| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Robert Mazar |
Posted - 04/02/2006 : 07:17:55
Anybody who is against capital punishment does not know what the Bible states concerning capital punishment. The Bible sanctions capital punishment for murder in the following passages:
Deut. 13:11; 17:7,13; 19:13,20; 21:21
Rom. 13:3,4
Num. 35:31-34
If the Bible sanctions capital punishment for murder then no human has the right to go against what the Bible states that all murderers must be put to death. It is a waste of the tax payers money to keep individuals convicted of first degree homicide alive in prison. I wish the state that I reside in would bring back capital punishment and start using the electric chair for executions. I could easily throw the switch on the chair to fry those dirty rotten, animalistic, insane murderers. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| alcovey |
Posted - 04/06/2006 : 09:35:50
To me it's a prudence issue more than a charity issue. But imprudent to a point of being immoral due to the endangering of our country's economy. This is assuming that the cause was just, which I don't hold, but just dealing with the fiscal aspect alone it should not have happened. |
| Theophilus |
Posted - 04/06/2006 : 09:18:44
Of course not. I'm not saying there is an obligation to do so. I am saying that it is not immoral to do so.
I'm not justifying gov't spending, only questioning those who try to place it in moral terms. I also find the comparison between a government that can issue bonds to cover debt and a household that can't to be apples and oranges. |
| alcovey |
Posted - 04/06/2006 : 08:39:29
Theo, as a paleo-conservative, this has got to be eating you up inside trying to justify this government's spending.  You are not really addressing my point squarely here by saying 'it's not a sin to be in debt' - we all know this is not just a case of a little debt, America is teetering on the brink - not just with the monetary debt, but in every other conceivable way. If a father of a family was in such dire straits, and he went to his pastor for advise, do you think the priest would tell him to max out his cards to engage in a questionable endeavour and put his family at risk? |
| Diana Holberg |
Posted - 04/06/2006 : 08:23:44
True, because there are times when one cannot avoid debt. That's not what we're talking about though.
We're talking about situations where debt is deliberately entered... deficit deliberately increased. I don't think anyone here believes there are not times when, as a nation, a deficit is necessary. Rather, once we're in that situation, is it appropriate to continue in that direction without asking if there are alternatives?
The answer isn't a simple yes or no... it's a matter requiring consideration. |
| Theophilus |
Posted - 04/06/2006 : 08:15:34
There is no Catholic principle that requires one to be debt free to be able to help another. |
| alcovey |
Posted - 04/06/2006 : 08:11:56
Catholic moral principle is to take care of your own spiritual needs first so that you will be in a place to help others. That is why I really like the America First ideals - it does not preclude charity, but rather affirms a Biblical and ethical model of responsible stewardship to ourselves and to the world. A strong and prosperous America will be good for us and for the world. |
| Diana Holberg |
Posted - 04/06/2006 : 08:08:12
It is if it's recklessly done... that's the point. |
| Theophilus |
Posted - 04/06/2006 : 07:21:36
I don't think debt is more morally wrong than lack of charity or concern for others, especially when governmental debt can be underwritten by bond issues. We don't have that luxury as individuals. |
| Diana Holberg |
Posted - 04/06/2006 : 07:16:56
That doesn't make debt right. It's irresponsible. |
| Theophilus |
Posted - 04/06/2006 : 07:01:34
I'm not saying we shouldn't avoid deficits. Paleocons like myself agree with this.
However, geopolitics being what they are, we can't say to the world that we will only use our singular economic, military or diplomatic power to help others if we don't run a deficit.
The last time I checked, the rightness of helping someone else wasn't only determined by the impact on my wallet, but on the good that can come of it. There are times when deficit spending can and should be allowable if it is in pursuit of a greater good.
Some of the most charitable people I know are also in debt. |
| alcovey |
Posted - 04/06/2006 : 06:40:22
quote:
Originally posted by Theophilus
If we turn inward and solve our own problems and allow others to straighten their own out, we will be accused in the world of turning our back on our responsibilities to help other nations.
Hegemonic nations are "damned if they do, damned if they don't."
Where did we get the money to finance this war?
If you or I were $500,000.00 in debt and couldn't even make the interest payments, would we charge up some more on credit cards to give to charity?
The truth is, we can't afford to have our military or our resources spread so thin, and yet we are increasing spending while we do nothing to protect our own borders.
I would not have a problem with legitimate (above board and full disclosure) police actions and intervention if we had our own house in order.
We would not tolerate nor think wise this kind of wreckless behavior in the private sector, why should our government not be held to the same standard? |
| Theophilus |
Posted - 04/06/2006 : 06:19:42
Allen,
If we turn inward and solve our own problems and allow others to straighten their own out, we will be accused in the world of turning our back on our responsibilities to help other nations.
Hegemonic nations are "damned if they do, damned if they don't." |
| Theophilus |
Posted - 04/06/2006 : 06:16:30
Ayn Rand is far too self-centered in mindset to be an adequate basis for government.
Personally, I believe the best form of government is a Philosopher King who rules in accord with Catholic principles. Unfortunately, this is impossible. |
| Theophilus |
Posted - 04/06/2006 : 06:15:17
I love this line: "Democracy would be a horrible form of government if every other form weren't so much worse." |
| Astralis |
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 22:48:46
quote:
Simple, it's about values. It's not about which is a better system, only that if we can enforce our values on other nations, what is to stop nations in the future of enforcing their values on us?
You can't do that to your neighbor down the street, no matter how superior you think your values are to his.
Actually, I do believe there are systems that are better than others. JPII also believed this. I think you are inadvertently treading into relativism by claiming that all systems are equal and we have no right to help other to determine what is best. I think it's our duty. US policy, though, doesn't make everyone in its own image. It tailors the governments to the countries as much as it can (e.g., Japan). |
Subscribe by Email
RSS