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  
•       •       •

6813 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Apr 2012 at 8:32 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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."
 
Displayed 50 of 319 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report