Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Social Justice
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #31  
Old May 23, '11, 10:28 pm
valentino valentino is offline
Regular Member
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: January 31, 2011
Posts: 2,276
Religion: catholic
Default Re: Regarding politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by whipp711 View Post
Just a quick aside, the framers of the constitution took great pains in pointing out the separation of church and state to avoid the centuries of abuse of power and undue influence of religions. It must be a strict separation with no gray area. Both sides of any issue try to push that line of separation back and forth, but it's a process with certain checks and balances. Society, as whole, must protect the constitution from extremes.

That being said, you still "vote your conscience" for candidates that support your thoughts, philosophy, and wishes. An imperfect system, but hopefully a self correcting system.
where did you hear the centuries of abuse because of religion?surely your not referring to the church?Except for the Papal States which only occupied some of Italy which were not in the popes hands but under the control of people who were under the pope's control tell me of one other country wheere the Church controlled the State.
  #32  
Old May 24, '11, 6:56 am
St Francis St Francis is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 11,157
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Regarding politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by whipp711 View Post
Just a quick aside, the framers of the constitution took great pains in pointing out the separation of church and state to avoid the centuries of abuse of power and undue influence of religions. It must be a strict separation with no gray area. Both sides of any issue try to push that line of separation back and forth, but it's a process with certain checks and balances. Society, as whole, must protect the constitution from extremes.
This is sooo far from being the case....

When the Americans revolted against England, in England there was the state-established church, the Church of England. In the colonies, there were colonies which had their own government-established churches. The laws of the individual colonies ranged from requiring people to attend that church or pay a fine to legal indifference.

The First Amendment was that the *federal * government would be forbidden to establish a *national* church over the states. It was a states'rights issue rather than a religious or individual's rights issue.

In fact, many of the Founding Fathers were religious, and many believed that principles of this nation would endure only the citizens were religious and maintained a high degree of morality.

(a thought-provoking article on the Catholic influence on the Founding Fathers)
__________________


"The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love."
-Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P



  #33  
Old May 24, '11, 8:38 am
St Francis St Francis is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 11,157
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Regarding politics

let's look at the flip side of yoir proposals:

Quote:
Originally Posted by valentino View Post
I hear what you are saying but when they reps.refuse to make higher wage earners pay their fair share,
Dr Thomas Sowell recently wrote about this very issue. When the rich are taxed at high rates, they do not pay more in taxes, they shift their money into tax-free bonds. The government is lent money on which they have to pay interest instead of getting money for their operating expenses.

When the rich are taxed at a lower rate, they pay the taxes and use their money in ways which enrich the entire community, investing locally.


Quote:
stop subsidizing big oil,
most of the "subsidies" of the oil business are actually tax breaks. Those companies are subsidized the same way many people's mortgages are subsidized.

Let's look at the real situation with oil. First, a huge percentage of what we pay at the pump is local, state, and federal taxes.. Most of these are on a percentage basis, so if the price of gas goes up, there is an increase in the taxes.

Now, suppose we disallowed the tax breaks for oil companies. Who would pay that? You and me. The price of gas would go up, the taxes would go up, and the end result would be essentially a negatively progressive burden on people, who would then buy less gas and thus reduce the income of the oil company, which would then be paying the tax, but on less money.


Quote:
and refuse to stop other such controversial matters don't you believe that kind of nullifies their statements on trying to help the poor and make it a better country for all?Smaller government is a commendable position but there are just too many contradictions in what say IMO.I heard all the debates many times and i am still not convinced that they are really looking out for the good of all people.I still feel that they are being manipulated by people behind the scene and refuse to let the public know the reasons for their decisions on many issues.
I agree with you about this. The democrats may well be trying to help the poor, I don't deny that, but they seem to be using an oitdated method to do so, one which has been proven many times not to work.

The Republicans... their lack of communication skills just boggles my mind.
__________________


"The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love."
-Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P



  #34  
Old May 24, '11, 8:29 pm
valentino valentino is offline
Regular Member
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: January 31, 2011
Posts: 2,276
Religion: catholic
Default Re: Regarding politics

St.Francis:1 questiion at a time:In effect you're saying their is no way to get higher wage earners to pay thier fair share.And the rich don't get richer they just invest more which helps the economy.They don't buy new houses,cars,or land.When they die and they children own and sell the businesses they don't keep the money.Why don't we tax them O% that way they can invest it all and the economy will just get that much better?
  #35  
Old May 25, '11, 12:08 am
St Francis St Francis is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 11,157
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Regarding politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by valentino View Post
St.Francis:1 questiion at a time:In effect you're saying their is no way to get higher wage earners to pay thier fair share.And the rich don't get richer they just invest more which helps the economy.They don't buy new houses,cars,or land.When they die and they children own and sell the businesses they don't keep the money.Why don't we tax them O% that way they can invest it all and the economy will just get that much better?
It depends on what you mean by their fair share. Do you think it is fair that X pays no taxes, Y pays 12%, and Z 30%? Why would that be more fair than ea h paying the same percentage?

If you can justify progressive taxes, then how do you determine what is "fair"? is the "fair" percentage 15, 25, 50, or 75% of income? what makes one percentage more "fAir" than another, and to whom is all this fairness?

WRT the rest of your post, you are putting words in my mouth. Am I supposed to defend ideas which I did not propose?

What I said was that taxing the rich more does not necessarily lead to increased revenues. What is the goal in taxing: to increase revenue or to punish enviable people?

An
__________________


"The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love."
-Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P



  #36  
Old May 25, '11, 8:10 am
Lucysmom Lucysmom is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 14, 2011
Posts: 8
Religion: Roman Catholic
Lightbulb Re: Regarding politics

Valentino: Maybe your just not listening. Do you hear Paul Ryan?
The Dem's on the other hand just tell you what you want to hear. As a Senior, I'm listening.
  #37  
Old May 25, '11, 12:12 pm
VeritasLuxMea VeritasLuxMea is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2011
Posts: 4,817
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Regarding politics

This can be a taxing issue on Catholics, because we actually have something we have to decide ourselves, and we have little experience with that!

I am neither a conservative nor a liberal, and now I'm glad I don't have to follow precisely to the conservative line, as so many of my brethren keep telling me I "must."
  #38  
Old May 25, '11, 12:18 pm
Stylites's Avatar
Stylites Stylites is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 2, 2008
Posts: 2,726
Religion: Amateur Catholic
Default Re: Regarding politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cat View Post
Liberals have given themselves over to the lie that "I wouldn't personally have an abortion, but I believe others should have the right to have one." Unbelievable. Appalling.
It would be the same as to say: "I wouldn't personally own a slave, but I believe others should have the right to own one, if they really, really want to."
  #39  
Old May 25, '11, 12:24 pm
tomarin's Avatar
tomarin tomarin is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2007
Posts: 4,620
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Regarding politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cat View Post
There is a false idea in the U.S. that conservatives are for the rich, while the liberals are for the poor. This is utterly false.
The way I'd put it is that at this particular moment the liberal party is economically populist and culturally elitist, whereas the conservative party is culturally populist and economically elitist.
__________________
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither, let my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not remember you -- Psalm 137
  #40  
Old May 25, '11, 1:01 pm
valentino valentino is offline
Regular Member
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: January 31, 2011
Posts: 2,276
Religion: catholic
Default Re: Regarding politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by St Francis View Post
It depends on what you mean by their fair share. Do you think it is fair that X pays no taxes, Y pays 12%, and Z 30%? Why would that be more fair than ea h paying the same percentage?

If you can justify progressive taxes, then how do you determine what is "fair"? is the "fair" percentage 15, 25, 50, or 75% of income? what makes one percentage more "fAir" than another, and to whom is all this fairness?

WRT the rest of your post, you are putting words in my mouth. Am I supposed to defend ideas which I did not propose?

What I said was that taxing the rich more does not necessarily lead to increased revenues. What is the goal in taxing: to increase revenue or to punish enviable people?

An
the reason why progressive tax is because of the progressive way in which the wealthy get wealthier?Honestly,Say I earn$5k,another $1M.then I earn$10 he earns$10M.that's right.I doubled He went 10fold.that's the way this system works as things stand.If I pay 20%thats $2K His 20%,2M.that leaves me $8K Him $8M.but all the necessities medical care,housing,food,cars,meds,are the same price for each of us.So who is hurt worse ?Obviously the poorer man will be.That's why the richer person should pay a higher rate.Can't you see why the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer?AS it stands now the rich pay most of the taxes where the say 50% pay none.But why isn't that fair?the poorer fellow can just get by but the rich can pay more and still get richer.
  #41  
Old May 25, '11, 1:32 pm
St Francis St Francis is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 11,157
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Regarding politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by valentino View Post
the reason why progressive tax is because of the progressive way in which the wealthy get wealthier?Honestly,Say I earn$5k,another $1M.then I earn$10 he earns$10M.that's right.I doubled He went 10fold.that's the way this system works as things stand.If I pay 20%thats $2K His 20%,2M.that leaves me $8K Him $8M.but all the necessities medical care,housing,food,cars,meds,are the same price for each of us.So who is hurt worse ?Obviously the poorer man will be.That's why the richer person should pay a higher rate.Can't you see why the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer?AS it stands now the rich pay most of the taxes where the say 50% pay none.But why isn't that fair?the poorer fellow can just get by but the rich can pay more and still get richer.

My main question is what is the *fair* percentage that the rich should pay?

You started off complaining about politicians not forcing the rich to pay their fair share. What I want to know is what percent do you think is "fair" for the rich to pay?
__________________


"The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love."
-Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P



  #42  
Old May 25, '11, 3:46 pm
valentino valentino is offline
Regular Member
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: January 31, 2011
Posts: 2,276
Religion: catholic
Default Re: Regarding politics

St.Francis:I don't know if a fair accessment can be made.Now obviously you believe in capitalism and so do I.But we know that with capitalism there always ends up a rich class and a poor class.Also as it carries on the divide always gets greater unless the rich start giving to the poor to prop them up.Now the system in America has gotten to that point where the rich should give more to the lower classes.I have no figure.I have nnothing against rich people and I don't care if their extremely rich.But I feel that the middle and lower classes are having a harder and harder time just being able to pay their bills.(not to get wealthier)Even though I don't like the idea of forcing wealthier earners to pay more(I believe it should be voluntary)the system in place is in favor of the wealthy.Its just the nature of the thing.If the less than rich are back to a livable position then we can stop making the rich pay more and go on as usual.
  #43  
Old May 26, '11, 7:48 am
St Francis St Francis is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 11,157
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Regarding politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by valentino View Post
St.Francis:I don't know if a fair accessment can be made.Now obviously you believe in capitalism and so do I.But we know that with capitalism there always ends up a rich class and a poor class.Also as it carries on the divide always gets greater unless the rich start giving to the poor to prop them up.Now the system in America has gotten to that point where the rich should give more to the lower classes.I have no figure.I have nnothing against rich people and I don't care if their extremely rich.But I feel that the middle and lower classes are having a harder and harder time just being able to pay their bills.(not to get wealthier)Even though I don't like the idea of forcing wealthier earners to pay more(I believe it should be voluntary)the system in place is in favor of the wealthy.Its just the nature of the thing.If the less than rich are back to a livable position then we can stop making the rich pay more and go on as usual.
Valentino,
First, I don't believe in capitalism as it is currently constituted in the US, but that's another topic altogether.

The thing is, simply reditributing funds from the rich to the poor **doesn't work.** And it causes a lot of problems in the economy, such as the reduction of revenue when taxes are raised too much.

There are a lot of reasons for our current economic problems: the mortgage absurdity, the expansion of consumer credit, government rules which made putting manufacturing plants overseas more profitable, etc....

We have been actively engaged in redistributing money from the rich to the poor for several decades, and the most co-relative characteristic for children being in poverty is being in a single-parent home. Is simply doling out funds helping? No, instead the rates of illegitimacy have sky-rocketed as has the rate of divorce.
__________________


"The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love."
-Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P



  #44  
Old May 27, '11, 2:42 pm
MillTownCath's Avatar
MillTownCath MillTownCath is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2011
Posts: 519
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Regarding politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by laszlo View Post
I vote against the perpetual war, against selling out the country to usurers, against the total irresponsibility related to the environment, against banishing the religion and morality from the schools and the public life. I do not vote for empty pro life lip service. I submit and empty ballot.
This seems to be an up and coming point of view. More and more Christians are rejecting the small political box that the Religious Right was enforced over all these years. It is clear that Republicans fail in their attempts to change Roe v Wade, and many also believe they fail in acting upon the important principles of social justice.
  #45  
Old May 27, '11, 5:50 pm
MC taters MC taters is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2011
Posts: 34
Religion: Episcopalian
Default Re: Regarding politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by St Francis View Post
This is sooo far from being the case....

When the Americans revolted against England, in England there was the state-established church, the Church of England. In the colonies, there were colonies which had their own government-established churches. The laws of the individual colonies ranged from requiring people to attend that church or pay a fine to legal indifference.

The First Amendment was that the *federal * government would be forbidden to establish a *national* church over the states. It was a states'rights issue rather than a religious or individual's rights issue.

In fact, many of the Founding Fathers were religious, and many believed that principles of this nation would endure only the citizens were religious and maintained a high degree of morality.

(a thought-provoking article on the Catholic influence on the Founding Fathers)
In fact, many founding fathers weren't religious.

John Adams, the country's second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievments" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces". Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"

It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said:"I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." He referred to the Revelation of St. John as "the ravings of a maniac" and wrote:
The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."

James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

Benjamin Franklin, delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, said:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.

That's pretty wordy, but you get the idea. Also, some statistics of the religions of the Founding Fathers (in a more general sense than just the historical celebrities we know of)

Episcopalian/Anglican - 54.7% (88)
Presbyterian - 18.6% (30)
Congregationalist - 16.8% (27)
Quaker - 4.3% (7)
Catholic - 1.9% (3)
Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Social Justice

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8375Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: suko
5102CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: mountee
4417Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: daughterstm
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3859SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3696Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3269Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3263Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
3218Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: memphian
3093For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: SERVENT FOR GOD



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 9:02 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.