravity but this does not mean I want bridges and buildings to fall down.
I believe in entropy but I'm not rooting for the heat death of the universe.
I believe in Murphy's law but I'm not cheering for things to go wrong.
I believe "roughly" in the truth of survival of the fittest, but that doesn't mean I want the strong to kill the weak.
 
2012-04-25 11:57:08 PM

Mrtraveler01: WombatControl: If you want to play the silly little game that Paul Ryan's budget gets rid of all regulation and ends all welfare, fine. But that's intellectual masturbation, because that's not even remotely the case and anyone with even the tiniest sliver of an open mind can see through it.

He doesn't want to end it. Just radically reform it. I mean look at Medicare, before he got called out on it, his plan was to ditch the system we have now and replace it with a voucher-system that will become more worthless and less valuable with each passing yea since it's only pegged to the inflation rate whereas health-care costs are being inflated at an even higher rate.

But I digress...

So what does the Pope mean when he talks about "a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious"? How does that boil down to making people "play fair?"

Like I said before, the goal of the State in this case should be to ensure that no one takes advantage of the system and negative impacts everyone else.


The most misleading, evil term in the English language is "block grant".
 
2012-04-25 11:58:19 PM

wademh: WhyteRaven74: Erix: . He's the one that first noted it.

Darwin explicitly stated that what goes for nature does not go for human institutions. Darwin thought social darwinism was a complete sham.

There's something called the is::ought fallacy. Noting that something is does not imply one thinks it ought to be.
I believe in gravity but this does not mean I want bridges and buildings to fall down.
I believe in entropy but I'm not rooting for the heat death of the universe.
I believe in Murphy's law but I'm not cheering for things to go wrong.
I believe "roughly" in the truth of survival of the fittest, but that doesn't mean I want the strong to kill the weak.


I believe Poland is a bit backward but I don't want Hitler to conquer them.

/Godwinned!
 
2012-04-26 12:13:38 AM

tinderboxer: Quasar: Elandriel: Is this the thread where Catholicism is OK now? I can't keep up with which Catholics are evil bastards hell-bent on destroying the world and remaking it in their image, which ones are rape raping, which ones are imposing theocratic rule on America, and which ones are nice kind loving people who actually think with their farking brains and not only with what is written in a two thousand year old book.

You make it sound like I have to choose between disliking Paul Ryan and disliking the Catholic Church.

Well to be fair it is a choice between and organization that wants to fark little boys, and an organization that wants to fark everyone. Either way, someone is going to get it in the end.


Hey, don't be ignorant.

There are plenty of Catholic operatives who have farked and want to fark little girls.

Oh shiat, there's a whole documentary about just one of them. Oliver O'Grady? It's a pity there's no hell for him to go to.
 
2012-04-26 12:17:07 AM
isn't Georgetown the same school that the stupid slut, who needed 8 grand a month for birth control, was enrolled?
 
2012-04-26 12:17:28 AM

lazfx: Is the church on that long ass list of enemies of the gop?


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-04-26 12:18:30 AM

Johnnyknox: isn't Georgetown the same school that the stupid slut, who needed 8 grand a month for birth control, was enrolled?


Yeah, that prostitute was having ten grand worth of sex a month!
 
2012-04-26 12:19:42 AM

Johnnyknox: isn't Georgetown the same school that the stupid slut, who needed 8 grand a month for birth control, was enrolled?


The one that had a friend that needed BC for medical reasons? Yes, it is, you stupid, mouth-breathing piece of fecal matter.
 
2012-04-26 12:27:56 AM
DOUBLE STANDARD!!1! DOUBLE STANDARD!!1!

The Catholic Church gives books to Republican candidates in gentle reproof.

The Catholic Church denies the eucharist and threatens excommunication upon Democratic candidates.

Why does the Catholic Church hate Democrats? Why???

Oh yeah...that pro-choice thingy.

Of course the Ryan budget will probably kill thousands but they'll be poor minority women, mostly.
 
2012-04-26 12:30:02 AM

Sabyen91: Johnnyknox: isn't Georgetown the same school that the stupid slut, who needed 8 grand a month for birth control, was enrolled?

The one that had a friend that needed BC for medical reasons? Yes, it is, you stupid, mouth-breathing piece of fecal matter.


cmon dude. If you were a piece of fecal matter, you'd probably breath through your mouth too
 
2012-04-26 12:38:47 AM

WombatControl: The point of Rep. Ryan's budget is that we already have a welfare state, and it isn't working.


How can social programs work when they are badly underfunded, many of the most needy are excluded and we seek to demonize those who receive benefits? And we don't have a welfare state. We barely have anything resembling a social safety net. And no charities aren't the answer, they can't manage even simple problems. Also it goes beyond social programs, like working conditions. How do you defend someone having to work two jobs to keep a roof over the head? How do you defend people working 70 hours a week with no overtime, crap ass health insurance, almost no vacation etc? How do you defend that CEOs in many companies receive benefits that aren't available to other employees? Why should a CEO get 6 weeks of paid vacation when no non-exec at the company gets any paid vacation? Why should a kid working at McDonalds not have top shelf health insurance?
 
2012-04-26 12:47:06 AM
Here is a farking idea, lets go with the better plan out of Wisconsin! The plan that has been shown to WORK. The plan that brought this country into a new age with a strong middle class. The plan that has government, the education system and business working together. A plan where as long as businesses fly straight and treat their employees well the government works to ensure them a supply of trained employees and fair taxes. A plan where the government is not viewed as an antagonist but instead as the state actor who interfaces the public and private sectors to build a great nation.

The name of that plan? The Wisconsin Idea from 1912!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Idea

Wisconsin Idea by harles McCarthy 1912
 
2012-04-26 12:47:32 AM

Quasar: "Our problem with Representative Ryan is that he claims his budget is based on Catholic social teaching,"

I have a problem with that for entirely different reasons.


I only need one, and it begins thus: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
 
2012-04-26 12:48:29 AM

WombatControl: it is a system which systematically robs individuals of their human agency and subordinates them to the state


In what respect is having enough money to feed and clothe your children robbing you of your "human agency," exactly?
 
2012-04-26 12:49:52 AM
From Ch 1 of the 1912 Wisconsin Idea:

If this has been the course of history, are there not lessons to be learned? Is there not some way of keeping history from repeating itself? Is there not some means by which we can maintain the youth of the nation, keep poverty at a minimum, and wealth, caste and privilege from commanding, conquering and finally destroying the nation?

Let us look at this crude diagram. Perhaps it will show how far-reaching the remedy must be.

www.library.wisc.edu

In the diagram to the left, marked Stage 1, you will notice the word Wealth at the top and the word Poverty at the bottom; between these two extremes is a square representing the American people in 1850. It represents a time in America when the great monopolies had not been formed; when Force in contract did not exist to the extent that it does to-day; there was plenty, and it was not necessary to use force. Was there not free land, oil, minerals, etc.? Wherein lay the advantage of monopoly?

To the right of this is Stage 2, which is intended to represent conditions in 1912. A small rectangle will be seen directly under the heading Wealth. This shows the change that has taken place. One per cent of the people now possess over fifty per cent of the wealth. Yet the strong, independent American spirit is still evident in the class represented halfway between Wealth and Poverty; notice the other small rectangle at the bottom--the very poor. Does any one maintain that this picture is untrue? Some might consider the rectangle representing the very poor too small, but for our purpose--to illustrate the basic conditions of society in relation to the Wisconsin idea--it will serve very well.

On the extreme right is Stage 3. It needs no comment. The sad history of many a country can be pictured by that little diagram because concentrated wealth means power, caste, privilege, corruption and decay of every ideal, whether of manhood, morals or patriotism. Are not the crumbled remains of what were once prosperous cities scattered in the waste places of the earth sufficient proof of all this? We need not exaggerate this picture, and we cannot.
 
2012-04-26 12:52:54 AM

cameroncrazy1984: In what respect is having enough money to feed and clothe your children robbing you of your "human agency," exactly?


I like how he completely ignores that there are papal encyclicals that talk about how necessary social programs are.
 
2012-04-26 12:54:47 AM
galileounchained.files.wordpress.com

/hot
 
2012-04-26 01:03:15 AM

IlGreven: Quasar: "Our problem with Representative Ryan is that he claims his budget is based on Catholic social teaching,"

I have a problem with that for entirely different reasons.

I only need one, and it begins thus: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."


Kinda thick in the head aren't you? Following the values of a particular religion is entirely distinct from establishing that religion.
If a religion says "love thy neighbor as thyself", congress is not prohibited (via the establishment clause) of basing laws on the principle of "loving thy neighbor as thyself".

That a particular religion holds certain social teachings is frankly neither here nor there with respect to what laws congress may pass. If it's too subtle for you, go and buy a nice bottle of wine and invite a smart friend over, to share the wine and to explain it to you.
 
2012-04-26 01:10:06 AM

wademh: IlGreven: Quasar: "Our problem with Representative Ryan is that he claims his budget is based on Catholic social teaching,"

I have a problem with that for entirely different reasons.

I only need one, and it begins thus: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Kinda thick in the head aren't you? Following the values of a particular religion is entirely distinct from establishing that religion.
If a religion says "love thy neighbor as thyself", congress is not prohibited (via the establishment clause) of basing laws on the principle of "loving thy neighbor as thyself".


They are if they use that exact wording, and say it's based off of that principle. "Thou shalt not kill" would be a violation; "No person shall purposely cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy" is not.
 
2012-04-26 01:12:32 AM
So the GOP plan of cherry picking the worst policies of each religion is getting some backlash.
 
2012-04-26 01:12:38 AM

zedster: From Ch 1 of the 1912 Wisconsin Idea:

If this has been the course of history, are there not lessons to be learned? Is there not some way of keeping history from repeating itself? Is there not some means by which we can maintain the youth of the nation, keep poverty at a minimum, and wealth, caste and privilege from commanding, conquering and finally destroying the nation?

Let us look at this crude diagram. Perhaps it will show how far-reaching the remedy must be.

[www.library.wisc.edu image 500x212]

In the diagram to the left, marked Stage 1, you will notice the word Wealth at the top and the word Poverty at the bottom; between these two extremes is a square representing the American people in 1850. It represents a time in America when the great monopolies had not been formed; when Force in contract did not exist to the extent that it does to-day; there was plenty, and it was not necessary to use force. Was there not free land, oil, minerals, etc.? Wherein lay the advantage of monopoly?

To the right of this is Stage 2, which is intended to represent conditions in 1912. A small rectangle will be seen directly under the heading Wealth. This shows the change that has taken place. One per cent of the people now possess over fifty per cent of the wealth. Yet the strong, independent American spirit is still evident in the class represented halfway between Wealth and Poverty; notice the other small rectangle at the bottom--the very poor. Does any one maintain that this picture is untrue? Some might consider the rectangle representing the very poor too small, but for our purpose--to illustrate the basic conditions of society in relation to the Wisconsin idea--it will serve very well.

On the extreme right is Stage 3. It needs no comment. The sad history of many a country can be pictured by that little diagram because concentrated wealth means power, caste, privilege, corruption and decay of every ideal, whether of manhood, morals or patriotism. Are not the crumbled rem ...


The little cartoon representing "Stage 1" is an absurd lie. The level of poverty in the US in 1850 was huge. You don't seem to understand the life of a share-cropper in the South to say nothing of slaves. Many a farm family lived in a two room shack, sod houses or tar paper if you were fortunate. Farm children were seldom afforded the luxury of school beyond a few grades. By the same token, there were plenty of very wealthy merchants in the North, plantation owners in the South. We were not dominated by a grand middle class. A strong middle class did grow in the 50s through 70s via the industrial boom, but it has been eroding ever since.
 
2012-04-26 01:12:48 AM

WhyteRaven74: cameroncrazy1984: In what respect is having enough money to feed and clothe your children robbing you of your "human agency," exactly?

I like how he completely ignores that there are papal encyclicals that talk about how necessary social programs are.


Papal encyclicals = fece.net

Catholicism (and all other religions) = oursurprisingworld.com + X years
 
2012-04-26 01:13:42 AM

Lexington Craddock: [galileounchained.files.wordpress.com image 584x392]

/hot


Me likee.
 
2012-04-26 01:17:41 AM

Mrtraveler01: WombatControl: OK, now explain what you think that actually means - because it doesn't contradict what Pope John Paul II wrote later on in that same encyclical. Yes, the Catholic Church teaches that capitalism has to be tempered with moral concerns - but that doesn't tell you anything unless you understand the nuances of that position and what it actually means as applied to the circumstances of the moment.

It's telling us that an unregulated free market will end up hurting us in the long run is basically what I got out of the bolded part. Even though this is what "conservatives" are striving for because they believe that it will help us them in the long run.

In other words the Catholic Church is smart enough to know that an unregulated market will result in some people taking advantage of it and hurting the population as a whole in the long run. A State is needed to ensure that everyone plays fair.



Those at the top don't care if it works as promised, because it most assuredly works like gangbusters for them.

Those on the lower rungs believe it because they're told to by the people they adore, and it gives them the opportunity to spit on people "beneath" themselves, and the opportunity to embrace a position that runs counter to the dreaded "liberals."
 
2012-04-26 01:18:00 AM
images2.dailykos.com
Facepalm Jesus for Mr. Ryan

http://images2.dailykos.com/i/user/151025/Jesus_is_sad.jpg
 
2012-04-26 01:23:36 AM
mahuika: Someone saying that Paul Ryan's budget is not based on his religious leanings is the nicest thing anyone could say about Paul Ryan's budget.

Paul Ryan's budget is based precisely on his religious leanings. Paul Ryan's religious leanings, however, are not based on those of his stated religion of choice.

/ Well, "choice" might not be the best word to use in conjunction with the Catholic Church
 
2012-04-26 01:27:31 AM
Sassy Jesus's reaction:

www.aaanything.net
 
2012-04-26 01:29:36 AM

IlGreven: wademh: IlGreven: Quasar: "Our problem with Representative Ryan is that he claims his budget is based on Catholic social teaching,"

I have a problem with that for entirely different reasons.

I only need one, and it begins thus: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Kinda thick in the head aren't you? Following the values of a particular religion is entirely distinct from establishing that religion.
If a religion says "love thy neighbor as thyself", congress is not prohibited (via the establishment clause) of basing laws on the principle of "loving thy neighbor as thyself".

They are if they use that exact wording, and say it's based off of that principle. "Thou shalt not kill" would be a violation; "No person shall purposely cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy" is not.


A fascinating personal interpretation. Now all you need to do is cite a court ruling to support this "novel" assertion of yours.
 
2012-04-26 01:48:34 AM
Here's the section from the document in question that is most directly relevant to the question at hand:

351. The action of the State and of other public authorities must be consistent with the principle of subsidiarity and create situations favourable to the free exercise of economic activity. It must also be inspired by the principle of solidarity and establish limits for the autonomy of the parties in order to defend those who are weaker.[733] Solidarity without subsidiarity*, in fact, can easily degenerate into a "Welfare State", while subsidiarity without solidarity runs the risk of encouraging forms of self-centred localism. In order to respect both of these fundamental principles, the State's intervention in the economic environment must be neither invasive nor absent, but commensurate with society's real needs. "The State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis. The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function".

*Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority.

I don't see anything there that suggests that Senator Ryan's plans for Medicare and Social Security is either supported or contradicted by Catholic doctrine. It's well known that Catholic social doctrine supports free markets, with only as much government intervention as is necessary to prevent monopoly or the abuse of the weak. A government that intrudes more than it necessary, or at a level higher than is necessary, risks falling into a 'welfare state.'
 
2012-04-26 01:57:57 AM

Talondel: risks falling into a 'welfare state.'


When you have people who sleep on the streets you don't need to worry about the welfare state thing. Especially when you make it impossible for them to get any sort of assistance to help their situation.
 
2012-04-26 02:28:48 AM

WhyteRaven74: Talondel: risks falling into a 'welfare state.'

When you have people who sleep on the streets you don't need to worry about the welfare state thing. Especially when you make it impossible for them to get any sort of assistance to help their situation.


What does that have to do with the the Ryan quote that Kos is criticizing? Ryan's argument is that Catholic social doctrine teaches that the government that governs best is that which is the smallest and closest to the people. Meaning that issues of healthcare and social safety nets are better addressed at the state and local level than at the federal level. The quote in question:

"To me, the principle of subsidiarity, which is really federalism, meaning government closest to the people governs best, having a civil society of the principal of solidarity where we, through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities, through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community, that's how we advance the common good. By not having big government crowd out civic society, but by having enough space in our communities so that we can interact with each other, and take care of people who are down and out in our communities."

Not that the language of the quote closely matches the language of sec 351 of the document the bishops refer to.

WhyteRaven74: WombatControl: The point of Rep. Ryan's budget is that we already have a welfare state, and it isn't working.

How can social programs work when they are badly underfunded, many of the most needy are excluded and we seek to demonize those who receive benefits? And we don't have a welfare state. We barely have anything resembling a social safety net. And no charities aren't the answer, they can't manage even simple problems. Also it goes beyond social programs, like working conditions. How do you defend someone having to work two jobs to keep a roof over the head? How do you defend people working 70 hours a week with no overtime, crap ass health insurance, almost no vacation etc? How do you defend that CEOs in many companies receive benefits that aren't available to other employees? Why should a CEO get 6 weeks of paid vacation when no non-exec at the company gets any paid vacation? Why should a kid working at McDonalds not have top shelf health insurance?


According to Ryan, you can make them work better by making them more accountable, by returning those functions to state and local governments, following the Catholic principal of subsidiarity. You can agree or disagree with that statement, but Ryan's assertion that his belief in small and decentralized government programs, including welfare programs, is in fact supported by Catholic doctrine. There is nothing to dispute on that point, as the section I already quoted demonstrates.
 
2012-04-26 02:40:51 AM
So does this mean some religions are tired of being used as talking points for politics? Maybe if some of the people in politics who won't shut up about god and such could actually read the farking bible. Jesus would be the first one to kick them in the nuts.
 
2012-04-26 02:45:12 AM

A Terrible Human: So does this mean some religions are tired of being used as talking points for politics? Maybe if some of the people in politics who won't shut up about god and such could actually read the farking bible. Jesus would be the first one to kick them in the nuts.


I would actually say the Catholic Church tends to have a consistent ideological consistency on social welfare. I know it is easy to hate on the Church for a number of reasons, but they do understand the writings of Jesus, and the Jesuits are not to be farked with.
 
2012-04-26 02:48:56 AM

Talondel: What does that have to do with the the Ryan quote that Kos is criticizing?


Everything. Ryan doesn't want to help anyone, he doesn't give a damn if people suffer. Cities lack funds to do much, many states do as well. Yet he's offering nothing to help them in order to help people. Also he wants to cut off assistance for people who have no alternatives. And the whole argument Ryan is relying assumes a few things, all of which he's happy to overlook. The whole thing with subsidiarity is that it is what is preferred, when it's actually workable. There are plenty of things, where it's not and that's that. But more fundamentally, as a man who holds power and a Catholic, he bares fully responsibility for anyone who suffers as a result of his choices. Also, supporting an increased defense budget, favoring the death penalty and some other things don't exactly speak very well for him as a Catholic, or even a decent human being.
 
2012-04-26 02:51:09 AM
I was just thinking, if I was a Jesuit at Georgetown, I'd troll Ryan, hard. I'd go around finding every needy person I can find, and there's lots of them in DC, and send them to Ryan's office asking where they could find assistance for whatever issue they have. If Ryan is such a wonderful Catholic as he claims to be, he'll make sure everyone gets help.
 
2012-04-26 02:52:52 AM

Harry_Seldon: I would actually say the Catholic Church tends to have a consistent ideological consistency on social welfare. I know it is easy to hate on the Church for a number of reasons, but they do understand the writings of Jesus, and the Jesuits are not to be farked with.


I think I worded my post poorly. I was more meaning that this backlash against a politician who uses religion as a talking point could be the start of religions distancing themselves from political loonies.
 
2012-04-26 02:54:32 AM

A Terrible Human: I think I worded my post poorly. I was more meaning that this backlash against a politician who uses religion as a talking point could be the start of religions distancing themselves from political loonies.


You weren't around much during the late 70s and 80s, were you.
 
2012-04-26 02:55:22 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: You weren't around much during the late 70s and 80s, were you.


Considering I was born in '89 that would be a no.
 
2012-04-26 02:59:56 AM

A Terrible Human: Lenny_da_Hog: You weren't around much during the late 70s and 80s, were you.

Considering I was born in '89 that would be a no.


Yeah.

Just take it for granted that your situation has been tested in the real world, and the outcome was not as you'd hope.
 
2012-04-26 04:39:09 AM
I'm a gay liberal atheist, and nothing would make me happier than if the United States became a Christian nation. Not so fast, Churchie - I mean Christian in the sense of actually following the teachings of Jesus Christ: love, compassion, patience, forgiveness, charity - you know, that sort of thing.
 
2012-04-26 05:13:47 AM
It's nauseating when teatards rhapsodize about how faith-based charities and municipal governments would magically solve all of our social ills, if we'd simply get the federal government out of the picture and make recipients grovel and beg for their gruel.

It doesn't work. That's why we've ended up in the situation where the feds administer the programs.
 
2012-04-26 05:40:14 AM

A Terrible Human: So does this mean some religions are tired of being used as talking points for politics?


Religion is politics.
 
2012-04-26 05:44:30 AM

Huggermugger: It's nauseating when teatards rhapsodize about how faith-based charities and municipal governments would magically solve all of our social ills, if we'd simply get the federal government out of the picture and make recipients grovel and beg for their gruel.

It doesn't work. That's why we've ended up in the situation where the feds administer the programs.


Yeah.

I failed gym class in 8th grade because I couldn't afford gym shoes. A local church had an annual charity drive for children's shoes, but the woman who administered the program hated my mother.
 
2012-04-26 05:54:46 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Huggermugger: It's nauseating when teatards rhapsodize about how faith-based charities and municipal governments would magically solve all of our social ills, if we'd simply get the federal government out of the picture and make recipients grovel and beg for their gruel.

It doesn't work. That's why we've ended up in the situation where the feds administer the programs.

Yeah.

I failed gym class in 8th grade because I couldn't afford gym shoes. A local church had an annual charity drive for children's shoes, but the woman who administered the program hated my mother.


Religion isn't about worship, it's about power. This is an excellent example of it.
 
2012-04-26 06:17:15 AM

WhyteRaven74: WombatControl: Everyone is expected to help others. Personally

Everyone is expected to have compassion and empathy for all others at all times. And you are expected to help others by those means you personally have. Ergo, if you're a legislator you don't cut off assistance to those in need. Nor do you demonize those in need, or minorities, or women etc etc. Basically what Catholic teachings say is that if you're a CEO and take a bonus for yourself while cutting bonuses for your employees, you fail. If you're a legislator and allow people to go without help, you fail.


There's a reason I have you favourited!
 
2012-04-26 07:21:57 AM
Pointless argument. A religion believes what anybody self-identifying as a member of that religion says it believes on any given day, adjusting for wind velocity and barometric pressure - seeing as how it's all arbitrary bullshiat, made up as one goes along. How the hell can you even HAVE a proper argument about something like that?
i18.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-26 07:30:01 AM
Paul Ryan and his budget are the living embodiment of Republican doctrine... Callous, mean-spirited avarice draped in hypocrisy and platitudes.
 
2012-04-26 07:43:15 AM
Callous, mean-spirited avarice draped in hypocrisy and platitudes.

And how.
 
2012-04-26 07:56:36 AM
The Paul Ryan budget is the congressional economic equivalent of this:

t2.gstatic.com
 
2012-04-26 07:58:11 AM
Ahh, hearing a right-winger lie through his teeth lets me know that all is well this morning.
 
2012-04-26 08:02:22 AM

grotto_man: Ryan's right - http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/rose-delauro-cns-and-the-disorient e d-catholic-left .


Grey6ed. Farkied "Ryan's right".

That was easy.

Crisis magazine?

[hahahaohwow]
 
2012-04-26 08:04:13 AM
To: SeekAndFind
Dear Bishop Stephen Blaire,

"Shared Sacrifice" is simply lipstick for the pig, that is Marxism.
Obama's policies prove this, by the fact that they have only resulted in more poor people.
Stealing more from the job creators will only increase the rate of growth among the poor, as fewer jobs and opportunities will be available, and the governments ability to "help" the poor is abysmal!
Paul Ryan's plan SHARES the growth and prosperity, by motivating job creation and providing the poor and underemployed with a path to self sufficiency.
The world needs more "Shared Opportunity", NOT more government handouts, aimed at maintaining a dependent class!
26 posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2012 1:22:09 PM by G Larry (Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
 
2012-04-26 08:15:31 AM
The Catholic bishops and 'scholars' can all go fark themselves, but at least it is good to see that they aren't just in lock-step with their anti-choice political bedfellows.
 
2012-04-26 08:27:02 AM

WombatControl: Once again, it's the left that gets Catholic Social Doctrine right. If you want to know the real position of the Church, don't trust a group of politicized bishops, read what the Popes have to say.


Not exactly. The Church promotes social welfare but does so with an eye towards promoting individual virtue rather than an emphasis on the end result. That is, the Church would rather see the needy fed by charities and perhaps still go a little hungry than be fed by the state and not go hungry at all. The latter resolves the problem of hunger but does not promote individual virtue.

It's important to remember that the Church's goals are not focused on the alleviation of suffering in this world but the promotion of virtues that will win souls for some hypothetical afterlife. Fostering compassion is a goal but the alleviation of suffering is a means, not the end.
 
2012-04-26 08:30:59 AM
A'ight, it's almost 5:30 in the morning and I'm a l'il sleepy but did I just read an entire thread full of trolls who not only wanted to suggest that reducing money for welfare was good idea but also a moral idea backed up by Catholic doctrine?

Cos the former notion is just batshiat insane and the latter one is the kinda thing one goes straight to hell for without passing go or collecting 200 dollars.

No social justice, no peace.
 
2012-04-26 08:40:51 AM

MrEricSir: Faith is a very shiatty economic policy.


so is bleeding the consumer base to give it all to the top 1% so they can send it overseas.
 
2012-04-26 08:50:36 AM

quatchi: A'ight, it's almost 5:30 in the morning and I'm a l'il sleepy but did I just read an entire thread full of trolls who not only wanted to suggest that reducing money for welfare was good idea but also a moral idea backed up by Catholic doctrine?

Cos the former notion is just batshiat insane and the latter one is the kinda thing one goes straight to hell for without passing go or collecting 200 dollars.

No social justice, no peace.


For a good illustration, check out Quebec from 1767 to about 1967. The Catholic Church was in control because the British didn't feel like dealing with the Frenchies. For about 200 years the church controlled civic life in Quebec. The people were cheap labor for incoming Anglo-Canadian interests and the church made sure that all the citizens were taken care of from cradle to grave. Once the hydro-power industry was established after the Quiet Revolution in 1967, the state was able to break away from the Church controlled civic life and welfare net.

This is the essence of the Church; charity without state interference. Most other Catholic states had a similar flavor, bit Quebec was by far the strongest example of the church's interaction with the state.
 
2012-04-26 08:52:11 AM

Quasar: "Our problem with Representative Ryan is that he claims his budget is based on Catholic social teaching,"

I have a problem with that for entirely different reasons.


Ffs. This. So very much this!
 
2012-04-26 08:54:31 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: WombatControl: Once again, it's the left that gets Catholic Social Doctrine right. If you want to know the real position of the Church, don't trust a group of politicized bishops, read what the Popes have to say.

Not exactly. The Church promotes social welfare but does so with an eye towards promoting individual virtue rather than an emphasis on the end result. That is, the Church would rather see the needy fed by charities and perhaps still go a little hungry than be fed by the state and not go hungry at all. The latter resolves the problem of hunger but does not promote individual virtue.

It's important to remember that the Church's goals are not focused on the alleviation of suffering in this world but the promotion of virtues that will win souls for some hypothetical afterlife. Fostering compassion is a goal but the alleviation of suffering is a means, not the end.


That in itself is a pretty farked up interpretation of Christianity. I don't know if that's what Catholic church leaders truly believe, but it is absolutely not what Christ taught.
 
2012-04-26 08:55:43 AM

trotsky: For a good illustration, check out Quebec from 1767 to about 1967. The Catholic Church was in control because the British didn't feel like dealing with the Frenchies. For about 200 years the church controlled civic life in Quebec. The people were cheap labor for incoming Anglo-Canadian interests and the church made sure that all the citizens were taken care of from cradle to grave. Once the hydro-power industry was established after the Quiet Revolution in 1967, the state was able to break away from the Church controlled civic life and welfare net.

This is the essence of the Church; charity without state interference. Most other Catholic states had a similar flavor, but Quebec was by far the strongest example of the church's interaction with the state.


Excellent example C'est bon! Merci Beaucoup.
 
2012-04-26 09:08:34 AM
fark.upi.comfark.upi.comfark.upi.comfark.upi.comfark.upi.comfark.upi.com
 
2012-04-26 09:08:46 AM

TFerWannaBe: That in itself is a pretty farked up interpretation of Christianity. I don't know if that's what Catholic church leaders truly believe, but it is absolutely not what Christ taught.


How much of modern Christianity is what Jesus taught? Modern Christianity is the religion of Saul, not Christ.
 
2012-04-26 09:13:49 AM
truthsite.org
 
2012-04-26 09:17:05 AM
While I don't support the Catholic church at all, I'm glad to see somebody finally call one of these slimy liars on their bullshiat.

The bishops' letter is a thing of beauty.
 
2012-04-26 09:19:12 AM
He's talking about buttf*cking, right?
 
2012-04-26 09:21:22 AM
John 3:16: Bootstraps, you lazy fark!
 
2012-04-26 09:24:18 AM
This walking talking turd's budget lingers like a rotten fart, when will we stop hearing about it?
 
2012-04-26 09:24:26 AM

MrBallou: While I don't support the Catholic church at all, I'm glad to see somebody finally call one of these slimy liars on their bullshiat.

The bishops' letter is a thing of beauty.


The best part of it? They keep making a case for themselves to be taxed (farther) into the dark ages.
 
2012-04-26 09:25:05 AM

WhyteRaven74: cameroncrazy1984: In what respect is having enough money to feed and clothe your children robbing you of your "human agency," exactly?

I like how he completely ignores that there are papal encyclicals that talk about how necessary social programs are.


He even fails even in understanding the role of social programs. We have gotten accustomed to thinking of social programs as a form of charity. This is a terrible representation.

When people form a society they agree upon both the formal laws of the society (like legal code) as well as informal laws of the society (the social contract) .

Part of America's social contract involves promoting general welfare to incentivize participation in society. We understood that those being excluded from the benefits of the society would feel no obligation to further societal goals and may become a threat to the society.

Social assistance is not about charity. Social assistance is about the obligation we have to those willingly participating in our societal contract.
 
2012-04-26 09:25:18 AM

WhyteRaven74:
Part of being a Catholic is you're supposed to consider and evaluate the teachings of the church including the content of encyclicals. So yeah, someone should ask him how he considers himself a good Catholic when he stands opposed to the teachings that as a Catholic he's expected to adhere to. To say nothing of standing opposed to the teachings of Jesus.


FTFY

There are many, many types of Catholics. And none of them have to abide by encyclicals, which are first and foremost commentaries. In addition, one thing the Church does acknowledge (both religiously and politically) is that there are many different paths to the same goal.

ongbok: Why are all of these right wingers suddenly all trying to suck the Catholic Church's dick like an alter boy plied with communion wine?


Catholics are the single largest block of moderate voters. Without them, you don't win.

Guntram Shatterhand: Because the Mormon is going to be a hard sell to those seeking ideological purity?


The sort of people interested in that sort of ideological purity don't consider Catholics to be Christians either.
 
2012-04-26 09:26:01 AM

Headso: This walking talking turd's budget lingers like a rotten fart, when will we stop hearing about it?


Maybe if Romney happens to be the initiator of a phone call on November 4. MAYBE
 
2012-04-26 09:30:11 AM
the catholic economic doctrine of distributism, with solidarity, and subsidiarty is exactly what we need in times like these; exploitation is a serious problem that needs to be stopped.
 
2012-04-26 09:32:41 AM

wademh: IlGreven: Quasar: "Our problem with Representative Ryan is that he claims his budget is based on Catholic social teaching,"

I have a problem with that for entirely different reasons.

I only need one, and it begins thus: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Kinda thick in the head aren't you? Following the values of a particular religion is entirely distinct from establishing that religion.
If a religion says "love thy neighbor as thyself", congress is not prohibited (via the establishment clause) of basing laws on the principle of "loving thy neighbor as thyself".

That a particular religion holds certain social teachings is frankly neither here nor there with respect to what laws congress may pass. If it's too subtle for you, go and buy a nice bottle of wine and invite a smart friend over, to share the wine and to explain it to you.


Replace Catholicism with Islam or Hindu and make the same argument.
 
2012-04-26 09:36:22 AM

MrBallou: While I don't support the Catholic church at all, I'm glad to see somebody finally call one of these slimy liars on their bullshiat.

The bishops' letter is a thing of beauty.


You know, I'm happily areligious, but was raised Catholic and know many practicing Catholics, including a couple of childhood friends who became Priests.

While I have no use for the Catholic hierarchy, the average Catholic, from my experience here in Massachusetts, is far more open minded and compassionate and giving then any of the Evangelicals I've met in my life (I also attended a Born Again Christian School for grades 1-8). Yeah, you've got some of the more zealous "Pro-Life" Catholics, but even they are more consistent with their beliefs as they are usually against capital punishment and war as well as abortion.
 
2012-04-26 09:38:00 AM

WhyteRaven74: Talondel: risks falling into a 'welfare state.'

When you have people who sleep on the streets you don't need to worry about the welfare state thing. Especially when you make it impossible for them to get any sort of assistance to help their situation.


While passing laws criminalizing poverty to further insure upward mobility is impossible.
 
2012-04-26 09:40:42 AM
that woody allen / marshall mcluhan scene comes to mind.
 
2012-04-26 09:40:53 AM

Talondel: Here's the section from the document in question that is most directly relevant to the question at hand:

351. The action of the State and of other public authorities must be consistent with the principle of subsidiarity and create situations favourable to the free exercise of economic activity. It must also be inspired by the principle of solidarity and establish limits for the autonomy of the parties in order to defend those who are weaker.[733] Solidarity without subsidiarity*, in fact, can easily degenerate into a "Welfare State", while subsidiarity without solidarity runs the risk of encouraging forms of self-centred localism. In order to respect both of these fundamental principles, the State's intervention in the economic environment must be neither invasive nor absent, but commensurate with society's real needs. "The State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis. The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function".

*Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority.

I don't see anything there that suggests that Senator Ryan's plans for Medicare and Social Security is either supported or contradicted by Catholic doctrine. It's well known that Catholic social doctrine supports free markets, with only as much government intervention as is necessary to prevent monopoly or the abuse of the weak. A government that intrudes more than it necessary, or at a level higher than is necessary, risks falling into a 'welfare state.'


No. Subsidiarity is not a farking synonym for states' rights and federalism. Quit farking conflating those two things. Subsidiarity means that higher levels of society and government have a responsibility to help lower levels promote human flourishing. As I did before in this thread, I quote Pope John XXIII from his encyclical Pacem en Terris:

"It is also demanded by the common good that civil authorities should make earnest efforts to bring about a situation in which individual citizens can easily exercise their rights and fulfill their duties as well. For experience has taught us that, unless these authorities take suitable action with regard to economic, political and cultural matters, inequalities between the citizens tend to become more and more widespread, especially in the modern world, and as a result human rights are rendered totally ineffective and the fulfillment of duties is compromised."
 
2012-04-26 09:53:14 AM

Huggermugger: It's nauseating when teatards rhapsodize about how faith-based charities and municipal governments would magically solve all of our social ills, if we'd simply get the federal government out of the picture and make recipients grovel and beg for their gruel.

It doesn't work. That's why we've ended up in the situation where the feds administer the programs.


It is especially irritating when they assert that programs perpetuate dependence. It's like they believe that the programs were developed without a need. That those programs were responsible for the dependence and by removing the programs people would become more successful. It really is a horribly ignorant argument.
 
2012-04-26 09:53:45 AM

CapnBlues: that woody allen / marshall mcluhan scene comes to mind.


a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com

/I had to
 
2012-04-26 09:55:00 AM

Bontesla: wademh: IlGreven: Quasar: "Our problem with Representative Ryan is that he claims his budget is based on Catholic social teaching,"

I have a problem with that for entirely different reasons.

I only need one, and it begins thus: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Kinda thick in the head aren't you? Following the values of a particular religion is entirely distinct from establishing that religion.
If a religion says "love thy neighbor as thyself", congress is not prohibited (via the establishment clause) of basing laws on the principle of "loving thy neighbor as thyself".

That a particular religion holds certain social teachings is frankly neither here nor there with respect to what laws congress may pass. If it's too subtle for you, go and buy a nice bottle of wine and invite a smart friend over, to share the wine and to explain it to you.

Replace Catholicism with Islam or Hindu and make the same argument.


Ok, consider it made. Your point?
Do look up the rulings on the establishment clause. Alignment with any particular religion is beside the point. There is no legal principle to say that laws cannot match to the value system of any religion. What is required is a secular purpose. In context, there's no denying that laws promoting social welfare have an identifiable secular purpose.
 
2012-04-26 10:03:14 AM

WhyteRaven74: WombatControl: Everyone is expected to help others. Personally

Everyone is expected to have compassion and empathy for all others at all times. And you are expected to help others by those means you personally have. Ergo, if you're a legislator you don't cut off assistance to those in need. Nor do you demonize those in need, or minorities, or women etc etc. Basically what Catholic teachings say is that if you're a CEO and take a bonus for yourself while cutting bonuses for your employees, you fail. If you're a legislator and allow people to go without help, you fail.


THIS ^^^

I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools (though I am no longer a practicing Catholic). The nuns and lay people who taught us, the priests who gave mass, all impressed upon us the responsibility to help the needy, including supporting government safety nets to more efficiently reach those who are in need in a timely way. Having people beg church to church to meet their emergency food, medical, or shelter needs is a ridiculous concept, untenable, and creates instability in people's lives rather than helping them stabilize and become as productive in society as they are able. We have government safety nets today for these very reasons - INDIVIDUAL CHARITY FAILED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE POOR, THE SICK, AND THE NEEDY.
 
2012-04-26 10:03:20 AM

Hobodeluxe: The best representative the catholic church has is Stephen Colbert


This.
 
2012-04-26 10:16:08 AM

WombatControl: Once again, it's the left that gets Catholic Social Doctrine right. If you want to know the real position of the Church, don't trust a group of politicized bishops, read what the Popes have to say.

I think I will. And I won't trust a dishonest Republican who twists the word of a religious figure.

10. Another important aspect, which has many applications to our own day, is the concept of the relationship between the State and its citizens. Rerum novarum criticizes two social and economic systems: socialism and liberalism. The opening section, in which the right to private property is reaffirmed, is devoted to socialism. Liberalism is not the subject of a special section, but it is worth noting that criticisms of it are raised in the treatment of the duties of the State.32 The State cannot limit itself to "favouring one portion of the citizens", namely the rich and prosperous, nor can it "neglect the other", which clearly represents the majority of society. Otherwise, there would be a violation of that law of justice which ordains that every person should receive his due. "When there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the defenceless and the poor have a claim to special consideration. The richer class has many ways of shielding itself, and stands less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back on, and must chiefly depend on the assistance of the State. It is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong to the latter class, should be specially cared for and protected by the Government".33

Imagine that. Cared for and protected by the government. You make the common mistake of Republicans who read this, who insist he was against what he was not. He was against the "bureaucratic ways of thinking rather than by concern for serving their clients", when those clients are the poor.

Pope John Paul II already spoke on this subject, and quite definitively:
Yes... Yes he did. You just aren't bright enough to understand it, just get some handy right wing talking points. Ah well.
 
2012-04-26 10:22:41 AM

jso2897: Objectivism is autism expressed as a personal philosophy.
Libertarianism is autism expressed as a political philosophy.


Reason #5,423 why you're one of two people I have Favorited.
 
2012-04-26 10:28:41 AM
img339.imageshack.us
 
2012-04-26 10:29:01 AM

Mavent: jso2897: Objectivism is autism expressed as a personal philosophy.
Libertarianism is autism expressed as a political philosophy.

Reason #5,423 why you're one of two people I have Favorited.


because you have a hard on for nonsense?
 
2012-04-26 10:31:16 AM

Hobodeluxe: The best representative the catholic church has is Stephen Colbert


Nope.

It's Dan Savage.

Let me put it this way ; I imagine this scene in heaven : Dan Savage arrives, having been martyred by some radical POS by gun outside a small-scale free-thinking rally in the Seattle area.

He arrives in heaven to find his mother - beautiful and vibrant, like he remembers her from his childhood, but without any of the sorrow that inevitably accompanies managing the lives of multiple people who are all in the throws of their own fleshy encasements. I imagine it like a train platform - they know he's coming, and as he steps onto the platform, she sees him down the platform and waves and runs / flys / glides up to him. After he's done hugging his mother, she introduces him to her friend 'Aggie'.

Aggie is an incredibly beautiful woman - not a hair out of place, elegant Mediterranean face and features with dark eyes and gentle hands - a soothing voice like a songbird. The strangers clasps her hand and said 'your mother has told me so much about you. You're such a hero of mine - helping the suffering of so many untouchables in your own way, giving a humanity to humanity that I never could have in my life, and with such humility and enough wit to keep the joy of life kindled in the hearts of everyone you met. Even when you struggled with your faith, we knew you were destined for here. I'm so pleased to meet you. My name is Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu.
 
2012-04-26 10:40:49 AM

wademh: Bontesla: wademh: IlGreven: Quasar: "Our problem with Representative Ryan is that he claims his budget is based on Catholic social teaching,"

I have a problem with that for entirely different reasons.

I only need one, and it begins thus: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Kinda thick in the head aren't you? Following the values of a particular religion is entirely distinct from establishing that religion.
If a religion says "love thy neighbor as thyself", congress is not prohibited (via the establishment clause) of basing laws on the principle of "loving thy neighbor as thyself".

That a particular religion holds certain social teachings is frankly neither here nor there with respect to what laws congress may pass. If it's too subtle for you, go and buy a nice bottle of wine and invite a smart friend over, to share the wine and to explain it to you.

Replace Catholicism with Islam or Hindu and make the same argument.

Ok, consider it made. Your point?
Do look up the rulings on the establishment clause. Alignment with any particular religion is beside the point. There is no legal principle to say that laws cannot match to the value system of any religion. What is required is a secular purpose. In context, there's no denying that laws promoting social welfare have an identifiable secular purpose.


I've made no argument using the Establishment Clause. My suggestion was a simple test to understand your rationale behind the argument. If it was based in bigotry then I wouldn't desire to continue the conversation.

Now on to the argument you're supposing I made:

1. Laws may be consistent with religious beliefs so long as there is a strong secular argument to justify those laws. See McGowan v Maryland.

2. The Lemon test became the standard for determining whether a law violated the Establishment Clause. It is a 3 pronged test. The prongs are :
(1). Does the law have a secular purpose? (2). Is the primary effect to either advance or inhibit religion? If yes, it violates the Establishment Clause. (3). Does the law foster excessive entanglement with religion?
3. In Marsh v Chambers, the Court created the exception that a secular purpose was not necessary if it could be established that the framers supported the practice finding it constitutional.

Since this wouldn't fall under the framers' intent, the question becomes whether or not it can pass the Lemon test.

The answer is technically yes and theoretically yes.

Ryan has a terrible understanding of Catholicism so his actual budget does a terrible job of futhering Catholicism. This is more of a political appeal to Catholic and conservatie voters than it is an appeal to establish or give an unconstitutional addvantage to religion.

Now, if Ryan's budget did technically reflect a religious doctrine he was also arguing for then it would be something worth arguing over the constitutionality over.

However, I think the desire citizens have to restrict Ryan's argument IS a constitutionally appropriate argument to have. To which degree should politicians be consulting religious counsel in drafting a budget?

My argumnt was never an Establishment Cause argument as applied to this budget. My argument was going to be, instead, the role religion should play in devising any budget.
 
2012-04-26 10:49:40 AM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Elandriel: I need to know Who The Bad Guys Are.

The terrorists are bad. Puppies are cute. America is the best nation on earth.

I hope this helps.


It sounds like you're being sarcastic. Go to ttp://www.utsandiego.com/todays-paper/ and enlarge the image of the front page: right above the headline it says "The World's Greatest Country". Proof positive.
 
2012-04-26 10:50:11 AM

Erix: Sabyen91: Erix: WhyteRaven74: Erix: . He's the one that first noted it.

Darwin explicitly stated that what goes for nature does not go for human institutions. Darwin thought social darwinism was a complete sham.

Well, yeah. He hated the name Darwinism and instead referred to it as Wallacism, particularly when applying it in a social context, even though he developed most of the theory himself. His experiences with raising his pigeons showed him that if you gave a pigeon too much feed, it would lose the desire to gather food for itself. Instead, he allowed his pigeons to fight over a limited amount of grain, leading to a far more cohesive flock of stronger birds, albeit with the minor, unfortunate side effect of some poor birds starving to death.

Seriously? A true Social Darwinist on Fark? Heil!

Honestly, I've been grading really bad student papers all day, and I'm so bored that I've stooped to posting ridiculous shiat on Fark to entertain myself.


Aw, I was hoping we were getting a troll that attempted to cleverly disguise the day's/week's right wing talking points and was doing a fair job.

Poopy.

/red pen, away!
 
2012-04-26 10:53:22 AM

Bontesla: Now on to the argument you're supposing I made:

1. Laws may be consistent with religious beliefs so long as there is a strong secular argument to justify those laws. See McGowan v Maryland.

2. The Lemon test became the standard for determining whether a law violated the Establishment Clause. It is a 3 pronged test. The prongs are :
(1). Does the law have a secular purpose? (2). Is the primary effect to either advance or inhibit religion? If yes, it violates the Establishment Clause. (3). Does the law foster excessive entanglement with religion?
3. In Marsh v Chambers, the Court created the exception that a secular purpose was not necessary if it could be established that the framers supported the practice finding it constitutional.

Since this wouldn't fall under the framers' intent, the question becomes whether or not it can pass the Lemon test.

The answer is technically yes and theoretically yes.

Ryan has a terrible understanding of Catholicism so his actual budget does a terrible job of futhering Catholicism. This is more of a political appeal to Catholic and conservatie voters than it is an appeal to establish or give an unconstitutional addvantage to religion.

Now, if Ryan's budget did technically reflect a religious doctrine he was also arguing for then it would be something worth arguing over the constitutionality over.

However, I think the desire citizens have to restrict Ryan's argument IS a constitutionally appropriate argument to have. To which degree should politicians be consulting religious counsel in drafting a budget?

My argumnt was never an Establishment Cause argument as applied to this budget. My argument was going to be, instead, the role religion should play in devising any budget.


To be clear, I'm not advocating for any specific laws. I'm simply refuting that a law that is aligned to some specific religious values is de facto antagonistic to the establishment clause. Clearly, the answer is that there is no such pre-emptive exclusion.

As to what sources on may consider in crafting a (secular) law, there is no prohibition to consulting religious leaders or doctrine. The tests do not address the mechanics but rather the effect and intent.
 
2012-04-26 10:58:33 AM

rubi_con_man: Hobodeluxe: The best representative the catholic church has is Stephen Colbert

Nope.

It's Dan Savage.

Let me put it this way ; I imagine this scene in heaven : Dan Savage arrives, having been martyred by some radical POS by gun outside a small-scale free-thinking rally in the Seattle area.

He arrives in heaven to find his mother - beautiful and vibrant, like he remembers her from his childhood, but without any of the sorrow that inevitably accompanies managing the lives of multiple people who are all in the throws of their own fleshy encasements. I imagine it like a train platform - they know he's coming, and as he steps onto the platform, she sees him down the platform and waves and runs / flys / glides up to him. After he's done hugging his mother, she introduces him to her friend 'Aggie'.

Aggie is an incredibly beautiful woman - not a hair out of place, elegant Mediterranean face and features with dark eyes and gentle hands - a soothing voice like a songbird. The strangers clasps her hand and said 'your mother has told me so much about you. You're such a hero of mine - helping the suffering of so many untouchables in your own way, giving a humanity to humanity that I never could have in my life, and with such humility and enough wit to keep the joy of life kindled in the hearts of everyone you met. Even when you struggled with your faith, we knew you were destined for here. I'm so pleased to meet you. My name is Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu.


Even if heaven were a real thing, the idea that Mother Theresa would be there is ludicrous. I call shenanigans
 
2012-04-26 11:12:43 AM

rubi_con_man: My name is Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu.


Mother Teresa? The same woman who encouraged poor people to accept the horrible conditions of their lives and was more concerned with praying for people than easing their worldly suffering?
 
2012-04-26 11:14:05 AM

wademh: Bontesla: Now on to the argument you're supposing I made:

1. Laws may be consistent with religious beliefs so long as there is a strong secular argument to justify those laws. See McGowan v Maryland.

2. The Lemon test became the standard for determining whether a law violated the Establishment Clause. It is a 3 pronged test. The prongs are :
(1). Does the law have a secular purpose? (2). Is the primary effect to either advance or inhibit religion? If yes, it violates the Establishment Clause. (3). Does the law foster excessive entanglement with religion?
3. In Marsh v Chambers, the Court created the exception that a secular purpose was not necessary if it could be established that the framers supported the practice finding it constitutional.

Since this wouldn't fall under the framers' intent, the question becomes whether or not it can pass the Lemon test.

The answer is technically yes and theoretically yes.

Ryan has a terrible understanding of Catholicism so his actual budget does a terrible job of futhering Catholicism. This is more of a political appeal to Catholic and conservatie voters than it is an appeal to establish or give an unconstitutional addvantage to religion.

Now, if Ryan's budget did technically reflect a religious doctrine he was also arguing for then it would be something worth arguing over the constitutionality over.

However, I think the desire citizens have to restrict Ryan's argument IS a constitutionally appropriate argument to have. To which degree should politicians be consulting religious counsel in drafting a budget?

My argumnt was never an Establishment Cause argument as applied to this budget. My argument was going to be, instead, the role religion should play in devising any budget.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for any specific laws. I'm simply refuting that a law that is aligned to some specific religious values is de facto antagonistic to the establishment clause. Clearly, the answer is that there is no such pre-emptive exclusion.

As to what sources on may consider in crafting a (secular) law, there is no prohibition to consulting religious leaders or doctrine. The tests do not address the mechanics but rather the effect and intent.


And to be clear, I am arguing that your assertion isn't the point. The Ryan Budget is constitutional. I never implied or argued otherwise. Further, Ryan failed to even establish a budget aligned with his alleged intent. To argue whether or not it's constitutional is a moot point.

The point is: to what degree should political figures be seeking counsel from religious organizations in order to create a federal budget? Is this really a practice we want to encourage?
 
2012-04-26 11:16:34 AM

jso2897: Pointless argument. A religion believes what anybody self-identifying as a member of that religion says it believes on any given day, adjusting for wind velocity and barometric pressure - seeing as how it's all arbitrary bullshiat, made up as one goes along. How the hell can you even HAVE a proper argument about something like that?
[i18.photobucket.com image 468x360]


False premise.

I'm a Jew. I worship Quetzalcoatl. Therefore, the Jewish religion follows Quetzalcoatl?
 
2012-04-26 11:24:24 AM

Bontesla: The Lemon test became the standard for determining whether a law violated the Establishment Clause. It is a 3 pronged test.


...the Lemon test has 3 prongs...?
 
2012-04-26 11:27:55 AM

Smackledorfer: jso2897: Pointless argument. A religion believes what anybody self-identifying as a member of that religion says it believes on any given day, adjusting for wind velocity and barometric pressure - seeing as how it's all arbitrary bullshiat, made up as one goes along. How the hell can you even HAVE a proper argument about something like that?
[i18.photobucket.com image 468x360]

False premise.

I'm a Jew. I worship Quetzalcoatl. Therefore, the Jewish religion follows Quetzalcoatl?


I'll update the wiki page.
 
2012-04-26 11:28:41 AM

skullkrusher: because you have a hard on for nonsense?


Who doesn't have a hard-on for nonsense?
 
2012-04-26 11:36:25 AM

thamike: skullkrusher: because you have a hard on for nonsense?

Who doesn't have a hard-on for nonsense?


I DONT, NONSESNSE HAS NO PLACE HERE BUT MY SHIFT KEY DOES
 
2012-04-26 11:38:00 AM

thamike: skullkrusher: because you have a hard on for nonsense?

Who doesn't have a hard-on for nonsense?


Nonsense is code for barely legal Japanese cosplay chicks?
 
2012-04-26 11:38:50 AM

Crabs_Can_Polevault: Bontesla: The Lemon test became the standard for determining whether a law violated the Establishment Clause. It is a 3 pronged test.

...the Lemon test has 3 prongs...?


so does the Lemon Party
 
2012-04-26 11:38:54 AM

Bontesla:
The point is: to what degree should political figures be seeking counsel from religious organizations in order to create a federal budget? Is this really a practice we want to encourage?


How about you draw the line, so we can point out how arbitrary a spot you end up placing that line, instead of you trying to get people to set themselves up?

I mean, I'm an atheist and think all religious is pretty stupid, but its pretty silly to play thought police with elected officials. Is THAT really a practice you want to encourage?
 
2012-04-26 12:08:44 PM
Take a look at who gives more to charity, and then let's talk about taking care of the poor.

Jesus never said to route the care of the poor through the government. He said give to Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God's. I'll give to God and take care of the poor without passing it through the bureaucratic laundry machine, thanks.
 
2012-04-26 12:16:15 PM

CaspianXth: Take a look at who gives more to charity, and then let's talk about taking care of the poor.

Jesus never said to route the care of the poor through the government. He said give to Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God's. I'll give to God and take care of the poor without passing it through the bureaucratic laundry machine, thanks.


That's great, but it's not a solution, since it doesn't solve the problem.
 
2012-04-26 12:19:39 PM

Crabs_Can_Polevault: Bontesla: The Lemon test became the standard for determining whether a law violated the Establishment Clause. It is a 3 pronged test.

...the Lemon test has 3 prongs...?


Yes and I identified them. I'm not sure what your objection is. . .
 
2012-04-26 12:30:42 PM

CaspianXth: Take a look at who gives more to charity, and then let's talk about taking care of the poor.


Ron Paul's campaign manager died a few years ago and left his family a bunch of debt they tried to raise money to pay it and couldn't raise enough to cover it. The figurehead for this kind of idiocy couldn't even raise enough money for 1 farking person's medical bills. But yet somehow charity will cover all those millions of everyday folks.
 
2012-04-26 12:30:48 PM

Smackledorfer: Bontesla:
The point is: to what degree should political figures be seeking counsel from religious organizations in order to create a federal budget? Is this really a practice we want to encourage?

How about you draw the line, so we can point out how arbitrary a spot you end up placing that line, instead of you trying to get people to set themselves up?

I mean, I'm an atheist and think all religious is pretty stupid, but its pretty silly to play thought police with elected officials. Is THAT really a practice you want to encourage?


Who said anything about thought police? No need when representatives self-identify their policies as adhereing to a religious principle or belief.

I'm not advocating for another Red Scare (swap religion for communism).
 
2012-04-26 12:32:33 PM

Smackledorfer: Bontesla:
The point is: to what degree should political figures be seeking counsel from religious organizations in order to create a federal budget? Is this really a practice we want to encourage?

How about you draw the line, so we can point out how arbitrary a spot you end up placing that line, instead of you trying to get people to set themselves up?

I mean, I'm an atheist and think all religious is pretty stupid, but its pretty silly to play thought police with elected officials. Is THAT really a practice you want to encourage?


Uh... Yes? Isn't that the whole point of having elected representatives?
 
2012-04-26 12:36:38 PM

Quasar: Elandriel: Is this the thread where Catholicism is OK now? I can't keep up with which Catholics are evil bastards hell-bent on destroying the world and remaking it in their image, which ones are rape raping, which ones are imposing theocratic rule on America, and which ones are nice kind loving people who actually think with their farking brains and not only with what is written in a two thousand year old book.

You make it sound like I have to choose between disliking Paul Ryan and disliking the Catholic Church.


That's because the mentally incompetent can only engage in binary thinking. Not your fault that you thought the OP was a fully functioning human being. Pity him.
 
2012-04-26 12:39:44 PM

Indis: WombatControl: Once again, it's the left that gets Catholic Social Doctrine right. If you want to know the real position of the Church, don't trust a group of politicized bishops, read what the Popes have to say.
I think I will. And I won't trust a dishonest Republican who twists the word of a religious figure.

10. Another important aspect, which has many applications to our own day, is the concept of the relationship between the State and its citizens. Rerum novarum criticizes two social and economic systems: socialism and liberalism. The opening section, in which the right to private property is reaffirmed, is devoted to socialism. Liberalism is not the subject of a special section, but it is worth noting that criticisms of it are raised in the treatment of the duties of the State.32 The State cannot limit itself to "favouring one portion of the citizens", namely the rich and prosperous, nor can it "neglect the other", which clearly represents the majority of society. Otherwise, there would be a violation of that law of justice which ordains that every person should receive his due. "When there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the defenceless and the poor have a claim to special consideration. The richer class has many ways of shielding itself, and stands less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back on, and must chiefly depend on the assistance of the State. It is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong to the latter class, should be specially cared for and protected by the Government".33

Imagine that. Cared for and protected by the government. You make the common mistake of Republicans who read this, who insist he was against what he was not. He was against the "bureaucratic ways of thinking rather than by concern for serving their clients", when those clients are the poor.

Pope John Paul II already spoke on this subject, and quite definitively:
Yes... Yes h ...


I just wanted to highlight this again so we can disprove all the right-wing talking points about this out there.

Ideally it should be best handled by charities and small groups. But as we know from history, that alone isn't sufficient and that is where the state needs to step in.

And if you think otherwise, you're either just incredibly naive or just don't care that you're wrong.
 
2012-04-26 12:40:29 PM
In other news, the central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself."
 
2012-04-26 12:57:19 PM

Bontesla: Smackledorfer: Bontesla:
The point is: to what degree should political figures be seeking counsel from religious organizations in order to create a federal budget? Is this really a practice we want to encourage?

How about you draw the line, so we can point out how arbitrary a spot you end up placing that line, instead of you trying to get people to set themselves up?

I mean, I'm an atheist and think all religious is pretty stupid, but its pretty silly to play thought police with elected officials. Is THAT really a practice you want to encourage?

Who said anything about thought police? No need when representatives self-identify their policies as adhereing to a religious principle or belief.

I'm not advocating for another Red Scare (swap religion for communism).


So, to what degree should political figures be seeking counsel from religious organizations in order to create a federal budget? Surely you can answer your own question. If you can't, then realize how silly a line of thinking it is.

I mean look, I'm an atheist. I'd prefer there be zero influence between religious texts and my leadership, because "god said so" is meaningless to me. But in a nation of religious people, to expect zero religious influence on our legislators (who are elected by proudly waving a bible, mind you, because that is what the people want- and even the democrats have to be christian to get elected) is silly. Beyond that, we already have, in place, separations of church and state as you yourself have already mentioned. What more do we need than that?
 
2012-04-26 01:07:11 PM

skullkrusher: thamike: skullkrusher: because you have a hard on for nonsense?

Who doesn't have a hard-on for nonsense?

Nonsense is code for barely legal Japanese cosplay chicks?


Everything Japanese is legal.
 
2012-04-26 01:08:43 PM

thamike: skullkrusher: thamike: skullkrusher: because you have a hard on for nonsense?

Who doesn't have a hard-on for nonsense?

Nonsense is code for barely legal Japanese cosplay chicks?

Everything Japanese is legal.


except for pubic hair or single row log flumes.
 
2012-04-26 01:41:57 PM

CaspianXth: Take a look at who gives more to charity, and then let's talk about taking care of the poor.


Yeah, we keep hearing that ridiculous "Republicans give more to charity" meme, but I think anyone sane and/or over the age of twelve understands that sending your money to a televangelist or tithing to the Catholics/Mormons so that they can spread hate against blacks, women and gays hardly counts as "charity."

Liberals try and create a social structure under which there are no poor, because everyone benefits from being a citizen of the richest nation on Earth. Republicans send money to Jim and Tammy Fae Baker so that they can blow it on whores and eyeliner while assuring their congregation of idiots of how "Christian" they are.
 
2012-04-26 01:43:23 PM
The link to the Vatican's Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church makes for lengthy but interesting reading.

I wonder how well attitudes of American Catholics line up with the nominal doctrine.
 
2012-04-26 01:49:29 PM

Smackledorfer: Bontesla: Smackledorfer: Bontesla:
The point is: to what degree should political figures be seeking counsel from religious organizations in order to create a federal budget? Is this really a practice we want to encourage?

How about you draw the line, so we can point out how arbitrary a spot you end up placing that line, instead of you trying to get people to set themselves up?

I mean, I'm an atheist and think all religious is pretty stupid, but its pretty silly to play thought police with elected officials. Is THAT really a practice you want to encourage?

Who said anything about thought police? No need when representatives self-identify their policies as adhereing to a religious principle or belief.

I'm not advocating for another Red Scare (swap religion for communism).

So, to what degree should political figures be seeking counsel from religious organizations in order to create a federal budget? Surely you can answer your own question. If you can't, then realize how silly a line of thinking it is.

I mean look, I'm an atheist. I'd prefer there be zero influence between religious texts and my leadership, because "god said so" is meaningless to me. But in a nation of religious people, to expect zero religious influence on our legislators (who are elected by proudly waving a bible, mind you, because that is what the people want- and even the democrats have to be christian to get elected) is silly. Beyond that, we already have, in place, separations of church and state as you yourself have already mentioned. What more do we need than that?


Again, you're trying to make an argument something I have't asserted. I never said the goal should be zero.

The Supreme Court has already set standards to prevent legislative entanglement. To ponder the degree society feels about religious adherence to legislative intent is well within our right as citizens that will be policed under that legislation.

We have been doing that already to some extent. This thread, for example, explores the level of comfort we have with Ryan's entanglement. JFK also vowed to keep his religion out of his politics in an attempt to reassure voters. Santorum's rants led to discussions about religious guidance and legislative goals.

Don't be silly by pretending this is too speculative to work and too vague to be informative.
 
2012-04-26 01:50:38 PM

abb3w: The link to the Vatican's Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church makes for lengthy but interesting reading.


Wow. I wonder how Republicans manage to reconcile their deification of Greed with the portion of that document labeled "Wealth exists to be shared".

It's interesting to me that when faced with a choice between altering their politics to adhere with their so-called "Christian values" and altering their religions beliefs to conform with their political agenda, Republicans go with Politics over Christ every time.
 
2012-04-26 01:51:27 PM

abb3w: The link to the Vatican's Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church makes for lengthy but interesting reading.

I wonder how well attitudes of American Catholics line up with the nominal doctrine.


Makes you think "Conservative Catholic" is an oxymoron.
 
2012-04-26 02:23:22 PM

Bontesla: Again, you're trying to make an argument something I have't asserted. I never said the goal should be zero.


I asked you the same question that you yourself posed. You have failed to answer it twice now. If someone is deliberately being unclear here, its you.

Bontesla: The Supreme Court has already set standards to prevent legislative entanglement. To ponder the degree society feels about religious adherence to legislative intent is well within our right as citizens that will be policed under that legislation


Absolutely.

Bontesla: Don't be silly by pretending this is too speculative to work and too vague to be informative.


A good rule of thumb, and I have to apply it to myself from time to time, is that when you are posting and find yourself repeatedly, and by multiple posters, misunderstood, it might well be your fault for being precisely too vague to be providing real information about your views. Combine that with the fact that you are unwilling to answer the questions you yourself ask, and that I have answered that question, and I really don't think you can pin the miscommunication on me here.


To what degree should political figures be seeking counsel from religious organizations in order to create a federal budget? If you will not answer that question, how can claim you aren't being vague with regards to the line of discussion here? If you don't want to discuss something, that's perfectly fine.
 
2012-04-26 02:42:19 PM

Smackledorfer: Combine that with the fact that you are unwilling to answer the questions you yourself ask


I must say, this must be one of the most confounding rhetorical arguments I've seen today.
 
2012-04-26 02:47:12 PM

CaspianXth: Take a look at who gives more to charity, and then let's talk about taking care of the poor.

Jesus never said to route the care of the poor through the government. He said give to Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God's. I'll give to God and take care of the poor without passing it through the bureaucratic laundry machine, thanks.


Do you know what Caesar did with his tax monies? Ever heard of the grain dole?

Jesus also never said anything about the uses that the government made of those tax monies.
 
2012-04-26 03:12:17 PM

Smackledorfer: Bontesla: Again, you're trying to make an argument something I have't asserted. I never said the goal should be zero.

I asked you the same question that you yourself posed. You have failed to answer it twice now. If someone is deliberately being unclear here, its you.

Bontesla: The Supreme Court has already set standards to prevent legislative entanglement. To ponder the degree society feels about religious adherence to legislative intent is well within our right as citizens that will be policed under that legislation

Absolutely.

Bontesla: Don't be silly by pretending this is too speculative to work and too vague to be informative.

A good rule of thumb, and I have to apply it to myself from time to time, is that when you are posting and find yourself repeatedly, and by multiple posters, misunderstood, it might well be your fault for being precisely too vague to be providing real information about your views. Combine that with the fact that you are unwilling to answer the questions you yourself ask, and that I have answered that question, and I really don't think you can pin the miscommunication on me here.


To what degree should political figures be seeking counsel from religious organizations in order to create a federal budget? If you will not answer that question, how can claim you aren't being vague with regards to the line of discussion here? If you don't want to discuss something, that's perfectly fine.


This isn't a communication error. This is me disregarding what I understood to be attempt to lose the entire forest for a particular tree. I have no desire to reframe the discussion so that it's easier for you. I have said plenty of disagreeable things. Instead of trying to encourage a new and narrower discussion perhaps you should try first addressing your reservation behind the principle.

I understand that you've hard a difficult time carrying on the discussion. Perhaps if you stopped trying to anticipate my argument it would help. I've given you plenty to refute and disagree with. That would be a good place to start.
 
2012-04-26 03:13:19 PM

thamike: Smackledorfer: Combine that with the fact that you are unwilling to answer the questions you yourself ask

I must say, this must be one of the most confounding rhetorical arguments I've seen today.


Ha!
 
2012-04-26 03:21:37 PM

coco ebert: This is the side of the Catholic Church that I admire. Awesome slapdown.


Hell to the farking yes. I grew up thinking this was the Church, and I've really missed it.
 
2012-04-26 03:47:25 PM

Bontesla: Smackledorfer: Bontesla: Again, you're trying to make an argument something I have't asserted. I never said the goal should be zero.

I asked you the same question that you yourself posed. You have failed to answer it twice now. If someone is deliberately being unclear here, its you.

Bontesla: The Supreme Court has already set standards to prevent legislative entanglement. To ponder the degree society feels about religious adherence to legislative intent is well within our right as citizens that will be policed under that legislation

Absolutely.

Bontesla: Don't be silly by pretending this is too speculative to work and too vague to be informative.

A good rule of thumb, and I have to apply it to myself from time to time, is that when you are posting and find yourself repeatedly, and by multiple posters, misunderstood, it might well be your fault for being precisely too vague to be providing real information about your views. Combine that with the fact that you are unwilling to answer the questions you yourself ask, and that I have answered that question, and I really don't think you can pin the miscommunication on me here.


To what degree should political figures be seeking counsel from religious organizations in order to create a federal budget? If you will not answer that question, how can claim you aren't being vague with regards to the line of discussion here? If you don't want to discuss something, that's perfectly fine.

This isn't a communication error. This is me disregarding what I understood to be attempt to lose the entire forest for a particular tree. I have no desire to reframe the discussion so that it's easier for you. I have said plenty of disagreeable things. Instead of trying to encourage a new and narrower discussion perhaps you should try first addressing your reservation behind the principle.

I understand that you've hard a difficult time carrying on the discussion. Perhaps if you stopped trying to anticipate my argument it would help. I've given you plenty to refute and disagree with. That would be a good place to start.


To be completely honest, I'm totally half-assing this from my phone in an attempt to avoid working. So there may even be some questions that I legitimately didn't see. I apologize for that. I'm fairly notoriously bad at using my Sidekick effectively.
 
2012-04-26 04:58:46 PM

Bontesla: To be completely honest, I'm totally half-assing this from my phone in an attempt to avoid working.


Favorited!
 
2012-04-26 07:18:57 PM

skullkrusher: Mavent: jso2897: Objectivism is autism expressed as a personal philosophy.
Libertarianism is autism expressed as a political philosophy.

Reason #5,423 why you're one of two people I have Favorited.

because you have a hard on for nonsense?


Ron Paul?
 
2012-04-27 02:50:05 AM

skullkrusher: Nonsense is code for barely legal Japanese cosplay chicks?


me likey
 
2012-04-28 05:01:39 AM
I read Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged when I was around 18, and found both books rather childish and boorish back in the 1980's. WTF is wrong with you, Ryan. If you are a Catholic with a good Catholic upbringing, and education, you would recognize her work for the nonsense it is. Apparently, your parents are either complete failures, or you consider this your rebellious stage.
 
Displayed 319 of 319 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report