This year's platform removed references to God at first. Perhaps it was because the present-day Democrat platform worships at the altar of abortion, same-sex marriage and socialist wealth-redistribution ideology, so, to them, there isn't much room left on the altar for God. However, due to backlash, they have now added God back into their platform. How sad that they had to be convinced to do so, rather than want God a part of their platform to begin with (and if you listen to the audio of the vote on the matter, the "No's" against having God - and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel - in the platform were very loud, but the amendment passed anyway). Does anyone really believe anything these people do or say? It's all about their radical, God-less agenda, until they get challenged. Then it's all about appearances.
The platform does refer to the fact that our nation was founded on the principle of religious freedom and the ability of people to worship as they please. That sounds nice, except for the fact that Democrats hold up their hands and say, "stop!" as soon as an American citizen tries to live his faith outside the walls of a church.
This was made crystal clear when ObamaCare dictated that anyone opposed to abortion on moral and religious grounds would be forced to pay for it anyway. Our rights to live our faith were further stifled when HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius pronounced that Catholic employers would be forced to provide insurance that covers birth control, including sterilization and abortifacients. "Worship as they please" are meaningless words when Catholics and people of other faiths are forced to partake in actions that violate sacred tenets of their religious beliefs.
In her speech at yesterday's convention, Sebelius went out of her way to praise ObamaCare. Why did she have to do that when it's already the law? Simple. Because she realizes that as more Americans learn just how horrible and damaging this gross legislation is, that voters will be more likely to vote for the candidate promising to repeal it - Mitt Romney.
Democrats act as though ObamaCare will magically erase all the "inequality" supposedly rampant in our healthcare system, especially regarding women, who Democrats will have you believe are victims of some built-in hatred of a male-dominated world. Here's an interesting look at what ObamaCare could really do to women, as outlined by one of those "hateful men", Congressman Mike Rogers: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc.
What stands out so much when Democrats speak, especially women, is their almost desperate clinging to abortion. They say they don't want to be sex objects, but when all they talk about is sexual activity, the need for contraception and the outcome of sex - pregnancy - they paint their own picture. What a shame they fail to realize that women are more than just biology and have so much more to offer as human beings. Instead they're allowing themselves to be used as political tools based on nothing more than their sexuality. And it's stunning how they say they want the government to keep its hands off their bodies, and yet they want government to force the rest of us to take part in their bodies by paying for the contraception and abortions they choose to undergo.
The new platform also celebrates same-sex marriage. Obama acted unlawfully when he declared he would no longer uphold the Defense of Marriage Act. Since Obama swore to uphold the Constitution and all our laws when he was inaugurated, his refusal to uphold any law because of his personal views makes him unlawful. And considering how in every state that put same-sex marriage before the voters chose to uphold traditional marriage, he is setting himself apart from huge portions of the population, especially the black population who, while they tend to vote Democrat, are very socially conservative and strongly opposed to same-sex marriage. But Obama puts his radical views first.
On another topic, in 2008, the Democrats also referred to those "willing to work hard". Now, with Obama's recent unlawful roll-back of welfare reform, he made it clear that you don't even have to try to find a job and can still receive welfare off working taxpayers' backs. The new platform also drills in the idea that people who do work should pay more in taxes, apparently to support those who no longer feel like working. They want us to call that "patriotism" instead of what it really is: socialism.
It'd be nice if any of these people took a basic course in Economics 101. They'd realize you can't make someone wealthy by making the rest of the nation poor. Eventually the money runs out, and as the well runs dry, so does the human drive to be productive. At that point, the government would basically have to force people to work in order to keep the revenues coming in. That is slavery.
So while you'll hear a lot at the Convention about sexual activity, the "war on women", the desire to take more money from taxpayers, and the misrepresentation of Romney and Paul Ryan, you won't hear much about God, except in a begrudgingly obligated way, and you probably won't hear much about just how bad this economy is - except in abstract ways to justify wealth redistribution. That's because the wretched economy and unemployment situation are the very things the Democrats can't explain. Therefore, be prepared for continued tactics of distraction. It's all the Democrats have.
What do you think? Click on the comments
link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.
I saw some economic report that showed you could take every single penny from everyone making $250,000 and above - including every millionaire/billionaire - in America, and it would only be enough to support the government for 87 days. How is raising taxes even higher on people going to help anyone except the elitist politicians who'll just spend it on themselves. People need to get real. Seriously.
ReplyDeleteBut shouldn't authentic economic well-being be pursued also by means of suitable social policies for the redistribution of income which, taking general conditions into account, look at merit as well as at the need of each citizen?
ReplyDeleteYou mean from each according to his means to each according to his needs? Um, that's communism, straight out of Karl Marx's manifesto, and it has failed DRASTICALLY every time it's been tried anywhere in the world. You're remarkably uninformed if you don't know that - or you're just playing Devil's Advocate to get a reaction. But my gosh, you can't possibly believe bringing America to its knees will help anyone anywhere in the world. That is profoundly naive.
DeleteUm, it's straight from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church.
DeleteYou're right - communism is a terrible idea - but that doesn't mean we should do the exact opposite. A middle ground, perhaps raising taxes and cutting/reforming programs, would be preferred.
The Compendium notes that communism is a bad idea. People shouldn't be completely dependent on the state. But the poor should be helped. Should there be a complete redistribution of wealth? Probably not. Should money come from the rich to ensure that the poor don't starve? I'd say yes, as did the nun that spoke at the DNC last night.
The Catholic Church says we as individuals need to help those less fortunate, and most Catholics do exactly that. For instance, Catholic Charities represent the single largest provider of help and services to the poor - Catholic and non-Catholic - and they do not force anyone to donate to them. The government confiscating our earnings against our will in the name of helping people. is a completely different thing. Nice try, though.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, when you advocate government control the way you're saying, it does come down eventually to government having to control ALL distribution. Keep in mind that money is power. If the government produces or controls all the means for getting money or buying things, then it has all the power. It doesn’t matter what the law says, because that’s just a means of managing power in a society and it only works when there is incentive by those with power to do so–That is, checks and balances.
In a society where the government has all the power, it has no incentive to check its own power, so the only means of the citizens getting change in their favor is for either their rulers to be benevolent, or outright revolution.
Laws and constitutions only work so long as the citizenry has both the means and the will to ensure that power is distributed and those with great power are kept in check, just as the Constitution was intended to do. But supporters of socialism, communism or the like, reject our Constitution. You put yourselves in the position of hoping we have kind rulers, not evil ones, because you're removing any power you have as a citizen to change things. Besides, don't you help people in your community on your own, or do you think only the government should do that for us. I give whatever I can moneywise - could give more if so much in my taxes weren't taken - and so I make up for that by giving of my time of my own volition. If the government forced me to do that it would take the spirit out of it. But maybe you have no faith in people to give of themselves on their own. That's a sad thing if you believe that.
No. Seriously. It's in the Compendium. Check here (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html), then search for "authentic economic well-being" and you'll find it.
DeleteAmong the other parts of the Compendium:
"Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute and untouchable"
" Various circumstances may make it advisable that the State step in to supply certain functions[401]. One may think, for example, of situations in which it is necessary for the State itself to stimulate the economy because it is impossible for civil society to support initiatives on its own. One may also envision the reality of serious social imbalance or injustice where only the intervention of the public authority can create conditions of greater equality, justice and peace."
"Institutions in host countries must keep careful watch to prevent the spread of the temptation to exploit foreign labourers, denying them the same rights enjoyed by nationals, rights that are to be guaranteed to all without discrimination."
"The Magisterium recognizes the fundamental role played by labour unions, whose existence is connected with the right to form associations or unions to defend the vital interests of workers employed in the various professions... Properly speaking, unions are promoters of the struggle for social justice."
These quotes aren't from a leftist blog. These quotes aren't from the media. This is from the Vatican's website, in a document from Pope John Paul II.
You're right - we shouldn't be completely dependent on the state. But there's a reason why the US Conference of Catholic Bishops sent a letter against the GOP plan to cut SNAP and Medicaid, why a Sister Simone Campbell spoke at the DNC, and why the Leadership Conference of the Women Religious have spoken out against the Romney-Ryan plan - because the Catholic Church has explicitly said that the government should provide for the poor.
It's good that the Catholic Church (and most religious organizations, at that) donate time and money to the poor. I do both frequently, and I'm glad that you do too. And I do agree that some of the spirit is taken away if the government does it. The fact of the matter is that the government can ensure that the poor are taken care of, and that's why those quotes are in an official Church document.
Seriously though, read it. It's a good read (long, but good). God bless.
I marvel at the church's position on the government taking money from the rich to take care of the poor especially since it is reluctant to voice it's opinion on who should be elected for fear it would lose it's tax free status. If you are correct,then what they are saying is we don't want our funds touched but you can take it from the people who have worked hard for it. I can't believ the Catholic churc could be so callous.
Delete