The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Bodhi Zaffa, anaxios2022, Lillian, ROCOR man, comehavebreakfast
5,878 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 148 guests, and 13 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,217
Posts415,273
Members5,878
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
J
Job Offline
Cantor
Member
Offline
Cantor
Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
Quote
Fox is a fairer source of news than is the Huffington Post and most of the major media.


LOL!!!!

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
J
Job Offline
Cantor
Member
Offline
Cantor
Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
Quote
If you don't believe it watch them all on the same day there is the March for Life in January. If there is any mention of the March for Life those who stand for Life will be called either "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice". But those who stand for abortion rights will not be called "pro-abortion" but "pro-choice". Bias to the extreme against Christians.


John, I have many times watched them on the same day. I have seen extensive "Teaparty" coverage. On Fox...It's a whole weekend event, on the other news networks it's given the same coverage as they would and do, cover other marches in Washington D.C. There was recently a rally in Washington DC, I believe it was for gay rights, but I could be wrong. CNN and the other news networks covered it just like the "teapartys". It was larger than the Teaparty in Washington DC but I believe the total coverage time (for the whole day) on Fox was 93 seconds. Oh, and let's not forget, several times in the past few weeks Fox news has been called out for utilizing pictures from completely different rallys on different days (different times of the year) to "prop up" the protests on the right.

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
J
Job Offline
Cantor
Member
Offline
Cantor
Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
Originally Posted by Slavophile
Quote
It's really a shame that the Democrats want old people to die.

I'm sorry, but I find that an obscene and offensive thing to read.

StuartK asked after one of Job's posts (above) 'see what we have to put up with?'

Well, I think the same thing could be asked now. We can be pretty sure that the Democrats don't want anyone to die, and to suggest such a thing is disgusting. We could equally ask how Republicans who stand so vehemently against socialised health care (at least partly) on the grounds that the current proposals are not 'pro-life' can elect governors and presidents that are quite happy to put criminals to death at the hand of the state. Never mind *questionable wars.

Life is sacred 'From conception to natural death' is what we are supposed to hold to. Is it not?

Some consistency and more judicious language is called for here.

Consistency is not one of the American Conservatives greatest assets. You need to be gentle with them. Remember, they had all this anger last time a Democrat was in the White House. When they controlled the White House and Congress. They ground this county into the ground. Correcting the mistakes they have made is going to be a long painful process. I'm surprised it took so long for it to be said that Democrats wanted Old people to die. I'm surprised there still hasn't been discussion of the "death panels" the Democrats were creating. crazy

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680
Likes: 14
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680
Likes: 14
Originally Posted by Slavophile
Rather, I'm trying desperately to suggest that it is just possible that what is being proposed here by those forum members most vehemently hostile to socialised health care is not necessarily the only possible option for orthodox, catholic Christians. This is because the hermeneutic of David Frum is not synonymous with that of the Gospel. And that being the case, some less passionate consideration of such matters as health care (and other political initiatives) is probably warranted by all orthodox, catholic Christians.
First, thanks for the reminder you don't live here in America.

Yes, the hermeneutic of David Frum is not necessarily synonymous with that of the Gospel. But then neither is socialized health care synonymous with the Gospel. It is rather odd that those who are most supportive of socialized health care (I don't know about you) have no problems with rationing, waste, fraud, and government bureaucracies (rather than doctors) making decisions on who gets what health care (I've already mentioned the problem with the government of Oregon denying cancer treatment to one lady but offering her a suicide pill). And we know of the problems in some European countries where euthanasia is fairly common for older people in nursing homes.

I already mentioned that Phil Lawler over at CatholicCulure.org has given the beginnings of a good discussion of "The Catholic Case Against Health Care Reform" [catholicculture.org]. He rightly mentions the moral issues of not being able to stop the government from mandating funding for abortion and other evil things (and we know that no matter what passes some judge is going to rule abortion and other evils a 'right' and order the government to pay for it). But he also mentions that "the principle of subsidiarity teaches (as the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1894) puts it) that 'neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.' Since health-care coverage can surely be handled by private organizations, resort to the government is questionable at best. Since state governments can surely regulate health insurance, federal involvement is clearly unnecessary."

A good case can be made that capitalism in health care with subsides for the poor is far more Catholic than is socialism. Capitalism delivers better quality anything than does socialism. People in countries with socialized may respond to polls that they like socialized medicine but a fair, scientific analysis shows that heath care in countries with socialize medicine have a much lower quality of care and pay a higher price for it than do Americans.

Socialized medicine (really socialized anything) takes away individual responsibility and reassigns it to the state. History shows that it enslaves man rather the frees him, as well as not really proving what it intended to provide. Governments don't do anything very well, and the founding fathers of the United States purposely limited their powers, and especially limited the power of the federal government. Given that those proposing the government takeover of health care are quite open about the next step being full single payer socialized medicine I think that every Catholic should be opposing it.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680
Likes: 14
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680
Likes: 14
Originally Posted by Job
Quote
Fox is a fairer source of news than is the Huffington Post and most of the major media.


LOL!!!!
You can reject what is true. But I suppose you consider The Los Angeles Times an evil, right wing newspaper?

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680
Likes: 14
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680
Likes: 14
Originally Posted by Job
John, I have many times watched them on the same day. I have seen extensive "Teaparty" coverage. On Fox...It's a whole weekend event, on the other news networks it's given the same coverage as they would and do, cover other marches in Washington D.C. There was recently a rally in Washington DC, I believe it was for gay rights, but I could be wrong. CNN and the other news networks covered it just like the "teapartys". It was larger than the Teaparty in Washington DC but I believe the total coverage time (for the whole day) on Fox was 93 seconds. Oh, and let's not forget, several times in the past few weeks Fox news has been called out for utilizing pictures from completely different rallys on different days (different times of the year) to "prop up" the protests on the right.
Not true. Fox gives more balanced coverage all around.

Yes, Fox news has been called out for utilizing pictures from other rallies. So have other networks in the past. CNN, ABC and the rest are also not candidates for sainthood.

As I noted earlier, a liberal newspaper (the Los Angeles Time) pronounced Fox as the most balanced. You can disagree but that does not make you correct.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680
Likes: 14
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680
Likes: 14
Originally Posted by Job
Originally Posted by Slavophile
Quote
It's really a shame that the Democrats want old people to die.

I'm sorry, but I find that an obscene and offensive thing to read.

StuartK asked after one of Job's posts (above) 'see what we have to put up with?'

Well, I think the same thing could be asked now. We can be pretty sure that the Democrats don't want anyone to die, and to suggest such a thing is disgusting. We could equally ask how Republicans who stand so vehemently against socialised health care (at least partly) on the grounds that the current proposals are not 'pro-life' can elect governors and presidents that are quite happy to put criminals to death at the hand of the state. Never mind *questionable wars.

Life is sacred 'From conception to natural death' is what we are supposed to hold to. Is it not?

Some consistency and more judicious language is called for here.

Consistency is not one of the American Conservatives greatest assets. You need to be gentle with them. Remember, they had all this anger last time a Democrat was in the White House. When they controlled the White House and Congress. They ground this county into the ground. Correcting the mistakes they have made is going to be a long painful process. I'm surprised it took so long for it to be said that Democrats wanted Old people to die. I'm surprised there still hasn't been discussion of the "death panels" the Democrats were creating. crazy
That is insulting and very unfair. It is very odd that I have approached these discussions in stating that those who favor socialized medicine are well intentioned but wrong. But you have simply and repeatedly insulted and made false accusations against me and others. That says a lot about you.

As far as the "death panels" I have noted that it is hyperbole. But really not far from the truth. When you have a government bureaucracy that decides what treatment you get (will they pay for the latest cancer treatment) they are making life and death decisions. President Obama himself said that old people should not expect treatment but rather accept pain care (a fact you repeatedly ignore).

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
J
Job Offline
Cantor
Member
Offline
Cantor
Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
Quote
That is insulting and very unfair. It is very odd that I have approached these discussions in stating that those who favor socialized medicine are well intentioned but wrong. But you have simply and repeatedly insulted and made false accusations against me and others. That says a lot about you.


This quote says alot about you! Why would truth be insulting and unfair??? You once again refer to the health care reform bill as "socialized medicine". This is insulting and unfair as well. I don't see a single payor system being proposed here rather mandated PRIVATE INSURANCE coverage. I would not only say your comments are insulting and unfair...but deliberate lies being repeated over and over knowing that if you keep throwing out loaded words like "socialized" it will influence some people.

Quote
President Obama himself said that old people should not expect treatment but rather accept pain care (a fact you repeatedly ignore).


John, once again this is patently UNTRUE! And I don't know that president Obama said it or not, and I really don't care, as I have stated before...President Obama is president of the USA...not emperor or king where his word is law...Please!

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680
Likes: 14
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680
Likes: 14
Originally Posted by Job
Quote
That is insulting and very unfair. It is very odd that I have approached these discussions in stating that those who favor socialized medicine are well intentioned but wrong. But you have simply and repeatedly insulted and made false accusations against me and others. That says a lot about you.

This quote says alot about you! Why would truth be insulting and unfair??? You once again refer to the health care reform bill as "socialized medicine". This is insulting and unfair as well. I don't see a single payor system being proposed here rather mandated PRIVATE INSURANCE coverage. I would not only say your comments are insulting and unfair...but deliberate lies being repeated over and over knowing that if you keep throwing out loaded words like "socialized" it will influence some people.
Senator Harken said today that this is a first step towards single payer. President Obama has said during the campaign that they could not get single payer in one step, but that there would be a compromise and it would take additional legislation to get to single payer.

What you have said about me is not the truth. It has been patently false.

As to socialism, the definition is pretty clear: "From each according to his means to each according to his needs." That is the groundwork being laid with this bill. We get a huge step into socialism now and more later in future legislation.

Originally Posted by Job
Quote
President Obama himself said that old people should not expect treatment but rather accept pain care (a fact you repeatedly ignore).

John, once again this is patently UNTRUE! And I don't know that president Obama said it or not, and I really don't care, as I have stated before...President Obama is president of the USA...not emperor or king where his word is law...Please!
First, you can probably still find his infomercial on YouTube. It ran on ABC last summer and was hosted by Diane Sawyer and Charlie Gibson. Watch for the section where the lady asked the question about her 100 year old mother getting a pacemaker. He said that under his plan she would not get it, and then he spoke about giving the elderly pain medication. The context was that the rules for who gets health care treatment and who would be denied health care treatment would be subjective.

There is a moral difference between denying quality health care to an otherwise healthy older person and recommending the possibility of palliative care in the case (for example) of someone needing a knee replacement but who is already dying of an incurable form of cancer.

Second, yes, President Obama is not a dictator. But he has stated his intention to bring a fully socialist system for health care to the United States. The current legislation is not the end but only the start. Surely you've read that in even the mainstream papers and on tv? One rightly opposes not just the first step toward socialism in the current legislation but also the foundation being laid for additional socialism in the future.

Third, yes, I can see where you do not care or, possibly, support it.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
It should be mentioned that the Senate bill includes a clause that will make it impossible for future Congresses to amend or repeal the bill--all will be bound by the bill as now written. Needless to say, the constitutionality of such a clause is dubous--as is the so-called individual mandate that will require all citizens to buy a health insurance policy or face fines equal to 2.5% of AGI.

Even assuming a bill gets through conference, is passed and signed into law, the legal challenges will be unending and injunctions will prevent its implementation for years.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680
Likes: 14
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680
Likes: 14
On the Death Penalty

This may be broken off into another thread if it becomes a topic of discussion. I post it here to extend my comments in a previous post.

Firstly, read Lumen Gentium (from Vatican II), which speaks about to understand the principles of authority in the Catholic Church. There are ranges of issues on which there is room for legitimate disagreement on how and what the Church teaches, and even more room for legitimate disagreement on how to apply that teaching. Most teachings on social and economic issues involve the stating of general principles, with the application of those teachings being left to individual Catholics (sometimes in consultation with their bishops). How we minister to the poor, protect innocent life, fight terrorism and even look at the death penalty falls into this category.

The Church looks at the death penalty differently than it does abortion or euthanasia. The death penalty can justly be applied to those individuals who have engaged in activities of a nature that cause them to forfeit their lives. Abortion and euthanasia of innocent lives is different because those people are put to death while innocent, having been convicted of no crime. The death penalty can be used justly and morally. Abortion and euthanasia are never just and always immoral.

In the Catholic Catechism we find:
Quote
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."
There is legitimate disagreement about what “the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against an unjust aggressor” means.

In Evangelium Vitae we find:
Quote
End of 55: Moreover, "legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State". Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.

From 56: It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
The Church clearly recognizes that there can be times where it necessary for the common good for the death penalty to be applied. Few wish to see it applied even in those cases where is just. But the last part of 56 is still wishful thinking. Given that we in America have a history of putting people convicted of murder back on the streets (a typical first time murderer is out in just over 7 years) it can be legitimately argued the death penalty is still necessary to defend society. If, however, those convicted of capital crimes were sentenced to life without parole and actually kept incarcerated for life (i.e., guaranteed never again to be a threat to innocent human life) then one could say that there were “steady improvements of the penal system” to render such cases very rare, if practically non-existent. But we are far from being there, and it is just to argue that until we are the death penalty remains necessary to protect the innocent.

I will also note that EV continues to allow the death penalty. It clearly notes that there are occasions (if rare and almost non-existent in a more advanced world) when the death penalty is just.

If Wikipedia is correct (and it is not always overly accurate) under 16,000 people have been executed in what is now the United States since 1600, and under 5,000 of those since 1930 (a Google search to a news article reports 37 executed in the USA in 2007). Contrast that with over 40,000,000 murders through abortion since 1973 noting that the Church sees a difference between human live taken through due process and innocent human life taken without due process. One is legitimate in certain cases. The other is always murder.

We see the legitimate use of the death penalty becoming used less often. And we see one party demanding that taxpayers pay for the murder of the innocent through abortion.

Today HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius stated:
Quote
"The Senate language, which was negotiated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, who are very strong defenders of women's health services and choices for women, take a big step forward from where the House left it with the Stupak amendment. Everybody in the exchange would do the same thing, whether you're male or female, whether you're 75 or 25, you would all set aside a portion of your premium that would go into a fund, and it will not be earmarked for anything, it would be a separate account that everyone in the exchange would pay. It's really an accounting measure that would apply across the board and not just to women and certainly not just to women who want to choose abortion coverage."
That is the end round to guarantee taxpayer financed abortion. It effectively nullifies any provisions that taxpayer money not be used for abortion. So if you support the current legislation you support abortion.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 644
Cantor
Member
Offline
Cantor
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 644
Originally Posted by Administrator
Originally Posted by Job
Quote
Fox is a fairer source of news than is the Huffington Post and most of the major media.


LOL!!!!
You can reject what is true. But I suppose you consider The Los Angeles Times an evil, right wing newspaper?

"Evil" is maybe the only definition that fits, and maybe "newspaper", I can personally vouch for their non right wing slant. I used to subscribe to the LA Times because they had a great subscription deal. After several liberal/conservative issues were consistently reported on only the liberal side, I elected to cancel that subscription. The LA Times' competitor, The Daily News, used to be more conservative but has sadly declined to mindless liberalism lately...

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
Clueless is perhaps better than evil, though LAT certainly fits the "banality" that Hannah Arendt associated evil. Basking in their own rectitude, they lack any capacity for introspection and reflexively parrot tropes that are echoed by "all reasonable people". And, since they are the repository of righteousness, all those who disagree with them must, by definition, be evil--and not merely mistaken. Hence the manichean worldview and the rapid descent into demonization of the opposition that characterize its writing.

Fortunately, few people actually read the LA Times--same goes for most of the old-line bastions of liberal reporting: the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and of course, the Gray Lady herself, the New York Times. Too obvious a lack of objectivity and too many stories skipped over or spiked in the name of political correctness did them in.

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,217
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,217

Actually the Boston Globe has run a number of articles throughout the year that have been critical of the bill. On the lighter side, Rock The Vote is calling on those who support the bill to refuse to fornicate with those who oppose it.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
The "Rock the Vote" group's petition is absurd and obscene.

Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5