www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Senator Obama

And why should it matter when it was written? I have quoted heavily in the past from the Compenium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, which was written very recently. It draws largely from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, various papal encyclicals, decrees of Church councils, and Holy Scripture, all of which ought to be taken seriously by Catholics, regardless of when they were written, IMO.

Ryan

Thomas Jefferson was in now way any kind of orthodox Christian-

I never sid he was. I said he was a Heretic. I also brande dhim a TRaitor tot he Crown. I'd think thoe things woudl be noticed.

he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus,

This is true. Well, sort of. He had doubts regardign it.


did not believe Christ performed miracles.

This is aculaly not true. Both in his "Articles on Religion" and in his letters he expressed a beelif in Jeuss's healing. Even in his "Jefferson Bible" he left osme of he healings in.

But more on this in a moent.




His famous Jefferson Bible was a rationalistic version of Christ's message, stripped of all supernatural allusions and reducing Christ to being a mere human teacher.


Not enturley accurate.

For oen thing, thre is no "Jefferson Bible". Thomas Jefferson's text is a summery of the eachings and basic life of Jeuss of Nazareth, as such it covers only the Gospels.

That said, he also retaiend some of the Healings done by Jesus in the text, dispite the supposed Anti-Miracle claim.

The text was actually designed as a teachign aid to missionaise the Indians. (The sme oens he'd steal land form when president.)

The actual name of the text is "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth
Extracted Textually from the Gospels"

The ourpose wasn't relaly to remove the Miraculosu form the life of Jeus and to render him a mere man, but to codify his teaching and thus provide the core elements of the teachings to rpesent tot he Native populace.

He also read form it before retiring, unless he rea form the BIble or other spiritual text.



Most of the founding fathers were deist not orthodox Christians.

This is just an old myth thats not relaly true. Most of the US Foundign Fathers considered themselves Christin, an ddid not ascribe to Deism.



I have heard people argue this back and forth, and those who claim that they were more deist seem to have the perponderance of evidence on their side.

Actulaly they have longer quotes, oftne taken out of context. They also have the illusion of Diesm base don both the antiquated langage use dint he texts they quote, and the fact that oens midn is ready to accept the quote as a Deistic one, even if stand alone it snot.

If you'd really wantot see what they wrote and hwo they thought, read their own words in context apart form either side of the debate.



The idea that our founding fathers were evangelical type Christians is merely the wishful thinking of some on the religious right.

THere wa sno such thing as modern Evangelical Christianity. They woudl have ascribed to the common Protestant belifs of the late 18th century, instead, which is quiet fdifferent form Modern Evangelical theology.




They invoked Christianity, and perhaps some were Christians, but deism was not only the prevailing ideology of the time, but of most of the founding fathers.

This isnt teue. I once beleived htis as well, but then read the actual papers writtne by them. Its quiet illuminating.

That's the reason why it's important to have a broader view of Catholic social teaching, and to be as familiar as possible with it in its entirety. Imagine this scenario: My good friend Gordo (Ebed Melech) and I are both teaching a high school class on Catholic social teaching, and we both decide to use the actual documents of the Church, instead of a textbook. Using Church documents, I could make one group of high school kids walk away thinking that God is a liberal Democrat, while Gordo, using different portions of the very same documents, could make another group of kids walk away thinking that God is a conservative Republican, if he and I were so inclined to cherry-pick the texts in order to promote our own personal agendas, as opposed to teaching the truth in its fullness.

Ryan

Nathan,

You are not being preachy. Thanks for your response. I will respond with some general observations rather than a point by point, but will address all of your points.

It is anachronistic to ascribe to the Church fathers any modern social program either libertarianism or socialism, or anything in between. However, the Early Christians took care not only of themselves, but as Julian the Apostate attested to, Jews and Pagans as well. They functioned as the welfare system in the Roman Empire.

I speak of a value system, one which embraces the common good. There is not any Catholic, Patristic or scriptural teaching that precludes government involvement, nor does it insist upon it.

We have 45 million people with no health insurance, and we are the only industrial country that does not offer universal coverage for all of its citizens- and the kicker is, we pay more per capita than they do. Even claims about longer waits are not true in most cases. We are no longer enjoying a better standard of living than other countries; in fact the opposite is true. If we had more people in the pool, costs would go down, not up. Our system allows for healthy younger people to opt out of it, and leaves the government holding the bag for older people and people with sickness. There is no sharing of burdens, that would actually aleviate costs, and provide care for all.

Taxes are the ticket to a civilized society. Government cannot and should not do everything, and we will not create wealth to support the common good without robust market enterprise. But if we ran our society in a truly libertarian way, a lot true needs would go unmet. Our infrastructure would fall apart. We need the solidarity of a sharing of burdens in our tax system, insurance programs etc.

If we organized society the way Ron Paul would want to, we would become a banana republic, with pollution, dire poverty, and sickness. We need a sharing of burdens, checks & balances, and regulations. over regulation can hurt, but having no regulations for the market, production, and business can be terrible and can result in pollution, monopolies, tainted food and drink, unsafe products, concentration of wealth in the hands of few, etc.

Getting rid of regulations and checks and balances between government and the private sector will not guarantee or allow you to be more successful; I will argue the opposite- it will minimize your chance of being successful, because a laissez faire system will favor the rich, unbridled capitalism and monopolies.By the same token, having a sharing of burdens, checks and balances and regulations will not necessarily help you either, but it does not prohibit you from striving for personal success. People still get wildly rich in countries with large socialized segments. People still can be successful entrepreneurs.

I am not suggesting my friends who are libertarian are personally selfish. I know of one of my friends who would no doubt give me a dollar if he had two left and I had none, and he is a hard core libertarian. But I think it is philosophically inconsistent to believe we can be selfish in one realm and magnanimous in another.

I also frankly resent that some of my fellow Christians want us to model a Christian society public ally, even through legislation, when it comes to sexual and family matters, but not in economic ones. I think it is very inconsistent, and non-Christians cearly see this. You mentioned Americans being more generous; I would rather have us provide a stronger social safety net, that provides more guarantees for people, than a patchwork of charity that leaves many falling through the cracks.

The Gospel and the scriptures are replete with calls for social justice. C.S. Lewis once said that a truly Christian society would be traditionalist when it came to faith & family, and what we would call "leftist" (Lewis' word) when it came to socio-economics. I believe this.

The kings of Israel were judged for in part for the way they treated the poor. I just finished reading the book of Jeremiah and God's judgment came upon the Israelites in large measure because they left God's calls in both torah and the prophet Jeremiah unheeded to do justice for the poor. Because of their disobedience, they were taken away to Babylon.

One might argue Israel was a theocracy, but the prophecies were against the King, Nobles and princes of Israel, i.e., their government. In Sacred Scripture, justice for the poor is a political action involving courts and Kings, and public prophetic witness (Cf. Isaiah 1.17; Proverbs 31.8-9; Psalm 82.2-4). We can't get off the hook with charity only, but must engage in social justice. How can I love God who I cannot see, if I do not love my brother who I can see? Jesus said the second greatest commandment after to love the Lord with all my heart is to love my neighbor as myself. This is not liberalism; this is rock solid, biblical orthodoxy. I am a traditionalist Catholic when it comes to theology and orthodoxy.

Blessing,

Lance