Quantcast
| |  
Food for the Poor Godspy.com: Faith at the Edge

Advertisement

CATEGORIES:     BOOKSBUSINESSCULTUREFAITHISSUESLIFEMOVIESPOLITICSSCIENCE/TECHSPIRITUALITYTVWORLD
chassup

chassup | 0 posts | Member since 02.11.08

Comments

RE: Why I Love Obama
If Mr. Obama were genuinely pro-life, I suspect he would also reject much of his current philosophy that argues for socialistic solutions to human problems. The article labels these problems as "concerns we all share, and when you think about it, the country is pretty well agreed on most of the major issues that need to be addressed." OK, but the argument isn't about identifying issues, it's correctly identifying causes to problems and then solutions originating in true charity. One cannot overlook the last 50 years of "social justice" underwritten by trillions of tax dollars, leaving us with problems worse than when we began. More of the same will not solve the problem. Obama is a good speaker, inspiring. The problem is in what he's selling, his message of change is actually a call for more of the same bloated government policies that have debased humanity and created a slave-class, lost without mother-government. Where's the love in that?


RE: Why I Love Obama
James: As per you conundrum -- "choose between compassion for the poor in the womb and compassion for the post-partum poor." The answer is actually very simple, but you are looking for solutions based on a misconception; specifically that government is the best solution to human problems, or can solve these problems at all. As in the case of abortion, it seems obvious to pro-lifers that government is part of the problem. Bad law was created out of thin air "giving" women the right to choose to kill their babies. In the case of post-partum poverty, or any other social justice issue discussed in this campaign, government is usually at the center of the problem, not the solution. I've seen government "solve" the poverty crisis for over 50 years pouring trillions of dollars into the system, and the problem is no better, worse in many ways. The solution to any social justice predicament must begin by treating each individual as a unique human person deserving of love. Government is incapable of serving in this way, and fails miserably all the time. No matter the good intentions, government can only apply one-size-fits-all policies and refuses to make moral distinctions, both of which lead to failure when dealing with humanity. Policies billed as addressing “social justice issues” are all too often unjust and uncharitable leading to the direct opposite of the stated goal. I do agree with your wish for decent people as candidates. I don't see what I really want in either Obama or McCain in that regard. Obama is an outright socialist, and McCain displays a lack of conviction. We desperately need a hero, but I don't see one, in the mean time we are forced to hold our noses when entering the voting booth. The lesser of two evils seems to be the choice this year.


RE: Why I Love Obama
Good point CAFFEINE PATROL, Obama's vote on that legislation exposes the core of the man-- a core that he attempts to hide-- he is a secular humanist, a relativist and most likely an atheist, in my estimation. If a man is against compassion to infant human beings, do you trust he cares about you? Could his claimed compassion for the poor be real? Could he really care about all people, all Americans? Or, as his vote proves, does he actually only care about those humans who fit a specific class, like "wanted" or "convenient" or "useful to his vision?" To think that this man will move to the right (life) on this issue is beyond naive, and looks like wishful thinking which is a dangerous way to choose a leader.


RE: Why I Love Obama
Dear MARYHR, To answer your first question, "What is pro-life? Does it refer only to the life of an unborn child?" No, pro-life is a philosophy that recognizes, cultivates and defends the ideal for society that all human persons, from the instant of conception to natural death are unique and precious gifts from God deserving of love. This respect for life includes all human persons no matter the stage in life, socioeconomic class, level of physical, mental or spiritual facility… even secular humanist utopian socialist liberal politicians deserve to be loved and cherished. Your second question, “…why must you stake your vote on ONE violation of the sanctity of human life rather than examining every position regarding the sanctity of human life, nuanced or obvious, of the candidates?” Good question. We should examine the candidates for evidence of their philosophy across a broad spectrum of issues. But, we need to judge accurately. We need to apply truly pro-life criteria when judging a candidate’s record. The end result of a well-intentioned policy that is not based on true love is often the opposite of the intended goal. Some might assume a candidate to be “pro-life” because he votes to support an entitlement program that actually, in the end enslaves people. I find socialist policies to be like that most of the time. Go down the list of issues in this campaign, each one presents a problem that can be addressed with love, or without love. Don’t accept solutions on the surface, make a dynamic analysis, try to find the love in not only the feel-good intention, but also the likely result. Sometimes real compassion is tough, and we need to have courage. And remember that the political solution to the human condition is always liberty. The most precious gift God gave us is liberty—free will to choose good or evil. All government policies must support that principle to be just, to be pro-life. I have great compassion for women who have had abortions, as I do for all sinners. But that compassion--the product of love--doesn’t seek to appease sin or alleviate guilt. True compassion seeks to lift people out of sin, including the use of laws to regulate and correct behavior. Personal accountability is a necessary component of a truly compassionate culture.


RE: Why I Love Obama
MARYHR, I think you and I agree on much. I assume no illusion that the GOP is a "pro-life" party or that all Republican candidates offer a truly pro-life choice. The DNC and its candidates are even worse in that regard. Reading between your lines, I sense that you search for a justifiable reason to cast a vote for Mr. Obama. I know many decent people who attempt to use "support for the war" as an example of evil equal to support for abortion, thus canceling the two and allowing a vote based on other issues concerning the human condition. I get that, I don't agree, but you must seek peace within your own soul on that regard. My argument is pretty much this; let's accept that abortion and the war cancel each other out as we judge candidates-- Obama's pro-death votes are as bad as McCain's. Now, what's left? As I've tried to convey before, traditional classical liberalism-- what I call modern conservatism-- better addresses the human condition while cultivating a true culture of life. Modern liberalism-- what I call socialism and fascism-- advertises social justice, peace, love and utopia, but actually cultivates a culture of death. I can, with a clear conscience, vote for McCain over Obama because he comes far closer to my philosophy. He is hardly perfect, but the lesser of two evils without a question. Where you and I separate, I believe, is not philosophy, but our approach to applying charity and justice. You see poverty and seek to fill the need with money from a program, I see poverty and seek to uncover the cause of that poverty and do what is necessary to correct the brokenness. Poverty is a symptom, not the disease. I believe modern liberals seek to treat symptoms because curing the disease puts them out of business. I think a better understanding of history clearly shows that money from government programs feels good, sounds good, but makes matters worse and usually misses the simple causes of most social injustices.


RE: Letting Bill Clinton Off Easy
Imagining nuanced dialog with someone who thinks partial-birth abortion is a moral good could be considered naive, if not irrational. I'm all for changing hearts and minds, but, for me, politics is about votes, it's about winning elections to better cultivate and defend a culture of life. Politics is not preaching the Gospel, politics is a contact sport best played cleanly, aggressively and with the ultimate goal of victory. Bill Clinton only gets angry and points his finger when someone challenges his immorality, and he usually protests too much.


RE: None of the Above: The Only Vote Worth Casting in November?
ANGELO MATERA, During the first elections in Iraq, the Sunnis refused to vote because they didn't like the choices (truth be told, they didn't like the idea of being in the minority). They quickly discovered that non-participation left them... well, in the minority, but now unrepresented. Soon they accepted the idea of democracy and are now engaging, beginning to trust a system of tension as an acceptable replacement to totalitarism, of which they were more familiar. In American politics, we get the candidates we deserve, that is-- we are represented by candidates who represent the majority of voters. There is a stupid show on TV where contestants answer questions while hooked to a lie detector. I heard one question that sums up my idea here; the question was "Do you really care about starving children in Africa?" The answer was "yes," but it was a lie. My point is that Americans cry about the lack of substantive choices we have at the polls, but the candidates are actually spot on reflections of our citizens. I hear a lot of complaining that we have empty suits, phonies, liars, corrupt insiders, non-committal flip-floppers and the same old same old. Well, in my opinion, most Americans are just that, they say they want change, but what they really want is free stuff to subsidize and coddle their lives of indifference and vice. To "not vote" is to abdicate your duty to choose the lesser of evils if that's your only option. If you "really" care about the candidates we have get involved. I don't mean sending a check. I mean campaign, become proactive, seek out good candidates and work like a dog to present them to America. Stop acting like Christians-- BE Christians. Remember, Satan greases the skids for the worst candidates we have, virtuous candidates will always have to work harder.


RE: None of the Above: The Only Vote Worth Casting in November?
Joe, I wish you all the best in your efforts, although I can't tell you how much I hope you never get close to a national elected office. I mean no disrespect, and I believe you are nothing but sincere, but your platform could have been written by any number of activists over the past 100+ years seeking a "third way" political solution to the human condition, all of which lead to some form of totalitarianism. Many of your solutions are right out of the same play books used by Marx, Hitler, Mussolini, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ and many other modern progressive liberal socialists crowding our political landscape today, including Hillary and Obama. I am not equating you with Nazism or the brutality of any of those regimes, but your policy positions are undeniably similar to those I've listed. I've spent some time reading your website and find that, although I believe you and I are united by the same divine light, we have very different philosophies concerning the role of government in our lives. That is to say, that which divides us is small compared to that which unites us. I just think you are wrong on the root causes of, and solutions to, many issues facing our world today. Funny thing: As your Catholic faith inspires you to your positions, mine does as well, it is interesting that we could have arrived at such disparate conclusions. I'm sure we are both missing the mark in some way.


RE: Why I Love Obama
CAFFEINE PATROL, it is your moral duty to cast a vote for the lesser of evils, if that is your only option. (can't find the specific quote at this moment, but JPII advised that, not me) Not voting at all is indifference, and that is always wrong.


RE: None of the Above: The Only Vote Worth Casting in November?
Joe, I was careful to express to you that I do not link you to communism, I merely point out that you use a similar approach to solving the human condition, and that is through government fiat. I am very familiar with Catholic social teaching, and I am forever frustrated when people find all kinds of "thou shalts" that just aren't there. Yes, cloth the naked, but don't think a government policy of forced redistribution of wealth will achieve anything but discontent, ingratitude and a deepening indifference. Catholic teaching invites, it never imposes. Catholic teaching preaches love between human persons, and advocates that political leaders find solutions founded on love and freedom. Revisit every one of your positions and apply my rule: The political solution to the human condition is always liberty.


Faith at the Edge Traces