TheScout

I've had a many drinks in my time and a few smokes in my time. I feel fine.

Teaching a child something right does not violate free will.

Its just like 2 and 2 equals 4.

Then what is your point?

The BSA are not hypocrites, they just have views on those two terms that are not the same as yours.

Theres includes homosexuality being wrong, yours does not.

Some religions hold that theirs is the only true faith and that it is the parents duty to teach their child that.

They are enforcing all their policies.

Smoking and drinking doesn't make one not physically strong.

Being a gay does not make you morally straight.

Its not that hard.

If you believe there is only one right way, why wouldn't you teach their child that right away to ensure they don't make the wrong decision.

I know many people who smoke and drink and are strong.

Like I said you can't let a child decide anything he/she wants?

What if he decides through reason to be a anti-semetic national socialist. What then?

Of course not.

"And if we knew for an absolute fact that there is a creator and who that creator is...I would agree with you. We don't though and that is why it is called faith. A properly educated child should be taught to think for themselves and make their own decisions when they are old enough to think objectively about faith and religion."

It is not OK for a child to learn objectiively the wrong faith. It is the salvation of the child's soul for all of eternity we are talking about.

What if the child is allowed to think forhimself and becomes a viciously anti-semetic national socialist. Is that OK? The child came to it through their own reason.

If actually taking seriously the oath to defend the Constitution is pedantic, than I am guilty.

Good thing nobody told Gen. Washington politics is the art of the possible. He might have never dared to fight the greatest empire in the world with an army composed of the militia from a bunch of divided colonies.

A properly educated child should know who their creator is at a real young age. It is the first thing taught in any religious education class.

If they have poor parents who do not see to this development, the least we should do is make sure the kid knows this is not acceptable. In the long run it is in the best interest of the child.

Who cares about the BSA numbers? Are we know a consumer product whose only purpoe is to appeal to the masses to maximize numbers. If people do not care about our beliefs, we should not want them in.

"Neither was Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus."

Which was also wrong.

"The point is, UENI (or our grandparents really, both my parents were way under 15 on Inauguration Day 1933) needed confidence in the banking system. FDRs method gave it to them. It worked."

Did it work? The Great Depression continued to get worse. Look at unemployment numbers in 1933 compared to 1939.

Even if it did work. Is that right? Did you take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States except in an emergency? There is no such thing as a good idea clause in the Constitution. Something can be a good idea and still not constitutional.

"Do you have a better policy idea to give confidence to the American people? If so, articulate it."

-Balance the budget. So Americans know the government will continue to be fiscally sound.

-Eliminate the Federal Reserve It has destroyed the strength of the dollar since 1913 and allowed cheap credit to spread, bringing the current crisis

-Let bad banks fail- Bankers will forced to run sound banks or they will be ruined. People will know any surviving banks are sound

Anyway if people have to look to the government for confidence or self-esteem they really need to look at themselves. The idea is kinda funny.

Then how do you explain John Paul II's Centesimus annus?

The Church has always stood against modern socialism.

One would think even the smallest of children would be able to tell who created him/her.

But the Bank Holiday was not constitutional . . .

Oh wait, I forgot, the Constitution doesn't matter in emergencies, right?(This message has been edited by TheScout)

Some people use the term to mean the same thing as a mortal sin.

Ever since modern socialism has existed it was been criticized by the Church.

Since the modern ideas of Catholic social teaching were collected in the late 19th Century the Church has had a similar position on socialism.

I do not like to call the Successor to St. Peter as the head of Christ's Church on Earth a revisionist.

I think the participation that is barred is receiving the sacraments. Of course one is still to kneel in the presence of the Lord during the consecration and such.

Sadly, some such people continue to attend Mass and receive the sacraments. The same problem with people receiving the Eucharist without repenting after a grave sin.

Except the Popes have consistently condemned socialism for over 100 years. Ever since the Church began talking about the doctrine.

"Vatican backs abortion row bishop"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7930380.stm

Catholic social teaching has always come out strongly against socialism in all its forms. The very recent encyclical Centesimus annus by Pope John Paul II makes this very clear which says in part (Revrum Novarum was Pius XII's 1891 encyclical on social justice:

"The commemoration of Rerum novarum would be incomplete unless reference were also made to the situation of the world today. The document lends itself to such a reference, because the historical picture and the prognosis which it suggests have proved to be surprisingly accurate in the light of what has happened since then.

This is especially confirmed by the events which took place near the end of 1989 and at the beginning of 1990. These events, and the radical transformations which followed, can only be explained by the preceding situations which, to a certain extent, crystallized or institutionalized Leo XIII's predictions and the increasingly disturbing signs noted by his Successors. Pope Leo foresaw the negative consequences political, social and economic of the social order proposed by "socialism", which at that time was still only a social philosophy and not yet a fully structured movement. It may seem surprising that "socialism" appeared at the beginning of the Pope's critique of solutions to the "question of the working class" at a time when "socialism" was not yet in the form of a strong and powerful State, with all the resources which that implies, as was later to happen. However, he correctly judged the danger posed to the masses by the attractive presentation of this simple and radical solution to the "question of the working class" of the time all the more so when one considers the terrible situation of injustice in which the working classes of the recently industrialized nations found themselves.

Two things must be emphasized here: first, the great clarity in perceiving, in all its harshness, the actual condition of the working class men, women and children; secondly, equal clarity in recognizing the evil of a solution which, by appearing to reverse the positions of the poor and the rich, was in reality detrimental to the very people whom it was meant to help. The remedy would prove worse than the sickness. By defining the nature of the socialism of his day as the suppression of private property, Leo XIII arrived at the crux of the problem.

His words deserve to be re-read attentively: "To remedy these wrongs (the unjust distribution of wealth and the poverty of the workers), the Socialists encourage the poor man's envy of the rich and strive to do away with private property, contending that individual possessions should become the common property of all...; but their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that, were they carried into effect, the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are moreover emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community".39 The evils caused by the setting up of this type of socialism as a State system what would later be called "Real Socialism" could not be better expressed.

13. Continuing our reflections, and referring also to what has been said in the Encyclicals Laborem exercens and Sollicitudo rei socialis, we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property. A person who is deprived of something he can call "his own", and of the possibility of earning a living through his own initiative, comes to depend on the social machine and on those who control it. This makes it much more difficult for him to recognize his dignity as a person, and hinders progress towards the building up of an authentic human community.

In contrast, from the Christian vision of the human person there necessarily follows a correct picture of society. According to Rerum novarum and the whole social doctrine of the Church, the social nature of man is not completely fulfilled in the State, but is realized in various intermediary groups, beginning with the family and including economic, social, political and cultural groups which stem from human nature itself and have their own autonomy, always with a view to the common good. This is what I have called the "subjectivity" of society which, together with the subjectivity of the individual, was cancelled out by "Real Socialism"."

It doesn't seem like you understand the Catholic Church very much and at that rate shouldn't call one a cafeteria Catholic. I don't mind what you people say most of the time but I take offense to that.

I wrote about the President of Brazil in the context that he had the audacity to condemn the actions of the Archbishop. I poor example for a leader of a mostly Catholic country.

Of course there is nothing wrong with trying to do your best. But I know many people who are very educated without having traveled widely or been to college.

An elitest is one who thinks they are better than others. I do not think that is a good trait.

Excommunication no longer lifts a Catholic from the obligation to attend Mass. However, he/she can not participate in any form.