Ask a Catholic

[rightwinger]

An imaginary problem that does not exist?

From the Democratic Party Platform:

Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.​

Just who do you think THEY THINK will pay?

Today it is private contributors

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

An imaginary problem that does not exist?

From the Democratic Party Platform:

Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.​

Just who do you think THEY THINK will pay?

Who has been paying so far? Not the taxpayers. Planned Parenthood budgets for that indigent care like a hospital does.

And the push for abortion up to 9 months has no political traction anywhere.

And when you crawl out from under the medieval rock that is USMB and actually check reality, the pendulum is far to the other side right now.

So yes, imaginary problems that do not exist. Emotional pap to cover for taking away abortion rights entirely.

 

[ding]

Today it is private contributors

I don't dispute that. What about in the future? Because this sounds like a political pledge to me.

 

[ding]

Who has been paying so far? Not the taxpayers. Planned Parenthood budgets for that indigent care like a hospital does.

And the push for abortion up to 9 months has no political traction anywhere.

And when you crawl out from under the medieval rock that is USMB and actually check reality, the pendulum is far to the other side right now.

So yes, imaginary problems that do not exist. Emotional pap to cover for taking away abortion rights entirely.

I may have to retract my last statement about not denying it is paid by private contributions because of your PP statement. They get a bucket of money. To argue that that bucket of money does not allow them to perform abortions is accounting tomfoolery. Absent that bucket of money they would most likely do less abortions as the funding of other items by that bucket of money frees up money for abortions that might be allocated differently had said bucket not been provided by tax payers.

Not living under a rock, maybe you are to accuse others of that, I can't say for sure. Truth has never been a popularity contest. Maybe that's how you determine what is true but I have standards that are higher than that.

I don't see these as imaginary problems and there is no right to take a human life no matter how you try to dehumanize it. Science is very clear on this. A genetically distinct person who has never existed before and will never exist again is created at conception.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

To argue that that bucket of money does not allow them to perform abortions is accounting tomfoolery.

Yet it is so. Stomping your feet and insisting otherwise doesn't mean a thing. Its just you believing what you want to believe, because your arguments cant stand on their own merits and on facts. So you invent an alternate reality. As religious people are apt to do...

 

[ding]

Yet it is so. Stomping your feet and insisting otherwise doesn't mean a thing. Its just you believing what you want to believe, because your arguments cant stand on their own merits and on facts. So you invent an alternate reality. As religious people are apt to do...

Not stomping my feet. I am stating an economic reality. Maybe you are stomping your feet because you don't like this economic reality. But the reality is that if that funding is removed they will most likely do less abortions as they will redirect some of that money for abortions to other things. I know you hate it when people make logical arguments and that's why you resort to name calling and insults but there it is. That's the economic reality.

 

[Meriweather]

That is why he must defer to the laws of the land.
His faith also does not allow him to recognize remarriage after divorce or accept gay marriages

But a Catholic Politician must put his faith aside and do his job.

I disagree. In matters of faith it is true, but not in matters of right and wrong. For example, politicians and businessmen decided slavery was right. They are doing the same with abortion. Right and wrong is not the place for majority rules. For example even now there is a push for adults to have sex with children. Bids to change the age range, for example.

In matters of right and wrong, Catholics should stand up for what is right. An example: If the majority decided slavery should again be allowed, are you of the mind that all Catholic politicians should go along with this?

 

[rightwinger]

For example even now there is a push for adults to have sex with children. Bids to change the age range, for example.

No here isn’t.
If anything states are raising the age at which you can marry

 

[rightwinger]

. In matters of faith it is true, but not in matters of right and wrong.

Do you believe Sharia Law should be enforced or should local officials defer to US law?

 

[Meriweather]

Do you believe Sharia Law should be enforced or should local officials defer to US law?

I know nothing of Sharia Law. The better question is whether the US government should enforce the Ten Commandments. I take it you believe the government should not. Why?

 

[rightwinger]

I know nothing of Sharia Law. The better question is whether the US government should enforce the Ten Commandments. I take it you believe the government should not. Why?

The Ten Commandments suck as law. I could write better commandments.

 

[Meriweather]

The Ten Commandments suck as law. I could write better commandments.

Perhaps not if one reads Jewish commentary on each law. However, my point is that the government should not enact the Ten Commandments on the basis that The Ten Commandments are for personal rule and governance. The government is formed to protect the nation from other nations and to provide the nation with transportation and communication systems. My (libertarian) view is that the government oversteps in almost everything and is worse for it.

Now, will secular Law and Commandments converge in places? Absolutely. But let's take a look at the Commandments:

No false gods. (Has nothing to do with nation)
Don't take the Lord's name in vain (Has nothing to do with nation)
Keep holy the Lord's Day (Again, personal not national)
Honor Mom and Dad (Personal, not national)
No killing (Converging, because the government cannot allow anyone to kill its citizens)
No adultery (Personal)
No stealing (Converging, again protecting citizens)
No lying (Somewhat converging, because citizens should also be required to be truthful in government matters)
The coveting commandments are personal, not national.

Is Sharia Law national law or personal law?

 

[ding]

Perhaps not if one reads Jewish commentary on each law. However, my point is that the government should not enact the Ten Commandments on the basis that The Ten Commandments are for personal rule and governance. The government is formed to protect the nation from other nations and to provide the nation with transportation and communication systems. My (libertarian) view is that the government oversteps in almost everything and is worse for it.

Now, will secular Law and Commandments converge in places? Absolutely. But let's take a look at the Commandments:

No false gods. (Has nothing to do with nation)
Don't take the Lord's name in vain (Has nothing to do with nation)
Keep holy the Lord's Day (Again, personal not national)
Honor Mom and Dad (Personal, not national)
No killing (Converging, because the government cannot allow anyone to kill its citizens)
No adultery (Personal)
No stealing (Converging, again protecting citizens)
No lying (Somewhat converging, because citizens should also be required to be truthful in government matters)
The coveting commandments are personal, not national.

Is Sharia Law national law or personal law?

Actually it is not bearing false witness. Not all lies are equal. Some are worse than others. Bearing false witness is harmful to the one it id being directed at. Pretty sure that should be what you would call converging.

 

[rightwinger]

The better question is whether the US government should enforce the Ten Commandments.

Catholics did not like the Jewish Ten Commandments so they created their own.
They didn’t like the one about graven images

 

[ding]

For what it is worth... to the man the Founding Fathers believed in natural law and that no law should be written that was counter to natural law.

https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3506&context=wlulr

 

[Meriweather]

Catholics did not like the Jewish Ten Commandments so they created their own.
They didn’t like the one about graven images

Raised Catholic. Nuns taught us that lucky rabbit's foot, lucky penny, or any other lucky charm were what were in line with graven images. In Biblical times, graven images were thought to carry the quality and attributes of the reality (i.e. golden calf, rams, etc.). (We were not allowed to bring any of these into the classroom.)

Take a look at the description of the Ark of the Covenant. Oh, dear! Graven images on the vessel holding God's covenant!

Catholics (like Jews in ancient times) do not worship carvings or any art. Statuary and carvings are not believed to hold any power, but direct attention to God. A lucky rabbit's foot, a golden calf, a totem of a ram do not direct attention to God, rather away from Him.

 

[rightwinger]

Raised Catholic. Nuns taught us that lucky rabbit's foot, lucky penny, or any other lucky charm were what were in line with graven images. In Biblical times, graven images were thought to carry the quality and attributes of the reality (i.e. golden calf, rams, etc.). (We were not allowed to bring any of these into the classroom.)

Take a look at the description of the Ark of the Covenant. Oh, dear! Graven images on the vessel holding God's covenant!

Catholics (like Jews in ancient times) do not worship carvings or any art. Statuary and carvings are not believed to hold any power, but direct attention to God. A lucky rabbit's foot, a golden calf, a totem of a ram do not direct attention to God, rather away from Him.

Catholics pray to statues
Graven images

Why did Catholics revise the Ten Commandments remove graven images?

A Traditional Catechetical Formula

1. I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me.
2. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
3. Remember to keep holy the LORD'S Day.
4. Honor your father and your mother.
5. You shall not kill.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods.

Notice how the commandment about graven images was dropped and covet was given two commandments

 

[Meriweather]

Catholics pray to statues
Graven images

Why did Catholics revise the Ten Commandments remove graven images?

No, Catholics do not pray to statues.
Take a look at the First Commandment--no false gods. Pretty clear, is it not?

People in those days would consider photos graven images, that it captures the essence of reality. Are you against photography?

 

[rightwinger]

No, Catholics do not pray to statues.
Take a look at the First Commandment--no false gods. Pretty clear, is it not?

People in those days would consider photos graven images, that it captures the essence of reality. Are you against photography?

The Jewish 2nd Commandment

You shall have no other gods beside Me. You shall not make for yourself any graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them, for I, the Lord Your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

Missing in the Catholic Version
Catholics do know Moses was a Jew right?

 

[Meriweather]

You shall not make for yourself any graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them, for I, the Lord Your God, am a jealous God...

Okay, let's go to the Hebrew in which "graven image" means an object that is worshiped as a god or in the place of a god.

You quote Chapter 20, but read five chapters ahead where God commands, that two cherubim be carved out of gold. God's direct command: "The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover." Exodus 25:20

Chapter 20, "Carve no idols for personal use (worship)." Chapter 25 has God commanding Cherubim be constructed out of gold and placed on the Ark. We have the clear distinction from God himself of idols being carved and used for personal worship and those that are clearly symbolic works of art.

One Jewish artist has this concern--that a person should buy his art for its monetary worth instead of it valuing it inspiration. Buying art as an investment, he seemed to be saying, is closer to idolatry described in Chapter 20 than the reasons for having a graven image in Chapter 25 (inspirational symbolism).

Non-Catholic Christians who wish to accuse Catholics of worshiping statues (which is grossly untrue) might wish to give some consideration to the Commandment against bearing false witness.