I hear you on the redistribution of wealth, but honestly, I don't hear that, and I go to a lot of churchs. I live in Moulton, but I go to Shiner Catholic, Flatonia at times, and I listen to the daily Mass on EWTN during the week.
I haven't heard message from the clergy on the productive classes taking care of the dependent. In fact, I have heard St. Paul-..."those who don't work don't eat." Ouch!
What tv station are you watching? Maybe what you're seeing is regional.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that the poor should rely on God, then themselves, then family, then church, and THEN the govt. So, turning to the church is better than turning to the govt. handouts. Unless you're handicapped, it should be temporary.
Charity is a good thing, but it shouldn't be abused.
I have always found Snopes to be meticulous in the citations on questions they are asked. I have compared their answers to other fact checking sites and found that they did not answer any differently than the others did. As a matter of fact, their answers are almost always given with much more detail than the other sites.
I am curious. How do you know that Soros is funding them? There is nothing I have found that indicates it other than rumors . . . . . which the other sites have debunked.
"I think you're overlooking much good done by religious groups, esp. the Church when it comes to social issues."
I'll agree that religious groups have done a great deal of good now and in the past. However, the Catholic Church, as well as many other denominations, have become some of the most vocal proponents of "social justice". For those who have never heard the term before, it basically means redistribution of wealth. Not by the goodness of peoples hearts, but under threat of government force. The end result is the imbibing of the poison of government dependency by more and more people. If you need to see examples of what I'm talking about just watch the local 10 o'clock news for a month. I can guarantee that you will see many examples of members of the clergy demanding, either directly or through "community organizations", that the productive class be forced to do more for the dependent class.
As I said earlier, the government has no business forcing its beliefs on the church. But the church had better remember that if you lie down with dogs you're liable to rise with fleas.
You readily acknowledge we are discussing two different issues here. The issue of personal responsibility is a daunting one. Many well intended programs have failed to guard against their being accessed by people who are not truly needy. We can argue about the number of those people but there is little doubt that the safeguards, on the infrequent occasion they are even in place, are woefully inadequate. Yet I do not think any civilized individual would stand in favor of abandoning those most needy amongst us. The difficulty is in drawing the line and in making certain that those truly in need are helped while those who might be characterized as freeloaders are not given a blank check. Furthermore, it seems that with few exceptions the government has failed to chart a path forward for people to escape the dehumanizing clutches of the merely subsistence living the government affords them. Some ascribe this to such motivations as "vote buying" but I am personally not quite so Machiavellian. I am more inclined to think it is merely people following the path of least resistance. It is easy to give someone a handout, particularly when it is not your personal funds, as opposed to teaching them or getting them a job. Consequently we hear the horror stories of 4th generation welfare recipients since the behavior is so ingrained as to become almost genetic. The difference with the Catholic Church (and many other faith based organizations) is that, while it is certainly not perfect, I do not think any reasonable individual would suggest that as a society there has not been benefit far in excess of any request for government assistance by the Church.
You state, "But at the same time we want the government to make sure all those kids have housing, medical care, food etc."
That's not completely accurate. I don't think that it's wholly govt. role to do that. We have a nation of dependents today, and it's crippling us economically, militarily, and spiritually.
I don't hear the Church whining as it educates millions of kids and takes the expense away from you, the taxpayer. Nor did I hear it whining for centuries as it provided the sole healthcare in many spots in this country at a bare price or for free as thousands of Catholic men and women worked for little or nothing to treat their "neighbor."
I think you're overlooking much good done by religious groups, esp. the Church when it comes to social issues.
Pandora's Box was opened up when we decided that the government should take care of all our needs, and the Catholic Church is one of the first to whine if that government support is cut in any way. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
For example, we can say (correctly) that the government should not be involved in an way in contraception or abortion. But at the same time we want the government to make sure all those kids have housing, medical care, food etc. We don't want government "death panels" saying that we have to pull the plug on Grandma, but we want the government (ie taxpayers) to keep paying Grandma's medical bills.
On the opposite end of the political and religious spectrum you have people who want everything from drugs to prostitution to gambling to be perfectly legal. At the same time they want the free housing, medical care and food provided by the government if their libertine lifestyle leaves them sickly and broke. In a way they have the same attitude as the Catholic Church. They don't want the government telling them what to do, but they want the government to clean up the problems that result.
Don't get me wrong. I think the Catholic Church is correct in this case. However, free will should also come with responsibilities and repercussions.
While contacting your two Senators, don't forget to contact your Congressional representatives too. They will need to support the House of Represenatives version of Rubio's bill.
Not sure who your reps are? Look them up at: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
Hi, I've been looking for Mike for quite awhile now. If you have contact to him, please have him contact me at loriaketchum(at)yahoo.com or Jenayavstheworld(at)gmail.com.
Hello Dan,
I hear you on the redistribution of wealth, but honestly, I don't hear that, and I go to a lot of churchs. I live in Moulton, but I go to Shiner Catholic, Flatonia at times, and I listen to the daily Mass on EWTN during the week.
I haven't heard message from the clergy on the productive classes taking care of the dependent. In fact, I have heard St. Paul-..."those who don't work don't eat." Ouch!
What tv station are you watching? Maybe what you're seeing is regional.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that the poor should rely on God, then themselves, then family, then church, and THEN the govt. So, turning to the church is better than turning to the govt. handouts. Unless you're handicapped, it should be temporary.
Charity is a good thing, but it shouldn't be abused.
Thanks for your comments.
Mary Ann Wenske
I have always found Snopes to be meticulous in the citations on questions they are asked. I have compared their answers to other fact checking sites and found that they did not answer any differently than the others did. As a matter of fact, their answers are almost always given with much more detail than the other sites.
I am curious. How do you know that Soros is funding them? There is nothing I have found that indicates it other than rumors . . . . . which the other sites have debunked.
Lisa Thiele
Gonzales, Texas
"I think you're overlooking much good done by religious groups, esp. the Church when it comes to social issues."
I'll agree that religious groups have done a great deal of good now and in the past. However, the Catholic Church, as well as many other denominations, have become some of the most vocal proponents of "social justice". For those who have never heard the term before, it basically means redistribution of wealth. Not by the goodness of peoples hearts, but under threat of government force. The end result is the imbibing of the poison of government dependency by more and more people. If you need to see examples of what I'm talking about just watch the local 10 o'clock news for a month. I can guarantee that you will see many examples of members of the clergy demanding, either directly or through "community organizations", that the productive class be forced to do more for the dependent class.
As I said earlier, the government has no business forcing its beliefs on the church. But the church had better remember that if you lie down with dogs you're liable to rise with fleas.
Dan Yates
Gonzales County
You readily acknowledge we are discussing two different issues here. The issue of personal responsibility is a daunting one. Many well intended programs have failed to guard against their being accessed by people who are not truly needy. We can argue about the number of those people but there is little doubt that the safeguards, on the infrequent occasion they are even in place, are woefully inadequate. Yet I do not think any civilized individual would stand in favor of abandoning those most needy amongst us. The difficulty is in drawing the line and in making certain that those truly in need are helped while those who might be characterized as freeloaders are not given a blank check. Furthermore, it seems that with few exceptions the government has failed to chart a path forward for people to escape the dehumanizing clutches of the merely subsistence living the government affords them. Some ascribe this to such motivations as "vote buying" but I am personally not quite so Machiavellian. I am more inclined to think it is merely people following the path of least resistance. It is easy to give someone a handout, particularly when it is not your personal funds, as opposed to teaching them or getting them a job. Consequently we hear the horror stories of 4th generation welfare recipients since the behavior is so ingrained as to become almost genetic. The difference with the Catholic Church (and many other faith based organizations) is that, while it is certainly not perfect, I do not think any reasonable individual would suggest that as a society there has not been benefit far in excess of any request for government assistance by the Church.
Terry Brennan
You state, "But at the same time we want the government to make sure all those kids have housing, medical care, food etc."
That's not completely accurate. I don't think that it's wholly govt. role to do that. We have a nation of dependents today, and it's crippling us economically, militarily, and spiritually.
I don't hear the Church whining as it educates millions of kids and takes the expense away from you, the taxpayer. Nor did I hear it whining for centuries as it provided the sole healthcare in many spots in this country at a bare price or for free as thousands of Catholic men and women worked for little or nothing to treat their "neighbor."
I think you're overlooking much good done by religious groups, esp. the Church when it comes to social issues.
Mary Ann Wenske
Pandora's Box was opened up when we decided that the government should take care of all our needs, and the Catholic Church is one of the first to whine if that government support is cut in any way. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
For example, we can say (correctly) that the government should not be involved in an way in contraception or abortion. But at the same time we want the government to make sure all those kids have housing, medical care, food etc. We don't want government "death panels" saying that we have to pull the plug on Grandma, but we want the government (ie taxpayers) to keep paying Grandma's medical bills.
On the opposite end of the political and religious spectrum you have people who want everything from drugs to prostitution to gambling to be perfectly legal. At the same time they want the free housing, medical care and food provided by the government if their libertine lifestyle leaves them sickly and broke. In a way they have the same attitude as the Catholic Church. They don't want the government telling them what to do, but they want the government to clean up the problems that result.
Don't get me wrong. I think the Catholic Church is correct in this case. However, free will should also come with responsibilities and repercussions.
Dan Yates
Gonzales County
I think these things will be the next targets. That's why this mandate can't just slide by.
Thanks for the added info. We need to write Obama too!
How wonderful that these young people traveled there! I do believe the pro-life movement has a young face to it.
Thanks for having this article in the paper.
Sure enjoyed your article Mr. Bruchard .... great wordsmithing ... made the cattle-to-market scene come alive... Thanks!
While contacting your two Senators, don't forget to contact your Congressional representatives too. They will need to support the House of Represenatives version of Rubio's bill.
Not sure who your reps are? Look them up at: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
Proud of y'all ... glad you made an impact in DC AND learned a bit about your American heritage...
Mr. Bruchard....a story about Fort Waul would be interesting. It's a part of Gonzales history that few know about.
Bill Sheppard
I always love reading stories from the past. Thank you so much for another history lesson.
Carolyn Mercer
Hi, I've been looking for Mike for quite awhile now. If you have contact to him, please have him contact me at loriaketchum(at)yahoo.com or Jenayavstheworld(at)gmail.com.
Jenaya Stubbert