The Bishops Are Wrong and Have No One But Themselves To Blame for This
#11
(02-01-2012, 04:20 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(02-01-2012, 04:19 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-01-2012, 04:12 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
Quote:To this writer’s knowledge, not a single bishop has spoken out against the inherent immorality of the federal government forcing any employer to provide any particular benefit to prospective employees.

Probably because there is nothing inherently immoral about that.

Word.

This

That.
Reply
#12
.
Reply
#13
(02-01-2012, 04:36 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-01-2012, 04:26 PM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(02-01-2012, 04:24 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-01-2012, 04:20 PM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(02-01-2012, 04:12 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
Quote:To this writer’s knowledge, not a single bishop has spoken out against the inherent immorality of the federal government forcing any employer to provide any particular benefit to prospective employees.

Probably because there is nothing inherently immoral about that.

Do we not have God-given rights to life, liberty, and property?

Define your terms.

Why don't you specify which term you are finding ambiguous.

Rights, liberty and property, in particular, though God-given also gives me pause.  There seems to be some level of confusion between the Declaration of Independence and Holy Writ at work.

Well, why don't you articulate where you see points of confusion, and we can go from there. That would be easier than giving you a treatise on why I think freedom (rightly defined) and property are rights guaranteed by God.
Reply
#14
Here's an article about the Declaration of Independence and  St. Cardinal Bellarmine and St. Thomas Aquinas. The upshot is much of the document and our rights come from both, and paricularly the "life, liberty and property" I believe are the words of Fr. Suarez SJ, the father on international law. It might help;

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/po...g0003.html

tim
Reply
#15
Wow, awesome resource, Tim! Thanks for posting!
Reply
#16
From the Rockwell Document: "In the interests of space, I cannot possibly give a detailed exposition of why it is that the only political philosophy that is compatible with the Gospel and the immutable core of Catholic social teaching is in fact some species of libertarian-ism."  Mr. Rockwell is a devout libertarian and his view of what is "the only" philosophy which is compatible with Catholic Moral teaching rings a bit hollow. While i will give him his due as to the Bishops reaping what they have sown, and many pew-sitters as well,  i disagree with his political assertions.
Reply
#17
A little background. Father Suarez wrote about property over the problems with the Spanish and Portugese in the Americas. They thought because the American were heathen and human sacrificing, they could take their property and enslave them. He said no. This proplem for the Spanish probably comes from being under the rule of Mohammedans who to this day still run slave trade. The UN commision says the epicenter is our pals the Saudi Arabians.
tim
Reply
#18
So let me get this straight, are you guys basing your argument soley on the definition of immoral? Or are you all for the government telling small businesses what they  must pay for and deliver to their employees?

Perhaps it was a poor word choice, and I will extend benefit of doubt.

But, allow me to play color commentator here.

Lew: "Adam, the fishies in the pond seem to think there is nothing immoral about forcing businesses to provide any benefit to their employees."

Adam: "Well Lew, perhaps they got their gills stuck in that invisible netting again. Maybe they need to be reminded that government regulations like this, help the big business crowd wipe out any competition and remain numero uno for eternity by government fiat and mandate".

What do you expect, they're fish and have their eyes on each side of their heads. Great peripheral vision, but not so good on looking forward.

Keep swimming downstream, eventually we will get there!
Reply
#19
Yes, I think you liberals are right. There is nothing immoral about government mandating that employers offer health benefits to same sex couples. Could never have gotten so close to homosexual marriage without that little push.

Make employers pay for abortions and birth contol? No problemo?

How about Viagra? The government should make employers pay for that as well, don't you think? How could anyone deny a man with ED a second honeymoon?

Oh, you did not know that Viagra means vital and Niagara? It used to be a favorite honeymoon spot before Club Med. But, some of you smart little whipper snappers might not know that.

Oh, you protest, I can hear it already.

You say, "it's not Viagara, it's Viagra, silly!". Well, my little ones even though it is spelled Niagara, most folks pronounce it Niagra.

Oh well, I have actually given you some good gifts to contemplate, and even revealed some trade secrets. But, I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears as I tend to say "stupid" things. Just like that crazy uncle of yours who sometimes shows up at family functions, much to your chagrin and embarassment.

I see the Church is in good hands with the youth. They're Trad after all. Kind of like Allstate.

But rather than being for everything in the State, I say it would be better if we stated it all.

Apparently, you are happy pretending things don't exist.

I must say, that for those who profess a Creed that talks about believing in things unseen, you are a very sensual lot.
Reply
#20
The point is that there is nothing inherently immoral with the government requiring businesses to provide certain benefits to employees. No one is saying that this is always prudent or just or that the government ought to mandate provision of contraception and abortion. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)