- comment
.... - body
- HA!
- comment Mike
- body
- I'll bet he gave him the fig!
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- ...so I clearly cannot drink the cup in front of me.
There's a lot of pressure on Scalia to recuse himself from another case from the left. He doesn't seem inclined to listen -- I wonder why...
- comment ....
- body
- He really should, his comments, while understandable make this case of a personal nature. If Ginsberg had said something of the same nature, i would have asked her to recuse herself.
BTW: ALL AMERICANS HAVE RIGHTS, EVEN TERRORISTS!!!
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- And as a Catholic, NoVADemocrat, I'm sure you'll agree with me that the unborn have just as many rights as a terrorist in American courts.
Yes?
- comment ....
- body
- I dont follow your logic...
- comment Mike
- body
- Nova Democrat:
1)(Nova) All Americans have rights, even terrorists.
2)(Shaun) Unborn Babies in America are Americans.
3)(Shaun) Unborn American Babies have rights.
Bottom line ... as a democrat, do you believe that terrorists (who have committed grave evils) have more rights than unborn babies (who are completely innocent)?
- comment Mike
- body
- As for what the gesture Scalia made was ...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/27/scalia.gesture.ap/index.html
- comment ....
- body
- Shuan, every person who has American citizenship, which does not include unborn children (sorry to say), has the same rights under the constitution.
BTW: My priest gave me this book called, Science, Politics, and Gnosticism by Eric Voegelin; ive been working non stop on that 87 page book for 2 weeks now (not a referance to the speed i read:-))
- comment ....
- body
- and i promise to spell your name correctly next time:-)
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- So you would give terrorists greater protection than you would give the unborn? The unborn whom you - as a Catholic - have a duty to protect?
:)
Who do you have as your priest? Man... are they starting you out on some hard core reading. Most philosophy graduate students don't even know who Voegelin is! I only have an idea through what I've read in First Things.
Don't immanentize the eschaton!
- comment Mike
- body
- Shuan, every person who has American citizenship, which does not include unborn children (sorry to say), has the same rights under the constitution.
14th amendment to the Constitution, Section 1:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Please note the definite shift in the use of language between the word "citizen" and "person".
A citizen is defined by the Constitution thusly:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The fact that the Founders made a distinction between "person" and "citizen" is very important because these rights, which they outline very specifically, are extended to ALL PERSONS, not merely citizens alone.
As a result, unborn babies (who are most definitely persons) protected by the Constitution.
- comment Mike
- body
- Begging your pardon ... I misspoke when I said "Founders" regarding the authors of the 14th amendment. Being ratified in 1868, it most certainly was not written by the Founders, but you get my point anyway.
- comment ....
- body
- Oh, Fr. Edlefson and I have been having an ongoing discussion regarding the presence of religion in government. So what i am getting from the book is that Father is trying to tell me that that particular school of thoght is rooted in Gnosticism. He even further and touts Gnosticism as the source of all evil (simplisticly:-)) and, well, fascism. Anyway, really tough read...
- comment ....
- body
- http://www.catholicherald.com/articles/05articles/edlefsen.htm
- comment ....
- body
- http://www.catholicherald.
com/articles/05articles/
edlefsen.htm
I broke it up so you can see it.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- He should give you St. Thomas More's Utopia next. That's a fun book if you haven't read it yet.
Then the Summa Theologicae, Book I, Part II, Q90-97.
If you can read Voegelin, you're ready for Aquinas!
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- What exactly is your position on abortion anyhow? Is it consistent with Church teaching, and if not, how do you reconcile it?
Just curious (and please don't answer if you don't want to -- not trying to pry at all).
- comment ....
- body
- We did Utopia in Humanities and we are doing Plato's Apology in Religion. We just finished the City of God by Augustine and read "On the Conditions of Workers", "The Church and the modern world" and "Mother and Teacher". My plan is to sometime take a bunch of quotes from the and post them so I can maybe make you a Democrat :-)
From Gaudium et Specs:
"Persons in extreme necessity are entitled to take what they need from the riches of others. Faced with a world today where so many people are suffering from want, the council asks individuals and governments to remember the saying of the Fathers: "Feed the people dying of hunger, because if you do not feed them you are killing them," and it urges them according to their ability to share and dispose of their goods to help others, above all by giving them aid which will enable them to help and develop themselves."
PS: GO KADIMA!
- comment ....
- body
- On abortion, i am non-committed (really haven’t heard any constructive ideas from either side, though i think birth control is highly preferable to abortion). While i think abortion is morally wrong and bad for a countries economy (case in point: Russia); i just cant get the picture of a women self-aborting a fetus out of my head... If banning abortion would eliminate the practice i would vote for it in a heartbeat, i just dont see that happening.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Gaudium et Spes: read again -- "extreme necessity".
Plus, you forgot the footnote:
11. In that case, the old principle holds true: "In extreme necessity all goods are common, that is, all goods are to be shared." On the other hand, for the order, extension, and manner by which the principle is applied in the proposed text, besides the modern authors: cf. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica II-II, q. 66, a. 7. Obviously, for the correct application of the principle, all the conditions that are morally required must be met. (emphasis mine)
What the heck are they teaching you at O'Connell anyhow?! ;)
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Regarding abortion then, how do you feel this stance squares with your faith?
- comment ....
- body
- Is that a challenge:-) From "Rerum Novarum"
"Equity therefore commands that public authority show proper concern for the worker so that from what he contributes to the common good he may receive what will enable him, housed, clothed, and secure, to live his life without hardship. Whence, it follows that all those measures ought to be favored which seem in any way capable of benefiting the condition of workers. Such solicitude is so far from injuring anyone, that it is destined rather to benefit all, because it is of absolute interest to the State that those citizens should not be miserable in every respect from whom such necessary goods proceed."
- comment ....
- body
- And on abortion... Well i certainly agree with the church that abortion is a fundamentally immoral practice (though i disagree w/ the church regarding life beginning at conception, however that does not at all justifies any abortion). JPII said in his Encyclical, "I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral". I agree with that teaching.
I differ on how staunchly i accept the doctrine that when a society makes something legal that it becomes accepted as correct morally. In the case of abortion, it was made legal to end a double injustice, the death of mother and child... Give me a couple years (or decades) to figure that sucker out and reconcile my beliefs and my faith.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- That is a challenge!
From Centesimus Annus (JP II on the 100th Anniversary of Rerum Novarum):
"If Pope Leo XIII calls upon the State to remedy the condition of the poor in accordance with justice, he does so because of his timely awareness that the State has the duty of watching over the common good and of ensuring that every sector of social life, not excluding the economic one, contributes to achieving that good, while respecting the rightful autonomy of each sector. This should not however lead us to think that Pope Leo expected the State to solve every social problem. On the contrary, he frequently insists on necessary limits to the State's intervention and on its instrumental character, inasmuch as the individual, the family and society are prior to the State, and inasmuch as the State exists in order to protect their rights and not stifle them."
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Arrgh! I can't believe they haven't posted the Compendium for the Social Doctrine of the Church online yet!!!
103: On the hundreth anniversary of Rerum Novarum, Pope John Paul II promulgates his third social encyclical, Gentesimus Annus, whence emerges the doctrinal continuity of a hungred years of the Church's social Magisterium. Taking up anew one of the fundamental principles of the Christian view of social and political organization, whcihc had been the central theme of the previous Encyclical, the Pope writes: "What we nowadays call the principle of solidarity... is frequently stated by Pope Leo XIII, who uses the term 'friendship'... Pope Piuys XI refers to it with the equally meaningful term 'social charity'. Pope Paul VI, expanding the concept to cover the many modern aspects of the social question, speaks of a 'civilization of love'." Pope John Paul II demonstrates how the Church's social teaching moves along the axis of reciprocity between God and man: recognizing God in every person and every person in God is the condition of authentic human development. The articulate and in-depth analysis of the "new things," and particularly of the great breakthrough of 1989 with the collapse of the Soviet system, show appreciation for democracy and the free economy, in the context of an indispensable solidarity."
To expand on that, I'll point towards Aquinas' distinction between the eternal law (laws of God), the natural law (that of the eternal we can know), the human law (our understanding of the natural law), and custom -- to which Aquinas devoted the vast majority of coercive lawmaking by society, and what Pope Leo XIII as a Thomist expressed in RR and Pope John Paul II expressed in CA.
Want more?
- comment Mike
- body
- Nova,
I noticed you have yet to respond to my comments regarding papal condemnations of socialism and liberalism. How do you reconcile your democrat platform with Catholic teaching?
- comment ....
- body
- To Mike; The Catholic Church with the exception of abortion would almost certainly always come down on the side of the Democratic Party.
A) The Catholic Church favors the rich giving to the poor, while Republicans believe that income should be distributed the other way.
B) Most in the Republican Party supported HR 4437, an anti-immigrant bill that passed the House. HR 4437 was strongly condemned by the Catholic Church.
C) The Vast Majority of the Republican Party support practice of government supported cold-blooded murder (the death penalty)
D) Democrats support programs aimed at aiding the poor; Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security; Republicans don’t so they can more effectively redistribute wealth to the rich. (See A)
E) Conservatives for most part believe in government implemented discrimination of gays; a policy that isn’t very Catholic.
F) The Catholic Church supports fair wages for workers, see A.
I could go on much further, and BTW: In the Party of the Democratic Party there are no references to socialism. I don’t know what you are referring to by your comment on the church condemning liberalism, because the Catholic Church is arguably the most liberal religious institution in History (and I am not referring to the political liberal, and I doubt the church ever would).
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Mike,
NoVA Democrat has been educated in the tradition of the seamless garment, so you have to understand that when you argue abortion OVER social justice, you are (in the eyes of a seamless garment proponent) simply preserving lives to condemn to economic slavery -- hence the immediate references to Rerum Novarum.
In essence, a pro-life argument that addresses the issue of abortion without treating the causes is a cure worse than the disease. The progressives in the Church aren't fools!
The trick is to explain why Leo XIII's statements in Rerum Novarum match and evolve into John Paul II's Centesimus Annus and the CSDCC, which are currently the authoritative and governing documents on Catholic social justice.
Alternatively, you have to make the following arguments:
(A) The Catholic Church favors neither the rich giving to the poor, nor the oppression of the poor for the benefit of the many. Rather, the Church supports a spirit of charity which cannot be mandated by the State, specifically because it is no longer charitable.
(B) Not all Republicans supported HR 4437.
(C) See how cold-blooded murder is equated as the death penalty, not abortion? It's an Americanist error, but he hasn't read Testem Benevolentiae yet, so how does he know any better?
(D) Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are ineffective distributors of wealth (see A), and do more harm than good for the poor. But he hasn't read Centesimus Annus yet, therefore how does he know any better?
(E) Unjust homosexual discrimination has been prohibited by the Catechism, but the seamless garment approach gets corrupted by feminism in the idea that all gender roles are interchangable, therefore there's no problem with women priests, homosexuals in the clergy, etc. Again, he hasn't read enough (or he's read things in the wrong order).
(F) The Church does support fair wages, but rejects socialist means of repairing the problem. The free market is the only moral system, as it is the only system that has created wealth for the middle class. He's right in insisting on a living wage (Leo XIII and JP II insist as well), but he misreads RR by insisting on a minimum wage that ultimately reduces the purchasing power of the individual through inflation...
In short, NoVA Democrat has already stated here that he knows there's some items of his faith that do not reconcile with his religious beliefs, and he's working them through.
That's fair.
Even I was a Democrat in high school... but the more I read, I became more confident of my own conclusions and began to think outside the liberal/conservative paradigm. NoVA Dem will too -- at least he's a thinking Democrat (a rare breed indeed)!
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- NoVA Democrat!
Have you read Centesimus Annus yet? If not, when you get done with Prof. Voegelin, we should have a good conversation regarding how best to implement Catholic Social Teaching.
You continue to impress!
- comment Mike
- body
- Nova,
The point that I had made in the other thread was that what the Democrat Party stands for largely echo the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto (which has been 100% condemned by Papal Encyclicals).
Let’s compare Communism with the Democrat Party.
Communism is a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
There is very little in that definition that does not match up with the aims of the Democrat Party, which wishes to “plan and control the economy” (Keynesian economic policy is by and large Democrat policy … and Keynes was a communist, by the way), “claims to make progress to a higher social order”, and professes an “equality” stance that very much echos the notion that “all goods should be equally shared by the people”.
The first plank of Communism is the abolition of private property. It is the Democrat Party that favored the immoral plunder of private property through immanent domain. It is the Democrat party that made the possession of gold illegal. It is the Democrat Party that pushes for higher and higher property taxes (making the land we own more of a lease, for those who do not pay property taxes, whether they can afford it or not, lose their property). It is the Democrat party that advocates socialistic programs such as welfare, social security, and socialized medicine, which all take “from each according to his means” and gives “to each according to his needs”. VERY Marxist.
Marx also called for a graduated income tax. Our entire income tax system came directly from the Democrat Party. This progressive tax we all have on income is a massive attack on the middle class, benefiting the poor AND the rich! Please to note that all motions to remove or reduce the income tax system have all come from Republicans and all attempts to block such reductions or removals have all come from Democrats. Hmm … 2 points for communism (condemned by the Church) in favor of the Democrat Party.
The third plank of Marxist Communism is the abolition to the right of inheritance. All I need to ask is who is behind the burdensome inheritance and death taxes. 3 points for communism in favor of the Democrat Party.
The fourth tenet of communism states that "emigrants and rebels" will have all real property taken from them. Today, we do this to alleged drug dealers, pimps, gangsters, thieves, tax protestors, and anyone else that can be scooped into the asset forfeiture net, and this even BEFORE they are convicted! Please note that much of this started under the so-called “war on crime” … initiated by Democrats. 4 points.
The fifth plank deals with the complete monopolization of economics and money by a central bank. Now, admittedly both Republicans as well as Democrats are guilty of this. However, I would like to point out that it is Democrats who are perpetually demanding higher interest rates, the printing of more money, and greater spending (which ONLY benefits the central bank). 5 points to Democrats, 1 point to Republicans.
The 6th plank of communism is “Centralization of the means of communication and transportation into the hands of the state”. Interestingly, the Associated Press largely controls the American news (which interestingly enough greatly favors the Democrat Party). Also, every telephone is under strict guidelines imposed by the federal government (The FCC was introduced by the Democrat Party). The American regime claims a de facto right to search anyone flying, including old ladies and the handicapped. We must have insurance, title, identification, driver's license, auto registration, and vehicle inspection to drive (All Democrat led initiatives). Furthermore, your car must adhere to ecological standards (Democrats).
The seventh plank of the communist manifesto deals with government extending its ownership of industries, including manufacturing and agriculture. Thanks to the Democrat Party under Clinton’s Leadership, much of our manufacturing has been exported to Red China. Furthermore, the Democrat party is responsible for granting an incredible amount of power to the Department of Agriculture (as well as its creation), who tells farmers where, when, and what to plant. They even dictate the size a fruit or vegetable must be to be sold. They use taxpayer dollars to pay farmers not to plant. And, as the power of the State over farmers has increased, the family farms have equally dissipated.
The 8th plank deals with the formation of work brigades. The President of the United States, through the issuance of Executive Orders, has the power to form work camps, amongst a host of other things, which interestingly coincide with the Communist agenda. For instance:
· EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
· EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
· EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
· EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
· EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
· EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
· EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
· EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
· EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
· EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
All signed by a Democrat!
The 9th plank of the Communist Party doesn’t seem to apply to this discussion at the moment.
However, the 10th plank is VERY pertinent. It has to do with public education. It calls for a centralized education system which will then create perfect citizens. Please note that it is the Republicans and conservatives who wish to leave public education and not have to pay into it, while the Democrats have pushed for incredibly oppressive strictures regarding religion in school, wish to teach sex ed to 1st graders, promote an ecological agenda in schools, promote Darwinism in schools, and promote a homosexual agenda is public schools.
Given the heavily Marxist similarities of the Democrat party in this country, and given that Marxism has been completely condemned by the Catholic Church, I do not see how one can hold both and remained reconciled.
- comment ....
- body
- 1) Eminent Domain is written in the Constitution, which was signed when Andrew Jackson was a baby.
2) Is there a mainstream politician from any party who doesn’t believe in a progressive tax system? I don’t think so…
3) You want the drug dealers to keep the cocaine? I’m almost confident that is a bi-partisan issue.
4) Democrats demanding higher spending? Huh, I could have sworn that the only time in the last two decades that the budget actually shrunk was 95, and that under complete republican dominance the budget is growing about 3 times inflation.
5) You blame the Democrats for what you perceive as a liberal bias among the educated press?
6) I am a Democrat and don’t believe in the Department of Education, however crop assistance is important (should be cut back significantly.) Why don’t you ask the GOP Senators from Oklahoma, Kansas, Idaho, Missouri, and Iowa about how they feel on crop assistance…
7) You want to tell me how many unilateral executive decisions and treaties that Bush and Reagan signed?
8) See #6 and who promoted no child left behind? As regarding to Darwinism, yes I believe real science should be taught in school, but thanks for the question:-)
- comment ....
- body
- And Shaun, no we just did parts of Centesimus Annus, our teachers were sidetracked when Benedict published his first encyclical (though i would look forward to discussing catholic social teaching, i personally think that jpii took the church back 70 or 80 years).
Have you ever seen "The shoes of the fisherman"? That is what the Catholic Church is to me.
- comment Mike
- body
- 1) The reference to Eminent Domain was aimed specifically at the recent abuses, and you know it!
2) Don’t dodge the issue, this was a Democrat-created imposition. Unfortunately, many republicans are not tough enough on the tax issue (because many of them have bought into a mindset of strong centralized government … which I am against), but that isn’t the point.
3) Please so not create a straw-man and then proceed to beat it. ALLEGED drug-dealers, tax evaders, pimps, protesters, etc. have their property confiscated and their assets frozen BEFORE conviction. This is unjust! This has been used as a tool by crooked politicians, lawyers, and judges as a means of confiscating property from people who have done nothing wrong, and cannot afford to defend themselves because their assets have been frozen. I’ve got plenty of material on this, if you’re interested!
4) Please note that I pointed out that both Republicans and Democrats were guilty of this, but that by and large, it is the Dems which tend to over-spend. Pork-barrel projects tend to be a favorite.
5) Nice tie-in … “liberal bias” … “Educated” press. The main-stream press has maintained the liberal agenda for decades. When was the last time the media called for tax reductions? When was the last time the media called for an end to abortion? When was the last time the media called for an end to the open promotion of homosexuality? Unless it came from Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, it was done on the 27th page in an editorial somewhere.
6) I’m not talking about you … I’m talking about the current philosophy of the Democrat Party. The Department of Education was a Democrat brain-child. It is a MARXIST brainchild. Hmmm … As for crop assistance, it is a BAD thing! A) It was tried in ancient Rome and it almost caused the complete collapse of Roman agrarianism. B) It goes all the way back to plank #5 … economic control at the top. Don’t deflect the issue by calling on GOP allies, this was all started by Democrats, and very much reflects Marx’s writings.
7) I am not a Bush supporter. Neither Bush sr. nor Bush jr. I wish to make that rather plain! Reagan, great as he was, made some decisions that were a bit dubious. However, regardless of Bush and Reagan’s executive orders (and I’d like to see which ones they printed that reflect Marxism, if you are so inclined to point them out), you cannot deny that the executive orders I cited were signed by a Democrat and they reflect almost every single plank of the communist manifesto to a T!
8) Again, Bush is no conservative, however you still cannot deny the ORIGINS of these monstrosities!
9) I will be more than willing to completely, utterly, and definitively destroy all notions of Darwinian evolution for you via e-mail, if you wish. THIS is an area I have studied for a VERY long time and am quite comfortable with calling myself an expert on the subject. Darwinian evolution is myth, mixed with a zealot’s faith. Send me an e-mail, and I’d be more than happy to discuss this one with you. :-)
mdhichborn@juno.com
- comment ....
- body
- re 1-8: your crazy, you have some irrational hate of the Democratic Party.
re 9: No matter what you believe, science is science, and since it is the only science regarding the matter it is the only thing that should be taught. If you want to go out and make a valid scientific hypotesis and come up with evidence to try to prove it, i am sure it will be taught in schools.
- comment Mike
- body
- Nova,
Can you deny that the Democrat party is the party of the graduated income tax (origin and perpetuation), the death tax(origin and perpetuation), the redistribution of wealth (welfare, social security, socialized medicine), and the open support for extreme immorality (homosexuality and abortion)?
Rather than call me crazy, just answer the question. If you cannot deny the above, then you MUST then try to reconcile your political position with the condemnations of Popes (which I outlined before.
As for the issue of science, I am all for the teaching of REAL science. I am AGAINST the teaching of disproved hypotheses as fact. Evolution can very easily (and has been in the past) disproved. What would you think about a school system (funded by the government) that continued to teach geocentrism or spontaneous generation? Or what about medical schools that still taught "blood-letting" as an accepted medical practice?
Darwinian evolution is junk science which requires more faith to believe than one would need in order to believe in the Trinity.
Name-call all you want, but if you wish to be taken seriously in the public forum, learn to defend your position without resorting to it.
- comment ....
- body
- As for your asertion that Evolution is junk science, i could not disagree more. What do you want to teach creationism in classrooms? A scientist just can’t give up and chalk it all up to a higher creator; where would we be if we just said its all God and let’s not try to understand it? Would we have Chemistry? Biology? Physics?
What if Rosalind Franklin had just given up on finding out the structure of DNA because it was “irreducibly complex”?
- comment Mike
- body
- I believe in teaching the sciences. I mean REALLY teaching the sciences. How to observe, experiment, record data, and draw a conclusion. I also believe in taking an analytical approach to various theories and hypotheses.
I think you have a bit of a misunderstanding as to what "Creation Science" is.
When studying biology, chemistry, physics, geology ... one must understand that these sciences are not exclusive, but various aspects of the one and same creation. For instance, magnetism has just as much an impact on astronomy as it does on biology, chemistry, and physics. I have nothing but respect for science, but a TRUE scientist will realize that the laws of the universe were created and are governed by God, and all things in creation reflect His glory and majesty.
The science of creation is real science. Creationists approach the same sample of biological, geological, etc material the same way every other scientist does ... only he won't base his conclusions on assumptions the way darwinian evolutionists will (such as the circular reasoning behind radiometric dating, or the presumption that such and such an animal "came from "such and such other animal), nor do they believe in the Big Bang (which is an impossibility anyway), nor do they believe in spontaneous generation (living matter came from some sort of electrified premordial soup). Sure, they have theories and hypotheses, just as any other scientist does ... but these aren't based on radical, athiestic assumptions, either.
My gripe with the approach taken by the public school system is that it is presented as "fact", when in fact it doesn't even qualify as a theory ... it is merely an hypothesis, and a bad one at that.
Shall I go on to explain exactly why darwinian evolution is junk science?
- comment Mike
- body
- P.S. Your understanding of irreducible complexity (based ONLY on your comment) seems to be a bit limited.
Irreducible complexity is the assertion that no organ, such as the eyes, ears, liver, spleen, or even organic cellular material could have gone through an evolutionary process because the organs simply would not work without all the interworking parts.
I don't see what your tie-in is with the DNA structure and "irreducible complexity"?
- comment Mike
- body
- where would we be if we just said its all God and let’s not try to understand it? Would we have Chemistry? Biology? Physics?
You realize, of course, that those sciences found their greatest advances through the Catholic Universities, right? I'm not sure where you got the impression that the science of creation is somehow a "We don't understand what God did, but isn't it great" mentality. Not a single one of these universities took the stance you are asserting.
40 Comments:
There's a lot of pressure on Scalia to recuse himself from another case from the left. He doesn't seem inclined to listen -- I wonder why...
BTW: ALL AMERICANS HAVE RIGHTS, EVEN TERRORISTS!!!
Yes?
1)(Nova) All Americans have rights, even terrorists.
2)(Shaun) Unborn Babies in America are Americans.
3)(Shaun) Unborn American Babies have rights.
Bottom line ... as a democrat, do you believe that terrorists (who have committed grave evils) have more rights than unborn babies (who are completely innocent)?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/27/scalia.gesture.ap/index.html
BTW: My priest gave me this book called, Science, Politics, and Gnosticism by Eric Voegelin; ive been working non stop on that 87 page book for 2 weeks now (not a referance to the speed i read:-))
:)
Who do you have as your priest? Man... are they starting you out on some hard core reading. Most philosophy graduate students don't even know who Voegelin is! I only have an idea through what I've read in First Things.
Don't immanentize the eschaton!
14th amendment to the Constitution, Section 1:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Please note the definite shift in the use of language between the word "citizen" and "person".
A citizen is defined by the Constitution thusly:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The fact that the Founders made a distinction between "person" and "citizen" is very important because these rights, which they outline very specifically, are extended to ALL PERSONS, not merely citizens alone.
As a result, unborn babies (who are most definitely persons) protected by the Constitution.
com/articles/05articles/
edlefsen.htm
I broke it up so you can see it.
Then the Summa Theologicae, Book I, Part II, Q90-97.
If you can read Voegelin, you're ready for Aquinas!
Just curious (and please don't answer if you don't want to -- not trying to pry at all).
From Gaudium et Specs:
"Persons in extreme necessity are entitled to take what they need from the riches of others. Faced with a world today where so many people are suffering from want, the council asks individuals and governments to remember the saying of the Fathers: "Feed the people dying of hunger, because if you do not feed them you are killing them," and it urges them according to their ability to share and dispose of their goods to help others, above all by giving them aid which will enable them to help and develop themselves."
PS: GO KADIMA!
Plus, you forgot the footnote:
11. In that case, the old principle holds true: "In extreme necessity all goods are common, that is, all goods are to be shared." On the other hand, for the order, extension, and manner by which the principle is applied in the proposed text, besides the modern authors: cf. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica II-II, q. 66, a. 7. Obviously, for the correct application of the principle, all the conditions that are morally required must be met. (emphasis mine)
What the heck are they teaching you at O'Connell anyhow?! ;)
"Equity therefore commands that public authority show proper concern for the worker so that from what he contributes to the common good he may receive what will enable him, housed, clothed, and secure, to live his life without hardship. Whence, it follows that all those measures ought to be favored which seem in any way capable of benefiting the condition of workers. Such solicitude is so far from injuring anyone, that it is destined rather to benefit all, because it is of absolute interest to the State that those citizens should not be miserable in every respect from whom such necessary goods proceed."
I differ on how staunchly i accept the doctrine that when a society makes something legal that it becomes accepted as correct morally. In the case of abortion, it was made legal to end a double injustice, the death of mother and child... Give me a couple years (or decades) to figure that sucker out and reconcile my beliefs and my faith.
From Centesimus Annus (JP II on the 100th Anniversary of Rerum Novarum):
"If Pope Leo XIII calls upon the State to remedy the condition of the poor in accordance with justice, he does so because of his timely awareness that the State has the duty of watching over the common good and of ensuring that every sector of social life, not excluding the economic one, contributes to achieving that good, while respecting the rightful autonomy of each sector. This should not however lead us to think that Pope Leo expected the State to solve every social problem. On the contrary, he frequently insists on necessary limits to the State's intervention and on its instrumental character, inasmuch as the individual, the family and society are prior to the State, and inasmuch as the State exists in order to protect their rights and not stifle them."
103: On the hundreth anniversary of Rerum Novarum, Pope John Paul II promulgates his third social encyclical, Gentesimus Annus, whence emerges the doctrinal continuity of a hungred years of the Church's social Magisterium. Taking up anew one of the fundamental principles of the Christian view of social and political organization, whcihc had been the central theme of the previous Encyclical, the Pope writes: "What we nowadays call the principle of solidarity... is frequently stated by Pope Leo XIII, who uses the term 'friendship'... Pope Piuys XI refers to it with the equally meaningful term 'social charity'. Pope Paul VI, expanding the concept to cover the many modern aspects of the social question, speaks of a 'civilization of love'." Pope John Paul II demonstrates how the Church's social teaching moves along the axis of reciprocity between God and man: recognizing God in every person and every person in God is the condition of authentic human development. The articulate and in-depth analysis of the "new things," and particularly of the great breakthrough of 1989 with the collapse of the Soviet system, show appreciation for democracy and the free economy, in the context of an indispensable solidarity."
To expand on that, I'll point towards Aquinas' distinction between the eternal law (laws of God), the natural law (that of the eternal we can know), the human law (our understanding of the natural law), and custom -- to which Aquinas devoted the vast majority of coercive lawmaking by society, and what Pope Leo XIII as a Thomist expressed in RR and Pope John Paul II expressed in CA.
Want more?
I noticed you have yet to respond to my comments regarding papal condemnations of socialism and liberalism. How do you reconcile your democrat platform with Catholic teaching?
A) The Catholic Church favors the rich giving to the poor, while Republicans believe that income should be distributed the other way.
B) Most in the Republican Party supported HR 4437, an anti-immigrant bill that passed the House. HR 4437 was strongly condemned by the Catholic Church.
C) The Vast Majority of the Republican Party support practice of government supported cold-blooded murder (the death penalty)
D) Democrats support programs aimed at aiding the poor; Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security; Republicans don’t so they can more effectively redistribute wealth to the rich. (See A)
E) Conservatives for most part believe in government implemented discrimination of gays; a policy that isn’t very Catholic.
F) The Catholic Church supports fair wages for workers, see A.
I could go on much further, and BTW: In the Party of the Democratic Party there are no references to socialism. I don’t know what you are referring to by your comment on the church condemning liberalism, because the Catholic Church is arguably the most liberal religious institution in History (and I am not referring to the political liberal, and I doubt the church ever would).
NoVA Democrat has been educated in the tradition of the seamless garment, so you have to understand that when you argue abortion OVER social justice, you are (in the eyes of a seamless garment proponent) simply preserving lives to condemn to economic slavery -- hence the immediate references to Rerum Novarum.
In essence, a pro-life argument that addresses the issue of abortion without treating the causes is a cure worse than the disease. The progressives in the Church aren't fools!
The trick is to explain why Leo XIII's statements in Rerum Novarum match and evolve into John Paul II's Centesimus Annus and the CSDCC, which are currently the authoritative and governing documents on Catholic social justice.
Alternatively, you have to make the following arguments:
(A) The Catholic Church favors neither the rich giving to the poor, nor the oppression of the poor for the benefit of the many. Rather, the Church supports a spirit of charity which cannot be mandated by the State, specifically because it is no longer charitable.
(B) Not all Republicans supported HR 4437.
(C) See how cold-blooded murder is equated as the death penalty, not abortion? It's an Americanist error, but he hasn't read Testem Benevolentiae yet, so how does he know any better?
(D) Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are ineffective distributors of wealth (see A), and do more harm than good for the poor. But he hasn't read Centesimus Annus yet, therefore how does he know any better?
(E) Unjust homosexual discrimination has been prohibited by the Catechism, but the seamless garment approach gets corrupted by feminism in the idea that all gender roles are interchangable, therefore there's no problem with women priests, homosexuals in the clergy, etc. Again, he hasn't read enough (or he's read things in the wrong order).
(F) The Church does support fair wages, but rejects socialist means of repairing the problem. The free market is the only moral system, as it is the only system that has created wealth for the middle class. He's right in insisting on a living wage (Leo XIII and JP II insist as well), but he misreads RR by insisting on a minimum wage that ultimately reduces the purchasing power of the individual through inflation...
In short, NoVA Democrat has already stated here that he knows there's some items of his faith that do not reconcile with his religious beliefs, and he's working them through.
That's fair.
Even I was a Democrat in high school... but the more I read, I became more confident of my own conclusions and began to think outside the liberal/conservative paradigm. NoVA Dem will too -- at least he's a thinking Democrat (a rare breed indeed)!
Have you read Centesimus Annus yet? If not, when you get done with Prof. Voegelin, we should have a good conversation regarding how best to implement Catholic Social Teaching.
You continue to impress!
The point that I had made in the other thread was that what the Democrat Party stands for largely echo the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto (which has been 100% condemned by Papal Encyclicals).
Let’s compare Communism with the Democrat Party.
Communism is a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
There is very little in that definition that does not match up with the aims of the Democrat Party, which wishes to “plan and control the economy” (Keynesian economic policy is by and large Democrat policy … and Keynes was a communist, by the way), “claims to make progress to a higher social order”, and professes an “equality” stance that very much echos the notion that “all goods should be equally shared by the people”.
The first plank of Communism is the abolition of private property. It is the Democrat Party that favored the immoral plunder of private property through immanent domain. It is the Democrat party that made the possession of gold illegal. It is the Democrat Party that pushes for higher and higher property taxes (making the land we own more of a lease, for those who do not pay property taxes, whether they can afford it or not, lose their property). It is the Democrat party that advocates socialistic programs such as welfare, social security, and socialized medicine, which all take “from each according to his means” and gives “to each according to his needs”. VERY Marxist.
Marx also called for a graduated income tax. Our entire income tax system came directly from the Democrat Party. This progressive tax we all have on income is a massive attack on the middle class, benefiting the poor AND the rich! Please to note that all motions to remove or reduce the income tax system have all come from Republicans and all attempts to block such reductions or removals have all come from Democrats. Hmm … 2 points for communism (condemned by the Church) in favor of the Democrat Party.
The third plank of Marxist Communism is the abolition to the right of inheritance. All I need to ask is who is behind the burdensome inheritance and death taxes. 3 points for communism in favor of the Democrat Party.
The fourth tenet of communism states that "emigrants and rebels" will have all real property taken from them. Today, we do this to alleged drug dealers, pimps, gangsters, thieves, tax protestors, and anyone else that can be scooped into the asset forfeiture net, and this even BEFORE they are convicted! Please note that much of this started under the so-called “war on crime” … initiated by Democrats. 4 points.
The fifth plank deals with the complete monopolization of economics and money by a central bank. Now, admittedly both Republicans as well as Democrats are guilty of this. However, I would like to point out that it is Democrats who are perpetually demanding higher interest rates, the printing of more money, and greater spending (which ONLY benefits the central bank). 5 points to Democrats, 1 point to Republicans.
The 6th plank of communism is “Centralization of the means of communication and transportation into the hands of the state”. Interestingly, the Associated Press largely controls the American news (which interestingly enough greatly favors the Democrat Party). Also, every telephone is under strict guidelines imposed by the federal government (The FCC was introduced by the Democrat Party). The American regime claims a de facto right to search anyone flying, including old ladies and the handicapped. We must have insurance, title, identification, driver's license, auto registration, and vehicle inspection to drive (All Democrat led initiatives). Furthermore, your car must adhere to ecological standards (Democrats).
The seventh plank of the communist manifesto deals with government extending its ownership of industries, including manufacturing and agriculture. Thanks to the Democrat Party under Clinton’s Leadership, much of our manufacturing has been exported to Red China. Furthermore, the Democrat party is responsible for granting an incredible amount of power to the Department of Agriculture (as well as its creation), who tells farmers where, when, and what to plant. They even dictate the size a fruit or vegetable must be to be sold. They use taxpayer dollars to pay farmers not to plant. And, as the power of the State over farmers has increased, the family farms have equally dissipated.
The 8th plank deals with the formation of work brigades. The President of the United States, through the issuance of Executive Orders, has the power to form work camps, amongst a host of other things, which interestingly coincide with the Communist agenda. For instance:
· EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
· EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
· EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
· EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
· EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
· EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
· EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
· EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
· EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
· EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
All signed by a Democrat!
The 9th plank of the Communist Party doesn’t seem to apply to this discussion at the moment.
However, the 10th plank is VERY pertinent. It has to do with public education. It calls for a centralized education system which will then create perfect citizens. Please note that it is the Republicans and conservatives who wish to leave public education and not have to pay into it, while the Democrats have pushed for incredibly oppressive strictures regarding religion in school, wish to teach sex ed to 1st graders, promote an ecological agenda in schools, promote Darwinism in schools, and promote a homosexual agenda is public schools.
Given the heavily Marxist similarities of the Democrat party in this country, and given that Marxism has been completely condemned by the Catholic Church, I do not see how one can hold both and remained reconciled.
2) Is there a mainstream politician from any party who doesn’t believe in a progressive tax system? I don’t think so…
3) You want the drug dealers to keep the cocaine? I’m almost confident that is a bi-partisan issue.
4) Democrats demanding higher spending? Huh, I could have sworn that the only time in the last two decades that the budget actually shrunk was 95, and that under complete republican dominance the budget is growing about 3 times inflation.
5) You blame the Democrats for what you perceive as a liberal bias among the educated press?
6) I am a Democrat and don’t believe in the Department of Education, however crop assistance is important (should be cut back significantly.) Why don’t you ask the GOP Senators from Oklahoma, Kansas, Idaho, Missouri, and Iowa about how they feel on crop assistance…
7) You want to tell me how many unilateral executive decisions and treaties that Bush and Reagan signed?
8) See #6 and who promoted no child left behind? As regarding to Darwinism, yes I believe real science should be taught in school, but thanks for the question:-)
Have you ever seen "The shoes of the fisherman"? That is what the Catholic Church is to me.
2) Don’t dodge the issue, this was a Democrat-created imposition. Unfortunately, many republicans are not tough enough on the tax issue (because many of them have bought into a mindset of strong centralized government … which I am against), but that isn’t the point.
3) Please so not create a straw-man and then proceed to beat it. ALLEGED drug-dealers, tax evaders, pimps, protesters, etc. have their property confiscated and their assets frozen BEFORE conviction. This is unjust! This has been used as a tool by crooked politicians, lawyers, and judges as a means of confiscating property from people who have done nothing wrong, and cannot afford to defend themselves because their assets have been frozen. I’ve got plenty of material on this, if you’re interested!
4) Please note that I pointed out that both Republicans and Democrats were guilty of this, but that by and large, it is the Dems which tend to over-spend. Pork-barrel projects tend to be a favorite.
5) Nice tie-in … “liberal bias” … “Educated” press. The main-stream press has maintained the liberal agenda for decades. When was the last time the media called for tax reductions? When was the last time the media called for an end to abortion? When was the last time the media called for an end to the open promotion of homosexuality? Unless it came from Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, it was done on the 27th page in an editorial somewhere.
6) I’m not talking about you … I’m talking about the current philosophy of the Democrat Party. The Department of Education was a Democrat brain-child. It is a MARXIST brainchild. Hmmm … As for crop assistance, it is a BAD thing! A) It was tried in ancient Rome and it almost caused the complete collapse of Roman agrarianism. B) It goes all the way back to plank #5 … economic control at the top. Don’t deflect the issue by calling on GOP allies, this was all started by Democrats, and very much reflects Marx’s writings.
7) I am not a Bush supporter. Neither Bush sr. nor Bush jr. I wish to make that rather plain! Reagan, great as he was, made some decisions that were a bit dubious. However, regardless of Bush and Reagan’s executive orders (and I’d like to see which ones they printed that reflect Marxism, if you are so inclined to point them out), you cannot deny that the executive orders I cited were signed by a Democrat and they reflect almost every single plank of the communist manifesto to a T!
8) Again, Bush is no conservative, however you still cannot deny the ORIGINS of these monstrosities!
9) I will be more than willing to completely, utterly, and definitively destroy all notions of Darwinian evolution for you via e-mail, if you wish. THIS is an area I have studied for a VERY long time and am quite comfortable with calling myself an expert on the subject. Darwinian evolution is myth, mixed with a zealot’s faith. Send me an e-mail, and I’d be more than happy to discuss this one with you. :-)
mdhichborn@juno.com
re 9: No matter what you believe, science is science, and since it is the only science regarding the matter it is the only thing that should be taught. If you want to go out and make a valid scientific hypotesis and come up with evidence to try to prove it, i am sure it will be taught in schools.
Can you deny that the Democrat party is the party of the graduated income tax (origin and perpetuation), the death tax(origin and perpetuation), the redistribution of wealth (welfare, social security, socialized medicine), and the open support for extreme immorality (homosexuality and abortion)?
Rather than call me crazy, just answer the question. If you cannot deny the above, then you MUST then try to reconcile your political position with the condemnations of Popes (which I outlined before.
As for the issue of science, I am all for the teaching of REAL science. I am AGAINST the teaching of disproved hypotheses as fact. Evolution can very easily (and has been in the past) disproved. What would you think about a school system (funded by the government) that continued to teach geocentrism or spontaneous generation? Or what about medical schools that still taught "blood-letting" as an accepted medical practice?
Darwinian evolution is junk science which requires more faith to believe than one would need in order to believe in the Trinity.
Name-call all you want, but if you wish to be taken seriously in the public forum, learn to defend your position without resorting to it.
What if Rosalind Franklin had just given up on finding out the structure of DNA because it was “irreducibly complex”?
I think you have a bit of a misunderstanding as to what "Creation Science" is.
When studying biology, chemistry, physics, geology ... one must understand that these sciences are not exclusive, but various aspects of the one and same creation. For instance, magnetism has just as much an impact on astronomy as it does on biology, chemistry, and physics. I have nothing but respect for science, but a TRUE scientist will realize that the laws of the universe were created and are governed by God, and all things in creation reflect His glory and majesty.
The science of creation is real science. Creationists approach the same sample of biological, geological, etc material the same way every other scientist does ... only he won't base his conclusions on assumptions the way darwinian evolutionists will (such as the circular reasoning behind radiometric dating, or the presumption that such and such an animal "came from "such and such other animal), nor do they believe in the Big Bang (which is an impossibility anyway), nor do they believe in spontaneous generation (living matter came from some sort of electrified premordial soup). Sure, they have theories and hypotheses, just as any other scientist does ... but these aren't based on radical, athiestic assumptions, either.
My gripe with the approach taken by the public school system is that it is presented as "fact", when in fact it doesn't even qualify as a theory ... it is merely an hypothesis, and a bad one at that.
Shall I go on to explain exactly why darwinian evolution is junk science?
Irreducible complexity is the assertion that no organ, such as the eyes, ears, liver, spleen, or even organic cellular material could have gone through an evolutionary process because the organs simply would not work without all the interworking parts.
I don't see what your tie-in is with the DNA structure and "irreducible complexity"?
You realize, of course, that those sciences found their greatest advances through the Catholic Universities, right? I'm not sure where you got the impression that the science of creation is somehow a "We don't understand what God did, but isn't it great" mentality. Not a single one of these universities took the stance you are asserting.
Post a Comment
Home