Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The US Constitution was never intended to be an absolute document.
I always love this piece of wishful thinking, thrust out time and again by liberals after they have lost the argument and can cite no more reasons why their arguments have any merit. Announcing that the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says, always seems to be their last resort.
Quote:
Read the preamble. What does it say?
It lays out the reasons why the Constitution is being written and ratified into law. And that's all it does. It contains no commands, no declarative sentences, no language that obligates Americans to do anything at all. In other words, the Preamble makes no law whatsoever.
Anything else I can help you with, on the Constitution and its parts?
And two examples you could present, were about state governments not doing it right (in your opinion). So I ask again, like what? As a citizen of the USA and resident of Texas, I personally don't see inherently bad federal government and guaranteed good local/state government. I simply take government as an institution that ought to be kept on its toes, and accountable. Assuming that state government is automatically good would be foolishness.
I gave you an example: the federal SNAP program. That's an example of the federal government doing something more effectively accomplished at a level that is closer to those in need. Because the feds take care of my neighbor's food needs, I don't have to worry about it - even if I should for my own good as well as theirs. The federal government not only does a disservice to the poor, by distancing them from those who give, but it displaces local charity and deprives neighbors of the imperative of helping each other.
I don't assume that state government is automatically good. Sometimes it does too much, sometimes too little. But you make it sound like there's no distinction to be made between the various levels of government, that it doesn't matter what they do. I beg to differ. The key to understanding why it matters is the principle of subsidiarity.
"In basic terms, then, the principle of subsidiarity holds that the state should undertake only those tasks which are beyond the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently. While providing aid to the needy when it is available by no other means, governmental agencies and those in positions of civil authority should not intervene unnecessarily, always respecting the basic rights of the members of society. Furthermore, those in higher authority should recognize the rights of those in subordinate organizations or positions. In other words, before a higher level entity becomes involved, the lowest societal unit that can perform a function efficiently and adequately with benefit to the welfare of the whole should have that responsibility. As taught in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, the principle of subsidiarity holds that all societies of a superior order should adopt an attitude of help (subsidium) with respect to lower-order societies, and never destroy or absorb them."
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
I also donated to a local shelter yesterday. What belief system do you think it involved?
I don't know, you tell me. You obviously believe in the moral goodness of giving to the poor. Where does that come from? Did you come up with the idea on your own, or did you receive it as part of some larger moral tradition? Is it connected to anything else you believe, such as the love of neighbor in general, or does it just stand there all by itself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
That is what is wrong with charitable institutions ... I don't call them Christian. I call them Abusive. I call them Marketeers. Their priority is not the children but religious preaching and expansion. I detest the idea. Don't expect me to support their whims, much less unconditionally. All the more reason why government should not be in the business of trusting religious organizations to care about people.
The Church and all Christian organizations are full of sinners who don't live up to their faith. I don't live up to mine either. We all reek of hypocrisy. But that doesn't prove anything besides the fact that the moral precepts of Christianity are difficult.
"Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets." - Matthew 22:36-40
Note the hierarchy: God first, neighbor second. The corporal works of mercy are intended to glorify God first, even before the secondary good of feeding the poor or what have you. Simply providing for material needs without addressing spiritual needs or inspiring others to love God is not what Christian charity is all about. I get that you disagree, but there's nothing abusive about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
