The events of this past week really gave clarity as to why I remain ‘sans political party’. Having once been a staunch Democrat, I could never quite bring myself to become a Republican, even as a business owner. Consequently, I’ve since been a registered Independent voting almost entirely, as much as it was possible, Republican/Conservative. To prove my point, today was the first time in at least ten years I’ve ever agreed with anything written in the New York Times, ‘The Audacity of the Pope’. Not only did I agree with Ross Douthat , he was spot on!
But Benedict’s encyclical is nothing if not political. “Caritas in Veritate” promotes a vision of economic solidarity rooted in moral conservatism. It links the dignity of labor to the sanctity of marriage. It praises the redistribution of wealth while emphasizing the importance of decentralized governance. It connects the despoiling of the environment to the mass destruction of human embryos. This is not a message you’re likely to hear in Barack Obama’s next State of the Union, or in the Republican Party’s response. It represents a kind of left-right fusionism with little traction in American politics. But that’s precisely what makes it so relevant and challenging — for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
Contrasted with Kathleen Kennedy Townsend piece this week in Newsweek, and the left spinning Pope Benedict’s words faster than Michael Jackson’s stage spin, I had a an epiphany.
In truth, though, Obama’s pragmatic approach to divisive policy (his notion that we should acknowledge the good faith underlying opposing viewpoints) and his social-justice agenda reflect the views of American Catholic laity much more closely than those vocal bishops and pro-life activists. When Obama meets the pope tomorrow, they’ll politely disagree about reproductive freedoms and homosexuality, but Catholics back home won’t care, because they know Obama’s on their side. In fact, Obama’s agenda is closer to their views than even the pope’s.
For starters, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend’s piece, written from the level of a 3rd grade educated Catholic with an adult leftist agenda, is loaded with one misconception after another. I would almost have to rewrite the entire article to correct it. Likewise, reading over the comments of Ross Douthat’s piece, the majority of the comments are sophomoric and inaccurate, albeit quite telling in making my point. Less than 10 years ago, in trying to prove the Catholic Church wrong in her teachings, I spent an entire summer reading the last hundred years of papal encyclicals. Having been somewhat of a fan of Austrian Economics, albeit unable to totally buy into “Laissez-faire capitalism”, Ayn Rand/ Objectivism/Atlas Shrugged, I came to find the Church’s social teachings (after finally reading them), simply brilliant. It wasn’t the only reason, but subsequently, I became a practicing Catholic. My point isn’t to convert FA readers to Catholicism, but it is to say this: Benedict just hit the ball out of the park in his latest encyclical on social teaching! Despite President Obama being gifted a signed and leather bound copy by Pope Benedict personally last week during his visit, it will most likely fall upon deaf ears. The deaf ears won’t just be Obamas.
The “left” Pelosi/Kennedy Catholics will continue to spin it into meaningless and out of context political football, never being able to acknowledge that the foundation of all social teaching is the dignity of each and every human life. The “right” will more than likely misinterpret it as too “compromising for the left.” And the others, like many American Catholics who never got beyond 3rd grade catechism, will never take the time to understand it. Last but not least, the anti Catholic bigots, easily identified by injecting “pedophile priests” into any and all Catholic conversation, incaple of any meaningful dialogic conversation (as if before the scandal they loved all things Catholic), can never make the leap to understanding how under attack the Catholic Church has and always will be. As long as the Catholic Church stands, there will always be a powerful and “in the way” voice against socialism and immorality. In the meantime, as our Godless “Brightest and Best” in the WH continue on the guarantee path to destruction, Ayn Rand ‘Atlas Shurgged’ Books, (based in the pseudo ‘philosophy’ of Objectivism) , greed, and Godlessness, continue to become the “most have” book on every shelf. I’m simply amazed, with few exceptions, how many Christians have been duped by such perilous fiction.
Objectivism itself consists largely of trivial victories over unworthy opponents, cheap shots at easy targets, blasts of rhetorical fire directed at straw men, and short trips down blind alleys followed by furtive, unacknowledged withdrawals.
~~~We began by describing the essence of Objectivism as the claim that “there is no God, and man is made in His image.” We have shown that Rand’s arguments do not make much sense on their own terms, and that therefore our own interpretation should be preferred. Rand is trying to show, in effect, that we can have reason and liberty without God — and she is doing so, not by following the argument where it leads, but by determining in advance where she wants the argument to lead and rejecting, for altogether inadequate reasons, everything that stands in the way of her preferred conclusions. In short, she deliberately eliminates from philosophy every doctrine, every tenet, which she associates with theism, ultimately for no better reason than that she does associate it with theism
I suspect it’s too much of wishful thinking that we could all be “Americans” going for what is right, not “right and left.” Consequently, we continue to spiral into bankruptcy and dictatorship, with the best solution (s) left untried because it simply doesn’t quite “fit” into either political tent. Properly understood with an open and unbiased mind, “Charity and Truth” would wow every reasonable American. Oh well, at least it will still be around for the next indebted generation. After all, the only institution in the world to have survived since the days of Christ is none other than the ‘backwards’ Big Bad Catholic Church; two thousand years and still going strong! Not bad for an institution so “behind the times.”
Nothing wrong with charity – but the government should not be selling it. Charity comes from one’s heart and love of fellow man, and it should never be dictated by the government. (Like the volunteers being paid for volunteering). When the government takes one’s money or time or whatever and tells one who, where, when and how the “charity” is disbursed, then it is tyranny. Only the individual should choose based upon his or her beliefs on the who, what, when, why and how of charity.
To Ayn Rand’s novel, “Atlas Shrugged”, one can subscribe to objectivism or not and still apply good things from the book or learn about the nature of mankind and communistic tendencies. I am not an objectivist by any means, but in reading the book, one can definitely see the evil that is governmental control and the lack of reason for one to work with redistribution of their wealth as dictated by someone other than the person with the wealth. Capitalism makes the wealth possible, and our liberty gives everyone a chance at it.
I am happy to share my time and money with those I deem needful of my charity. If I want to coach Special Olympics or give money to a charity those are my decisions and mine alone. Neither my church nor my government should have the authority to tell me to do so. In the end, I am not going to be judged by either of them but by my Creator.
There is a disconnect between those who think that there is nothing at all wrong with the Government forcing the citizenry to pay taxes to make Elective War, while it is tyranny for the Government to force the citizenry to pay taxes to, in effect, make Peace.
What constitutes just war or even necessary war?
We delegate the authority to the government, under the authority of our Constitution.
It is no different at all when it comes to just “peace” and necessary “peace,” where “peace” refers to a nation taking care of itself and its own.
I think that Pope Benedict would endorse the principles on which this country was founded.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
If you haven’t read them already, may I suggest Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical “Rerum Novarum”, and G.K. Chesterton’s “What’s Wrong With the World”, “Outline of Sanity” and “Utopia of Usurers” (available individually, or assembled with some of his other works in “Collected Works of GKC” Vol 4 & 5 – available via the ACS or Ignatius Press).
I think Mr. Weisenthal is correct that a disconnect exists; however one must remember that the federal government has quite broadly extended what it was originally supposed to do. I do believe that the pope would agree with our Constitution as well. I am not sure that one can equate making peace with charity, if that is what was meant, but again, charity lies outside of government’s purview (at least, that’s what I believe). Heck, I don’t even think we should have social security EXCEPT for those who are disabled or unable to fend for themselves. (But hey, that’s a whole new issue to discuss.) I firmly believe that the government should not be taking my money to “save” it for me – there has to be a limit with how much the government can go in any arena related to public good. That offset is first and foremost enumerated by the Constitution and then by our chosen representatives beyond States’ decisions.
Larry Wiesenthal wrote: “There is a disconnect between those who think that there is nothing at all wrong with the Government forcing the citizenry to pay taxes to make Elective War, while it is tyranny for the Government to force the citizenry to pay taxes to, in effect, make Peace.”
He then quotes the Preamble to the Constitution, somehow contending that the words therein justify his tyrannical approach to taxation and its concomitant Leviathan government.
I challenge Mr. Wiesenthal to identify one explicit line in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the authority to take my money to give away to another. Not only is this not sanctioned, but it is expressly forbidden (i.e. the abrogation of due process and the principle of equality before the law). If I am taxed at the Federal level to provide for a common defense, I am at least getting something for the exchange (i.e. my liberty). I get nothing for (unConstitutional) welfare spending other than some undefined, nebulous “social good” and the loss of my property rights.
There is indeed a disconnect at work here. But it is the disconnect between the champions of liberty and the cravenness of slave masters.
It becomes more evident to me every day that we are fast approaching a time in this country when these irreconcileable differences between us as a people will explode into open warfare. I don’t see how this can be stopped.
I would suggest that where Benedict’s “fusion” fails to gain traction in American politics is the point at which government is expected to enforce said beliefs upon individuals and businesses. Liberals and libertarians generally bristle at the former (say, where adultery/fornication laws are concerned), while all but moral/social conservatives have near-allergic reactions to the latter.
It’s a tightrope. One former Baptist pastor of mine made the same point every election year…if I may paraphrase his thoughts: “Political liberals often place a high value on social justice and individual liberty; these are Christian values. Political conservatives often place a high value on personal responsibility and high standards on personal behavior. These, too, are Christian values. One’s relationship with God can push one’s thinking toward one or the other of these preferences, or even from one to the other at different stages of one’s walk with Him; this is all well and good. Where we fail the church–and each other–is when we suggest one or the other is “more important” or “more Christian” or “more godly.” This is why I believe in the separation of the church from the political realm; it only corrupts the church.”
Legally speaking, I think that our biggest mistake came not with an expansive interpretation of “promote the general welfare”, an invasive reading of the Commerce Clause, or even the question of penumbral rights. We really screwed up when SCOTUS decided that a business was a person in the eyes of the law, because interpreting the rest of the Constitution in a context applicable to both individuals and businesses/corporations is a twisty-turny path…but that’s another topic.
ThomNY
I hope you realize that what Benedict is actually proposing is that by the authority of TRUTH, i.e, God, we are called to provide.
——-
Larry (shock shock), we agree, I think!
Are you also carrying that “peace” to life in the womb and human embryos? I hope!
———
Great recommendations Trubador If only the MSM gasbags could get their hands on such wisdom.
@blackelkspeaks
If the founding fathers did not intend for the government to levy taxes to support government activities, they surely would have said so, explicitly. There was a revolt not against taxation, per se, but against taxation without representation. The founding fathers were very familiar with the principle of taxation and the need for taxation to, among other things “promote the general welfare,” which obviously means everything from building bridges to educating children and any other aspects of “the general welfare” which the people, through their elected representatives, deem to be appropriate.
The idea that “the abrogation of due process and the principle of equality before the law” precludes elected representatives from passing laws which, through taxation, promote the general welfare of the nation has not been raised outside of the sphere of libertarian debate, to my knowledge. Certainly, this concept has not been endorsed by any US Court, to my knowledge.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
“If the founding fathers did not intend for the government to levy taxes to support government activities, they surely would have said so, explicitly.”
They gave Congress the ability to tax, but did put clear limits on HOW it could tax.
“No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
It was mucked up by the 16th amendment, which gave the Congress the power to use the tax code to promote its social and political agendas.
Larry Wiesental wrote: “The founding fathers were very familiar with the principle of taxation and the need for taxation to, among other things “promote the general welfare,” which obviously means everything from building bridges to educating children and any other aspects of “the general welfare” which the people, through their elected representatives, deem to be appropriate.”
Mr. Wiesental, again, your position is expansive, totalitarian, and unConstitutional. There is no verbiage supporting Federal involvement in bridge construction, educational spending, or any of the other “general welfare” canards leftists advocate today. Such things were left to the several States to manage. Which points out very clearly that we now have such divergent views about adhering to the Constitution that we will, inevitably, be forced to resolve these issues at gunpoint. There is no other way around this. When you come for me, I’ll be forced to fight you!
The very phrase “general welfare” is soooooooo misunderstood in the context above. It is a reference to the COMMON welfare, as opposed to the specific welfare of one group over another. Understood properly, all social spending our friends on the left are so fond of is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as it should be.
Charity begins at home. Not at the point of a gun.
The Preamble has no value whatsoever in determining which powers are afforded to the Fed Gov’t which is what the US Constitution is designed to do.
The only people you will find using clauses from that section of the document are those who are trying to put forth an agenda which is not supported by the remainder.
“General welfare” is a convenient overarching phrase for those who wish to misapply it.
The Founders were very clear on their position of the use of the tax system for charity, welfare, wealth redistribution, and handouts.
Here are some quotes from Jefferson as I detailed them out here:
blackelkspeaks, I may argue the Constitutional right of Congress INRE roads and bridges on a technicality. The Powers of Congress in Section 8 includes Congressional power to establish post offices and “post roads”, which is described as any road over which mail is carried. The US mail probably touches every paved and unpaved road in the nation…. from PO to PO transport to city and rural delivery.
INRE schools, I’m not arguing that specific point. In fact there have been abstracts published about whether that is within Constitutional rights, and no clear answer. Per an abstract description for a paper by Tryll van Geel, it simply states:
ummmm yeah. Legalese, clear as mud again.
Notice, however, that van Geel did not evoke the General Welfare Clause as his motivating factor.
But INRE that, there was an interesting synopsis by Albert Rosenthal in 1987 on the Madison v Hamilton interpretations of “general welfare”… all of which seemed to have been further made vague by the 1936 SCOTUS in United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477. This decision invalidated the money penalties/taxation of Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12, 1933 because it “invaded” the reserved powers of the States. It also, unfortunately, seemed to leave discretion of what is “general welfare” to Congress.
Per Rosenthal’s synopsis linked above:
That same practice of Congress holding federal road funds hostage, demanding specific State laws, continues today. One example of such is the mandate of seat belts and helmets for m’cycle riders… now expanding into other arenas for bicyclists and other sports. All of this is indicative of how much sway NHTSA holds over the Congressional purse strings.
I guess you could say the high court stepped back in 1936, muddied the waters on just what is “general welfare”, and has been dodging definitions of Constitutional Congressional spending ever since. And therein lies the heart of this debate about mandated government “charity”, while evoking the General Welfare Clause. SCOTUS said Congress gets to decide that. FUBAR…
One of the main points here is: at what point did it become common place for federal intervention in our lives (i.e laws, regulations, charity, etc); besides war, currency, and foreign diplomacy? It definitely wasn’t rampant at the foundation. The states were afraid of just this scenario. If the founding fathers thought that taxing the states to promote charity or civil equality were a good idea, they would have done it. Not the scenario we are in now, where it is not so much about what the founding fathers said, but what they /DID NOT/ say.
Those in opposition to certain foundational issues, can conveniently find their way around anything they want. They do so by filling in the gaps of what was /not/ said, by what /they/ want to say. If the founding fathers plainly didn’t say anything about socialized medicine than it must be right to put it in place. Because of course, they didn’t say anything /against/ it… does that logic make sense to anyone else? Obviously I am oversimplifying the issue, but it stands to serve as a decent example: what if socialize medicine is passed? Several states will likely try to opt out. Will it be possible? Or will the true test of our dictatorship be that every state not only has forced entry into the program, but must comply fully with its stipulations even outside the will of the people. At that point, we are no longer a United States in the original sense. Maybe we haven’t been for a while?
Just a brief acknowledgment — Mata has now taken this to some point above my pay grade, which is to say, level of jurisprudential competence — this is a fabulous thread.
– LW/HB
Agreed, Larry (boy.. you don’t hear that phrase out of me, often, eh? LOL). This is a good thread.
But I may add to your phrase, “level of jurispurdential competence”, another… “a decided lack of interest” on the part of the high court to involve themselves in the legality of Congressional spending in any way.
This judicial dodge leaves the US taxpayer floundering in high seas, sans a legal life raft. They are the only check and balance to Congressional appropriations, save a Presidential veto. When they abandon that scrutiny, or hide behind vague precedents that bestow unclear limits on Congressional power to tax and spend, they cease to be one of the citizens’ last options beyond the ballot box.
Concur… we have been substantially moving away from the Founders/Framers original intent steadily since the New Deal. Oddly enough, it was also at that same era, entering into a welfare state mentality, when the fed started accumulating debt and operating in the red.
Can we reverse course at this point? Imagine the legislation that must be undone, and the federal agencies that must be dismantled. On a principled view, I say we must. On a practical view, I say it’s virtually impossible now. We are too far gone with a behemoth govt bureaucracy.
What we can do is insist that bureaucracy is not compounded into yet an even more dangerous behemoth.
And apologies to pdill if I have helped this thread stray from her original point.
The text focuses a lot on this apparent link between truth and charity. What’s he on about? If truth is supposed to be God – then say so. But does that make sense? In that is charity from Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Atheists etc any less worthy to those who receive it? And how’s that relevant to today modern issues? Can you have charity and untruths?
I wish he got an editor from the Campaign for plain English (or French, German, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, and Spanish.) to communicate this message a lot more succinctly and clearly.
There seems to be some confusion on the word “charity”. In the context of the encyclical, it does NOT mean giving help to the poor only. It is a virtue or attitude which is other-centered like God. The suggestion to read “Rerum novarum” would help.
Catholic social theory suggests a balance of “solidarity” and “subsidiarity”. The latter means the bigger organs of society respect and don’t smother or oppress the smaller ones (as in socialism or dictatorship). The former means fostering a sense that all have responsibilty for the whole. The result would never be large government charity. In fact all the quotes provided by Aye reflect the ideal very well.
Gaffe, you are right to be confused. This, like most papal writings, is dense and not easy to get through, albeit well worth the effort. Indeed, it’s much easier to make sense of with a background in faith/philosophy, and of course, prior Church teachings.
For the most part, ‘Charity and Truth’, is based largely on the “reconfirmation” of Pope Leo XIII’s (1891), “Rerum Novarum” which is the foundation of the social teaching of the church.
Nothing in solid church teaching ever changes (although disciplines and devotions change with culture and time), “Ever ancient ever new”, although this was especially delayed for the last year to bring in the world economic events. It’s an age old teaching rewritten for modern times.
Mlajoie2 was kind to point out that the concept of “charity” is being misunderstood. Indeed it is a virtue and perhaps it’s easiest to simply think of the word charity as “love (the real kind which always considers turth).” In answer to your question, no, charity and (or real freedom) cannot coexist without truth, as there can be no (real) love or real freedom outside of truth. That’s really a profound question Gaffe because in it lays the root of why most of the world have it all backwards. That said, our founding fathers knew truth; we just got away from it.
To answer your other question, Benedict doesn’t have to say that Truth is God, as Scripture clearly tells us, via Jesus himself, that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. In simplicity, all the Catholic Church really does is uphold and protect all the teachings of Jesus Christ, no more, and most of all, no less than what he actually taught. That is why, from this Truth, we can know the social justice teaching of Christ.
The good news is that there are plenty of theologians who always offer good summaries (stay clear of anyone outside of the church, as it will most likely be spun to fit an agenda, if even properly understood).
For simplicity, here’s a fairly easy and short one from a Catholic Blog, and an excellent one from Vatican Radio, also short and to the point. I took a look around for you, and concluded that these 2 were probably the best to recommend for the summary.
@PDill
Excellent – thanks I’ll have a look at that later.
One thing that did catch my eye was the rules for comments in the Catholic Blog.
Wouldn’t it more civil in FA could have something similar?
Gaffa Rule # 1: start your own blog
@Aye Chihuahua
Re: #12
“The Preamble has no value whatsoever in determining which powers are afforded to the Fed Gov’t which is what the US Constitution is designed to do.”
On this I completely disagree with your dismissal of the preamble’s value. The Preamble is as important as the rest of the document, as it clearly stresses that it is “We, The People of the United States Of America,” who are establishing the Federal Government, and within what follows telling said government specifically what powers “The People” are willing to grant it. The problem is not with that portion, but with today’s Federal Government (and many of the States,) who do not understand the portion of the Bill of Rights that states quite specifically, and eloquently that:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
While I agree with many who support State sovereignty, such protesters often forget to include The People’s own sovereignty. The Federal and State Governments also tend to forget that it is “The People” who grant them their power, and that “The People” reserved right’s onto themselves that may not have been enumerated withing the Constitution. One of the fears that the Constitutional Congress, Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers discussed were that government’s might try to limit The People’s rights to only those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Not only were they right to be concerned, government today has shown how much they can not be trusted, as the continually try not only to limit our rights to those declared in the Bill of Rights, but to even erode them down as far as possible.
It is my opinion that as “The People” were within their power and rights to grant the State and Federal Governments certain power, (i.e. though the Constitution) that they also, by virtue of this logic, hold the right to take misused powers away from said governments.
Gaffa, if you’re looking for a place with “rules”, you’ve parked yourself on the wrong, freedom loving blog.
You cannot mandate love of fellow man, and you cannot regulate civility and manners. Any attempt to do so here, and I’d be out the door.
@MataHarley
In that case why have moderators? Don’t they regulate?
We authors are the moderators of our own posts… and do occasionally remove spam and blatant racist assaults that contribute nothing on other threads. ’tis up to our own discretion.
The only “official” moderator is Curt. And you don’t want to get on the wrong side of our in house bad boy “FA Founding Father” unless you want to be thrown out the saloon doors… LOL
@MataHarley
Ahh – that’s regulation. Still I only made a suggestion. Curt can take it or leave.
Leave it….the only time I step in is if people become hostile with rude obscene insults and they do not stop once warned. Very few have been banned, but it does happen. Other then that its up to each individual author and the commenters themselves.
Does no one care that the Pope encouraged putting some real power into the UN and basicly making it the “one world government” that the Bible warns about? What is this going to do for all the paranoids (of course you’re only paranoid if you’re wrong) that have been floating the “Pope as AntiChrist” theme for years? Was it brought up and I missed it? Wouldn’t be the 1st time, of course.
@ditto:
Perhaps you should read my statement again:
I stand by it.
The Preamble does not grant, restrict, or establish any specific powers for the Fed Govt.
Statements from the Preamble, such as “general welfare” are used by those who wish to push an agenda which is in opposition to the remainder of the document.
I agree with the remainder of what you posted but you’ll notice from reading your own post that all of your arguments and premises are found within the main body of the Constitution itself.
Old Ez I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are more uneducated than bigoted.
What all reasonable people care about Ez is the corruption of the UN, aka, “United Nothing.” Are you even aware of the bureaucratic cesspool it has become? Are you aware that many of the rapes in Darfur are from the UN workers, you know, the ones bringing the food? Do you also know that in the 90’s, it was so out of control the US stopped paying dues?
You are the epitome of my point of not only deaf ears, but biased ears, consequently, the world will never give ‘Charity and Truth’ the chance (and hope) it deserves.
For starters, the pope is calling for REFORM of the UN, not a world dominated “take over.” I’d bet the baby that you never even read the encyclical, but had you read it in “context”, you would clearly understand that the only “world order” the pope is calling for is in “brotherly love.” Imagine, a UN for the GOOD OF THE PEOPLE. Certainly, if that were ever to occur, with the security and non exploitation of the worlds’ neediest, it would require world political authority for it to have any teeth, but again, not at anyone’s gain except the needy. Benedict is calling for “teeth and accountability.”
What we have now Ez is a corrupt cesspool, and IMO, wasted NY real estate and US dues.
I also want to add that the Pope stresses it is best to keep “all things local”, government intervention only when needed, and of course, based in natural law.
So Ez I’m afraid you have been duped.
As for that anti-Christ, that’s more preposterous than the UN statement. Pope Benedict is arguably the most brilliant theologian alive today, with prolific illuminating writings on Christ. I won’t even challenge you to give me even one example that would indicate such an outrageous statement. I will however, suggest that you get your facts straight:
Lastly Ez, if there’s any ‘Anti- Christ’ we should be concerned about, look no further than in America, starting with the most perilous ones, (always the not so obvious) who actually ARE against the teachings of Christ. Do know that true evil always comes “nicely packaged.”
First we have Mr. President Obama, whose actions are about as anti Christian and divisive as you can get, while still giving lip service to being a “Christian”. Next we have Ms. Orpah Winfrey, teaching her new age, “Get off the cross we need the wood”, no sin, ‘FEEEEEEELING” version of Christianity, and dare I say, even Osteen, who packs them in at football stadiums teaching “Easter Sunday for everybody” without a good Friday (there’s no Christianity without a cross). And need I even mention the Kennedy/Pelosi/Sibelius et al “abortion loving” anti Christian politicians who dare call themselves Catholics.
And that’s how “Judeo/Christian American” elected to the presidency the closest man to the anti Christ (who knows, he may even be a precursor), this country has ever experienced. It’s also (real Christianity), that is the biggest reason behind the Sarah Palin and George W. Bush hatred.
The reality is, for Obama’s ultimate plan to succeed, Christianty (at least in it’s real form), simply cannot exist. It is without question, the “number one enemy” of the far left.
For any still convinced that the pope is the Anti-Christ, I came across this:
As expected, ‘Truth in Charity’ appears to be getting it’s MSM anti-catholic spin.
@ Aye Chihuahua
I did read it again, and I understood what you said. What I disagree with is how you are said it, which seems to dismiss the importance of the Preamble. Your followup statement, I do agree completely with:
“The Preamble does not grant, restrict, or establish any specific powers for the Fed Govt. ”
Which is of course is true, however the Preamble establishes the authority to grant powers as residing with “The People” (not the States,) who are the ones granting powers to the federal government. This is a key significant concept behind the forming of our government that should not be read lightly. Those words are not mere forms of art. (The original Articles of Confederation, on the other hand, established that it was the States granting powers to the Central Government, not “The People”.)
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
Some may think I’m nit-picking here, but I think that this is an important distinction.
You know pdill,
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are simply brain-washed and paranoid, rather than educated well beyond your intelligence. Whether I’m wrong or right about that, what is beyond question, is that your reading comprehension is well below that of the average “bigoted redneck dumbass” that you seem to believe that I am. I am left to conclude that simply seeing UN, Pope, and Antichrist in the same paragraph kicked in your unreasonable fear of fat, dirty old men in white sheets sitting around a bonfire drinking beer and roasting hotdogs. I suppose when that happens, weak (or non-existent) reading comprehension skills are negated in the chemical flood that demented and twisted minds must experience whenever some random association trips the lunatic trigger.
Try re-reading my post. S L O W L Y this time. Read the second sentence three or four times. It SHOULD be apparent to anyone with the reading skills of a third grader that the Pope as Antichrist is NOT a theory that I subscribe to. Is that clear enough for you now?
However, five to twenty five percent of the population are somewhere between leaving this open as a possibility to fervently vocalizing that the Pope is the Antichrist. I know it must be hard to believe, judging from your last post and perhaps a couple of others, but some of these people have even shallower levels of compression than you. Some of them are even more reactionary and vicious than you. That, pdill, puts them at a level of stupidity that is clearly dangerous.
That, pdill, makes this an area that should be discussed by reasonable persons. You have excluded yourself from that latter category, but the adults might like to have a discussion about how these people will feed off this statement and what, if any, effect that this statement might have on them (and therefore possibly us, through their actions).
You have confirmed the Protestant prejudice that Catholics spend so much time defending the indefensible that they can’t see the plain truth in front of their faces. I’m sure Catholics everywhere are thanking you as we write.
BTW, I just happened to find an orphaned window that still had this post up because I thought that this could turn into an interesting discussion on the reaction of persons who are paranoid about Catholics. I had no idea it turn up a Catholic who was so paranoid about Protestants that he/she/it would threat-kill the whole thread.
Gad, pdill, it’s a shame you’re such a reactionary idiot. When you could leave off the Anti-Catholic paranoid stupidity, you made some valid points. Speaking of deluded pdill, turn that finger around the opposite direction and you’ll have it right.