Are you a religious?

[frenger]

since i am unable to get the actual text from the Vatican's website, here is a respected academic's commentary of the Roman Catholic Church's Social Doctrine -for those like myself who are not inclined to take Bono's word for anything:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/social.html

3) the right to sufficient and necessary means to live in a becoming manner (food, clothing, housing, rest, health care, social services);

Socialism.

4) the right to security in case of sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, unemployment, and any involuntary loss of the means of subsistence;

Socialism.

the right to education and, in relation to it, freedom to teach;

The rights given above are fundamental and inalienable in a general way, but they are not absolute. They must be seen in the context of the common good. They can cease to apply in specific cases when the common good is at stake (for example: freedom of expression ceases to be a right if it is used to express in public something contrary to the welfare of others--calumny, inciting to crime, justification of crime, etc.

IF rights are not fundamental, they are not rights.

I'll go on when I get back from school.

[Gabu]

since i am unable to get the actual text from the Vatican's website, here is a respected academic's commentary of the Roman Catholic Church's Social Doctrine -for those like myself who are not inclined to take Bono's word for anything:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/social.html

3) the right to sufficient and necessary means to live in a becoming manner (food, clothing, housing, rest, health care, social services);

Socialism.

4) the right to security in case of sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, unemployment, and any involuntary loss of the means of subsistence;

Socialism.

If you honestly think that those are bad ideas, I really hope that you go through some horrible crisis in life so you can actually get some perspective instead of talking in purely theoretical terms that adhere to your philosophy of anarchism.

I would at least hope that most libertarians would not be okay with the government sitting by doing absolutely nothing while someone in need starved to death.

[J.R. Brown]

It had to be asked.

Am I religious, in the sense that I am part of an organized, conformfist social group who worships blindly to impress their neighber and say that they are better than those of us who follow a different spiritual path. No.

Am I religious in the sense that I am on a continuous personal and spiritual journey to find God and all that he embodies on our planet and in our plane of existance, then yes.

[Ebowed]

Am I religious, in the sense that I am part of an organized, conformfist social group who worships blindly to impress their neighber and say that they are better than those of us who follow a different spiritual path. No.

You have a very misguided and distorted view of organized religion-- and this is coming from someone who has stopped going to church.  You're reinforcing all of the silly stereotypes that are made popular by secular liberals all across the country.

[J.R. Brown]

Am I religious, in the sense that I am part of an organized, conformfist social group who worships blindly to impress their neighber and say that they are better than those of us who follow a different spiritual path. No.

You have a very misguided and distorted view of organized religion-- and this is coming from someone who has stopped going to church.  You're reinforcing all of the silly stereotypes that are made popular by secular liberals all across the country.

I am not a secular liberal. I am on my own siritual path and I don't need to be told how to worship on my own path. I may have been a little out of line in saying that they do it to impress their neighbors. I was over generalizing. But they are conformists and I don't conform to certain beliefs easily. By the way, why did you stop participating in organized religioun?

[frenger]

since i am unable to get the actual text from the Vatican's website, here is a respected academic's commentary of the Roman Catholic Church's Social Doctrine -for those like myself who are not inclined to take Bono's word for anything:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/social.html

3) the right to sufficient and necessary means to live in a becoming manner (food, clothing, housing, rest, health care, social services);

Socialism.

4) the right to security in case of sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, unemployment, and any involuntary loss of the means of subsistence;

Socialism.

If you honestly think that those are bad ideas, I really hope that you go through some horrible crisis in life so you can actually get some perspective instead of talking in purely theoretical terms that adhere to your philosophy of anarchism.

I would at least hope that most libertarians would not be okay with the government sitting by doing absolutely nothing while someone in need starved to death.

You "hope" i go "through some horrible crisis"?
I'll give some discount to that, becuase clearly you're upset about something, but I didn't think you were one to come this low.

As for the rest, a right is something that you can claim without injuring no one else, such as your life and property. Now by claiming others' property, you are injuring them, therefore such cannot fall under a "right".
I'll post an exceprt of an essay by Arthur Schopenhauer(a monarchist), dealing with precisely this matter:

"It is a characteristic failing of the Germans to look in the clouds
for what lies at their feet. An excellent example of this is furnished
by the treatment which the idea of _Natural Right_ has received at
the hands of professors of philosophy. When they are called upon
to explain those simple relations of human life which make up the
substance of this right, such as Right and Wrong, Property, State,
Punishment and so on, they have recourse to the most extravagant,
abstract, remote and meaningless conceptions, and out of them build a
Tower of Babel reaching to the clouds, and taking this or that form
according to the special whim of the professor for the time being. The
clearest and simplest relations of life, such as affect us directly,
are thus made quite unintelligible, to the great detriment of the
young people who are educated in such a school. These relations
themselves are perfectly simple and easily understood--as the reader
may convince himself if he will turn to the account which I have given
of them in the _Foundation of Morality_, § 17, and in my chief work,
bk. i., § 62. But at the sound of certain words, like Right, Freedom,
the Good, Being--this nugatory infinitive of the cupola--and many
others of the same sort, the German's head begins to swim, and falling
straightway into a kind of delirium he launches forth into high-flown
phrases which have no meaning whatever. He takes the most remote and
empty conceptions, and strings them together artificially, instead of
fixing his eyes on the facts, and looking at things and relations as
they really are. It is these things and relations which supply the
ideas of Right and Freedom, and give them the only true meaning that
they possess.

The man who starts from the preconceived opinion that the conception
of Right must be a positive one, and then attempts to define it, will
fail; for he is trying to grasp a shadow, to pursue a spectre, to
search for what does not exist. The conception of Right is a negative
one, like the conception of Freedom; its content is mere negation.
It is the conception of Wrong which is positive; Wrong has the same
significance as _injury_--_laesio_--in the widest sense of the term.
An injury may be done either to a man's person or to his property or
to his honour; and accordingly a man's rights are easy to define:
every one has a right to do anything that injures no one else.

To have a right to do or claim a thing means nothing more than to be
able to do or take or vise it without thereby injuring any one else.
_Simplex sigillum veri_. This definition shows how senseless many
questions are; for instance, the question whether we have the right to
take our own life, As far as concerns the personal claims which others
may possibly have upon us, they are subject to the condition that we
are alive, and fall to the ground when we die. To demand of a man, who
does not care to live any longer for himself, that he should live
on as a mere machine for the advantage of others is an extravagant
pretension."

[frenger]

Going on:

22. THE DUTY TO WORK. Everyone is obligated to work (RN 13)--whether it is the only means of self-support (RN 6; QA 61) or not (RN 13)--for work is the ordinary instrument of personal perfection and a necessary means to attain the common good, to which all are obliged to contribute (RN 8, 14; QA 135).

Rather creepy.

23. THE RIGHT TO WORK. The correct ordering of social life implies that all have a right to work; this means resolving the problem of unemployment and layoffs (LE 18). Fulfillment of this right is the primary responsibility of each individual and of private initiative (MM 44), for the creation of jobs is a social function of great importance (QA 51). As indirect employer, the state has a supplementary role (LE 17, 18), part of its vigilance for the common good (MM 44); one of the fundamental elements of the social order is the opportunity for all men to find employment (QA 74; MM 79). The avoidance of work stoppages has to be one of the state's most serious concerns (RN 40; MM 54).

The methods the state must use in resolving the unemployment problem are generally indirect--establishing a correct social policy and promoting economic development in all sectors (MM 52-55, 150, 151). Nevertheless, should it be necessary, the state must itself provide jobs (RN 29; MM 44) and guarantee the means of subsistence to those who are involuntarily out of work. This may even justify nationalizing certain means of production if conditions require it (LE 14).

Solving the unemployment problem requires the cooperation of all those concerned, both at the national and at the international level. It is a fact of great significance that a disproportion exists between areas where large supplies of natural resources lie undeveloped and other areas where whole groups are unemployed or underemployed and large numbers are starving. This is evidence of incorrect solutions of continental and even global proportions in matters of critical social importance (LE 18).

Socialism, and marxist wording.

25. OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. Against the denial of the right of ownership which has been and is still found in certain tendencies of socialism, the social doctrine of the Church has constantly reaffirmed this natural right, with respect both to goods that are used in consumption and in production (RN 6, 7; QA 44; MM 109-115). It follows, as well that economic life ought to be principally a concern of private initiative (MM 51).

Contradictory with above.

26. UNIVERSAL DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS. The ecclesiastical Magisterium has also affirmed, however, and no less firmly, that private property has a social function (or, in the words of John Paul II, is leased to society); that is, goods are intended for a "common use" and consequently must reach everyone (RN 6; QA 45; MM 43). God intended the earth and its contents to be useful to all men and all nations. Consequently, created goods must be equally accessible to everyone; this is a matter of justice and of charity. Whatever the forms of ownership which diverse and varying circumstances may prescribe as legitimate institutions in different nations, this universal distribution of goods must never be lost sight of. Therefore, in making use of these goods, men must not regard as exclusively their own the external things they legitimately possess; in the sense that these goods also have advantages for others, they are common as well (GS 69).

As a result, the state must respect and defend the right of ownership, and prevent injustices from being committed against it (RN 28), while at the same time requiring property to fulfill its social function (QA 49)

No comments.

27. PUBLIC OWNERSHIP. Respect for and defense of private ownership does not exclude the legitimacy of public ownership of certain means of production. The position of rigid capitalism is wrong in maintaining that the exclusive right to private ownership of the means of production is an unassailable dogma of economic life (LE 14)

The basic principles which govern this subject can be summarized as follows: a) Government or public corporations are subsidiary to private firms (MM 117); b) Public ownership is justified when the goods in question entail such great economic power that in private hands they would pose a threat to the common good (QA 114; MM 116); c) Since the obligations of public agencies tend to increase, it is normal for the scope of public ownership to be enlarged (MM 117), but the principle of subsidiarity must always be observed, lest public ownership be extended beyond the true and manifest needs of the common good to the point that private owner ship is diminished or suspended (MM 117).

Seems like something that could be found in the old labour platform, but I would very much like to know how this people can determine cardinal utility, to know what this "common good" is.

28. SOCIALIZATION. If we understand by "socialization" the active participation in management of all who form a part of public and private corporations, it is surely desirable (MM 91-93; LE 14). Therefore, proposals for joint ownership of the workplace, profit sharing, shareholding by workers, and similar features are laudable.

This type of socialization is not achieved by outright elimination of private ownership of the means of production, for the simple conversion of those means from private to public would only cause their monopolistic administration and disposition to change hands. Socialization, then, is not the same as expropriation or nationalization; it simply puts into practice the principle of the primacy of labor (LE 14).

For socialization understood as nationalization, see section 27.

Corporativism. reminds me of Mussulini.

29. WAGES. Work provides for the sustenance of persons. This principle must be considered at several levels: Universally, work provides for the sustenance of all mankind; in the life of a nation, it provides the resources of those who make up the political community; at the most elementary level, it provides for the maintenance of families and individuals. This means that the outcome of the entire productive process must extend to all men--to those who are considered "unproductive" as well as to those who are actively employed--by means of a correct system of distribution. This distribution of goods normally occurs through two complementary systems: wages and various social benefits. Of these, the first one--just remuneration for work done--is the more important since it is a specific means for distributing goods.

Work is not a piece of merchandise to be subjected to the law of supply and demand, as liberalism used to affirm (RN 1, 32; QA 107, 109, 110; MM 11, 12). Nor is it the only source of economic value, as Marxism holds (QA 55, 68). Hence the just distribution of a firm's profits between capital and labor is of prime importance (QA 53-58). Wage rates must therefore be fixed in relation to the condition of a firm (QA 72). On the other hand, since work is the means whereby persons support themselves and their dependents, the wage must take into account both the employee's personal needs and those of his family (QA 71; LE 19).

Finally, wage rates must reflect the economic life of the political community for they have an important bearing upon the common good (QA 74). This principle prohibits privileged groups (MM 79) and excessive remuneration for tasks of little consequence (MM 70). An effort must be made to employ the largest possible number (QA 78; MM 79) and to maintain a favorable balance between wages and prices (QA 75; MM 79). This dimension of the common good must be considered not only within a given country, but also internationally (MM 80).

The amount of each wage must also take into account the worker's contribution to the enterprise (QA 57, 58; MM 71) and his personal productivity (RN 13: MM 70).

To eacha ccording to his needs?
very marxist.

30. SOCIAL BENEFITS. A firm's financial condition might often prevent the payment of a wage sufficient to meet the level of life to which a worker and his family are entitled in view of the contribution his work makes to the whole community. When this occurs, the wage must be supplemented by various social benefits which serve as alternate means of distributing profits (LE 19). In this matter, the basic criterion is satisfaction of the fundamental rights previously indicated, in proportion to the sum total of goods produced within that political community and, insofar as possible, within the international community.

recipe for stangnation, not to mention world government.

[Joe Republic]

No, I'm not religious at all.  I choose not to worry about what'll happen to me after I die, and focus more on what'll happen to me when I'm alive.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Proudly

[David S]

Yes I'm a religious.
Before I retired I worked for  a living which apparently made me "a poor".
However now that I'm retired and no longer working I must be "a wealthy" or maybe even "an owning class". At least according to the Opebopedia.

[KEmperor]

Nope.

[Storebought]

On the BeliefNet questionnaire, I always end up with "Old Fashioned Seeker", whatever that means.

In English, then, I guess I'm a "religious skeptic"

[W in 2004]

I believe that Jesus died on the cross to save me from my sins, and that God raised him from the dead.  I repented of my sins and asked Jesus to come into my heart.  I accepted Jesus’ gift of eternal life.  Jesus is Lord!  I believe that because I am a Christian, I should try to do what is right because of my gratitude for what Jesus did.  Jesus loves all of us.  “You mean so much that Heaven would touch the face of humankind for you” – Skillet.  All of you are valuable.  God has a plan for each one of you.

 

If only my one heart
Was all you'd gain from all it cost
Well I know you would have still been a man
With a reason
To willingly offer your life

I am not just a man, vastly lost in this world
Lost in a Sea of Faces
Your body's the bread, Your blood is the wine
Because you traded Your life for mine

Just one in a million faces

From Sea of Faces by Kutless

[Storebought]

I believe that Jesus died on the cross to save me from my sins, and that God raised him from the dead.  I repented of my sins and asked Jesus to come into my heart.  I accepted Jesus’ gift of eternal life.  Jesus is Lord!  I believe that because I am a Christian, I should try to do what is right because of my gratitude for what Jesus did.  Jesus loves all of us.  “You mean so much that Heaven would touch the face of humankind for you” – Skillet.  All of you are valuable.  God has a plan for each one of you.

 

If only my one heart
Was all you'd gain from all it cost
Well I know you would have still been a man
With a reason
To willingly offer your life

I am not just a man, vastly lost in this world
Lost in a Sea of Faces
Your body's the bread, Your blood is the wine
Because you traded Your life for mine

Just one in a million faces

From Sea of Faces by Kutless

Your post actually sums why I can't really call myself a Christian--Christianity has become so emotional and irrational. It's all about what one 'feels'

[Ebowed]

Actually, I wish more religion were like that.  It seems like many religions have devolved (or perhaps started as) boring customs where you have to do this, and this, and this, blah blah blah, count up as many good deeds as you can, follow all of the traditions.  Christianity, at least when it isn't organized, is pretty lenient about that.

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes, I'm a Christian. My belief in the Social Gospel puts me firmly on the centre-left when it comes to economics; while, on social issues, I'm moderately conservative/populist but tolerant with it

Dave

[Hitchabrut]

Yes