-
Sweet Home, Alabama
June 11, 2013 | 38 comments
-
Laying Down My Pen
May 24, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Laying Down My Pen
May 23, 2013 | 92 comments
-
Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 46 comments
-
Putting Heritage in DeMint Condition
May 10, 2013 | 57 comments
Streetcar Line
Paul Ryan Outclasses My Profs
The Georgetown gang that couldn’t think straight.
(Page 2 of 3)
Ryan continued the discussion in a thoughtful interview with Raymond Arroyo on EWTN, again (on April 19) doing so with respect and humility (as recounted by Kathryn Lopez):
These budgetary debates “are matters for prudential judgment.… People of good will can have differences of opinion on these kinds of issues — there’s plenty of room to disagree about how to advance the common good, advance these principles.” That’s what the laity in public life are called to do. Ryan is not presenting himself as the poster boy for Catholic social thought, but as a Catholic in public life taking Catholic moral principles seriously. “I cannot claim exclusive justification for my political philosophy and point of view on economics using the social magisterium any more than a liberal can for theirs,” Ryan said.
Ryan had stressed these points for a full year, in just this tone of utmost respect. So what can account for the fury and nastiness of the GU professors’ letter?
THE LETTER BEGAN politely and respectfully enough, but in the first sentence of the second paragraph it went straight for the jugular: “However, we would be remiss in our duty to you and our students if we did not challenge your continuing misuse of Catholic teaching to defend a budget plan that decimates food programs for struggling families, radically weakens protections for the elderly and sick, and gives more tax breaks to the wealthiest few.” They didn’t disagree with him, they “challenge[d] him.” They didn’t strive to convince him he was wrong; they announced categorically that he had “misuse[d]” Catholic teaching. And they accused him of promoting a plan that did a series of dastardly things (none of which it does — but more on that shortly).
Then came this bit of histrionic and flagrantly dishonest character assassination: “In short, your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Her call to selfishness and her antagonism toward religion are antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion and love.”
First, Ryan has flat-out denied that Rand is his “favorite philosopher,” or that he agrees with her selfishness and antagonism toward religion. Like many other prominent figures, he has often credited Rand with inspiring him in important ways about the virtues of individual liberty, and has insisted that she is right to say there is a morality in free markets — but he also long has cited several other intellectual influences and has for years spoken and written about the duty owed to the poor (while also maintaining a devout personal Catholicism). In fact, one of his biggest arguments is that the current entitlement system sends too small a percentage of benefits to the poor:
[T]he structure of some of our largest entitlement programs has decreased the share of government transfer payments going to lower-income households and increased the share going to wealthier seniors…. A prudent course of action for policymakers would be to advance sensible reforms to the unsustainable benefit structure of these programs so that government is doing a better job of directing assistance to those that need it most, while giving less help to households that need it least.
All of this information about Ryan’s views was readily available before the professors’ April 24 letter. In their zeal to draw blood, however, the faculty ignored it and distorted his views along with his budget. Their vitriol continues in accusations that he proposes “gutting government programs,” “abandoning the poor to their own devices,” and “walk[ing] away from the most vulnerable.” These accusations are, to put it mildly, poppycock.
The principles of subsidiarity, generational responsibility, and dangers of the welfare state, all emphasized by Pope John Paul II, are meant to be and indeed are far more readily understandable by a reasonably informed layman than are the arcane and complicated workings of the federal budget. Perhaps, then, the Hoya 90 are just plain ignorant about the latter. But I challenge them to show how the Ryan budget would “decimate… radically weaken protections for… gut [or] … abandon” the poor, the sick, or the elderly.
Do these ivory-basement would-be philosophes not understand the difference between slashing a program and, on the other hand, letting it rise only slightly faster than inflation rather than substantially faster than inflation? Do they not know that even under the Ryan plan, benefits to the poor would continue to rise? Do they not know that his proposal for Medicaid is based on the successful welfare reform proposal that Congress badgered Bill Clinton into signing in 1996, after which poverty rates substantially decreased (as did some key social pathologies) even as the government spent less money? Do they not know that his proposals for Medicare reform mirror the system already used for Medicare Part D, which has worked like a charm to keep premiums about 40 percent below original projections? Do they not know that his entitlement proposals across the board are means-tested to a greater degree, in favor of those at lower incomes, than current law allows?
And, of course, all of this works off a domestic spending baseline higher than at any time in American history, rather than from a condition of federal penuriousness. Let’s take a good baseline year for non-security discretionary spending. Consider the fiscal year 2000 — when the decidedly empathetic, “feel-your-pain” specialist Bill Clinton was president and had broken the budgetary will of the Republican Congress, when spending levels were plenty high enough to keep poverty rates historically low while the “social safety net” was perfectly strong — and when Democratic senators like Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Bob Kerrey were touting a Medicare proposal almost identical to the one Paul Ryan is suggesting now. Domestic discretionary spending then was $283.58 billion. Allow for six percent population growth over the next decade and the baseline would be $300.56 billion. Now apply the government’s official inflation calculator for the last 12 years and the equivalent amount of social spending is $400.23 billion. Almost nobody in the year 2000 would have said that, 12 years later, that Clinton-level baseline of $400 billion would amount to a gutting, a slashing, a hard-hearted dismantling of government obligations to the poor.
Yet in 2012, that same apples-to-apples comparison of non-security discretionary spending stands not just at $400 billion, but at $525.66 billion. That’s a 32.3 percent increase in government generosity, even after taking population growth and inflation into account. (In just four years, Pell Grants have increased by 20 percent. More dramatically still, food stamp spending from 2002 to 2012 has risen by an astonishing 270 percent.) For Paul Ryan now to ask merely for a slowdown in the rate of growth (not an absolute cut) from the current, historically extravagant levels of spending is hardly for him to be trying to effectuate “values… antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion as love,” despite the ludicrous and scurrilous claims in the professors’ letter.
Read the entirety of the letter and the tone is that of a Dickensian orphanage proprietor taking a paddle to a horribly delinquent child. There is no room for discussion, none for honest disagreement, none for mutual respect; it’s just (an attempt at) a sneering smack-down from self-appointed societal betters against an uppity inferior who knows not his place. Weigel was right in his column to call their attitude “chippy, even ugly.”
Against this ugliness, Ryan himself stayed classy and constructive. The idea he said in his speech in Georgetown’s Gaston Hall, is to “revitalize civil society instead of displacing it…. We aim to empower state and local governments, communities, and individuals — those closest to the problem. And we aim to promote opportunity and upward mobility by strengthening job training programs, to help those who have fallen on hard times.” And, specifically related to his faith, he said: “Serious problems like those we face today require charitable conversation. Civil public dialogue goes to the heart of solidarity, the virtue that does not divide society into classes and groups but builds up the common good of all.”
Remember that it was Ryan who reached out to Archbishop Dolan, not vice-versa — and privately, not for some sort of publicity stunt — just three days short of a year before his speech at Georgetown. This is a man of moral seriousness, doing exactly as his faith requires him to do: trying, with his deep knowledge of his professional subject, to apply the teachings of that faith to his professional conduct.
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (137) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Quin Hillyer
More Articles From Streetcar Line
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/04/paul-ryan-outclasses-my-profs
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jack in Wi.| 5.4.12 @ 6:45AM
The Ryan Plan is a political disaster. It keeps funding for the wars and attacks the entitlements in a depression. There can never be return to fiscal sanity in this country until the Evil Empire overseas is shut down and our military is downsized to fit out national defenses and not those of Israel. Europe, Japan, Korea and the the Arabs. They are all rich and can pay to defend themselves. Bring the troops home. We can defend this country for peanuts, if we mind our own business.
JeffC| 5.4.12 @ 7:46AM
Jack,
Try actually reading it first ... your obvious ignorance can be cured but you have to do it yourself ...
chuck| 5.4.12 @ 8:23AM
Jack is not ignorant, he is willfully stupid.
And a vicious anti-Semite.
Trinacria| 5.4.12 @ 2:52PM
Actually, I believe he is willfully ignorant. The stupid part was an accident of birth.
LarryK| 5.4.12 @ 9:19AM
Definition of ENTITLEMENT
1 a : the state or condition of being entitled : right b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2 : a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
3 : belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
IE., Take from others that WORKED for it and give it to BUMS about 80% of the people on the "entitlement" programs.
Alan Brooks| 5.5.12 @ 5:12PM
"And a vicious anti-Semite."
But you can be viciously anti-Islam? because Islamics don't see things YOUR way.
PsychoDad| 5.6.12 @ 10:40AM
Haha, typical leftard dodge, change the subject.
Herb| 5.6.12 @ 10:58PM
Islam is viciously anti-me, since I am a disobedient "infidel".
Right there in Koran 9:5. Check it out.
Jobe| 5.7.12 @ 11:10AM
Try this Mr. Brooks: Name two religions other than Islam that preach the violent militant conversion to their beliefs of every other existing religion. Stumped, aren't you?
As for seeing things "our" way, yours is the most ridiculous post I have read here in quite some time. Perhaps we shouls behead them because they "don't see things our way.
Dustoff| 5.4.12 @ 9:45AM
Jack, get over it. Ron paul is NEVER going to be elected as Prez.
NO matter how much you RP fools scream about him. 3rd try and he got NO-where again.
Clint| 5.4.12 @ 10:32AM
" TAMPA, April 7, 2012 – GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney continues to win primaries and Ron Paul still won’t go away.
Part of the reason is that the Paul campaign understands the primary process and knows a little history. Romney’s support is lukewarm, while Paul’s actual delegate total is dramatically understated.
As Robert Wenzel points out, Paul is a lot like Warren Harding. Harding went into the brokered 1920 convention with only 6% of the delegates, but emerged as the party’s nominee. Harding won the general election in a landslide and took a very non-interventionist approach to the Depression of 1921.
Free market economists cite Harding’s refusal to intervene in that crisis for the quick recovery that followed. "
Trinacria| 5.4.12 @ 1:32PM
If "cut and paste" were a marketable skill, I rather think you'd be well on your way to joining us in the one percent. Alas, it is not, and therefore you shant. Pity.
Now, always mindful of the demands on your precious time, permit me to save you the trouble of typing your tired ad hominem reply:
Trina - you RINO-CINO Mittens loving tool of the RINO-CINO Establishment, your RINO-CINO Romnoid McCain Redux Israel firster friends have two choices: either nominate a RINO-CINO pretender like Mittens and Lose or support the True Messiah, Dr. Ron Paul. Viva la revolucion...
W| 5.4.12 @ 4:01PM
T
Did you grandfather use the term cafone and counsel you on dealings with them?
Trinacria| 5.4.12 @ 5:32PM
Nah,
As a general rule, my grandfather just whacked 'em. But, uh, I don't know anything about that...
Clint| 5.4.12 @ 4:33PM
Trina You Ignorant Slut.
You Forgot,
Obama Is A Tarpster, And Romney is A Tarpster.
Obama Orchestrated Obamacare, And Romney Orchestrated Romneycare.
And Most Of All You Forgot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCuSmREITeg
Oldefarte| 5.4.12 @ 4:41PM
Shazam, what a spokesperson for the Catholic Church......or maybe a paid-by-Media Matters-disguised-as-Paul-supporter-invading-conservative-blog-sites-to-promote-El Chosen One's LIBERAL BULLEXCREMENT !!!!!!!!
Clint| 5.4.12 @ 9:09PM
Interesting, How Many Of These Israel Firster Smear Bund Goebbels Propaganda Nazis Are Anti-Catholic Punk Ass Cowards.
Oldefarte| 5.5.12 @ 10:54AM
YOU'RE......''''''STUPID''''''!!!!!!!!!
Trinacria| 5.4.12 @ 5:45PM
Clint,
How charming it is to watch the blissfully ignorant so carelessly revealing themselves to the world as inadequate to the challenge of engaging in meaningful discourse. It's even more fun when said simpleton is not only ignorant of his inadequacy, but actually believes himself to be creative and witty.
In that regard, reading your posts is rather like watching William Hung perform his signature version of "She Bangs". We're all laughing our asses off and clapping because we find your performance to be so shockingly incompetent that its entertaining (in the same way that we just can't avoid looking at a car wreck); all the while, you believe you're providing us with some remarkable insight.
On behalf of my fellow readers, thank you for the entertainment; while I suppose it isn't particularly charitable to have fun at the expense of the less gifted, well sport, I just can't help it...
Clint| 5.4.12 @ 9:00PM
Trina Has Delusions Of Adequacy.
Oldefarte| 5.5.12 @ 10:57AM
You [Clunt] are the very definition of INADEQUACY!!!!!!!!!!!
Fred| 5.4.12 @ 11:11PM
Gotta agree Trinacria, Clint is very entertaining (btw great impression of him above). But I think you have to admit, he can't hold a candle to Post-American. That guy is like Daffy Duck on acid. He's absolutely hilarious. Sometimes Clint's just annoying.
Oldefarte| 5.5.12 @ 10:58AM
Nah, he ain't intertaining, but he is.....STUPID!!!!
Mossad| 5.4.12 @ 5:51PM
Clint
We are watching you.
Why a blow up doll of Ron Paul?
Clint| 5.4.12 @ 9:05PM
Mossad Bibi Towael Boy.
The C.I.A. Is Watching You.
They Said You're Puttin' Horse Radish On Bibi's Salami.
Oldefarte| 5.5.12 @ 10:59AM
Simple, cause he can't have the real thing!!!!
Oldefarte| 5.4.12 @ 5:43PM
T: His C&P resembles an empty cookie jar, since there is nothing in his cranium!!!!
Oldefarte| 5.4.12 @ 4:43PM
Come out, come out Media Matter's boytoy [or Columbia prostitute possibly] wherever you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Clint| 5.4.12 @ 4:56PM
Pull Mittens Finger, Israel Firster Smear Bund Deliverance Banjo Piickin' River Sex Mittens' Kitten, Fart Man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCuSmREITeg
Oldefarte| 5.4.12 @ 5:38PM
Go pull RJ's appendage at the WH, Media Matters domestic terrorist!!!!!!!!
Clint| 5.4.12 @ 9:07PM
He Heard From The C.I.A. That You Ate Bibi's Bone, Deliverance Banjo Pickin' River Sex, Fart Man.
Oldefarte| 5.5.12 @ 11:01AM
Better to be Bibi's bone than to be.....FATHER RONNIE'S ARS!!!!!!!!!!
PsychoDad| 5.6.12 @ 10:42AM
Isn't it sad when cousins marry?
Oldefarte| 5.4.12 @ 3:28PM
No fool, what is a complete disaster is the asinine POTUS and his domestic terrorists Democrats; and you [for the millionith time] ought to get your GD ars out in support of the Democrat/DT labor unions in your state that are crusifying your governor over his attempts to save your state from economic strangulation by these domestic terrorists. If they succeed, you'll find out relatively quick what a real DISASTER is all about!!!!!!!!!!!
Clint| 5.4.12 @ 4:50PM
Deliverance Banjo Pickin' River Sex Fart Man Can't Be Talkin' About Our Democrap Lite Pennsylvania Governor.
" In my Jan. 10 column, I warned that Pennsylvania’s Gov. Ed Rendell was trying to pull off a shipyard bailout before he vacated the governor’s mansion.
Despite incoming Gov. Tom Corbett's pledge of fiscal responsibility and restraint (and whispers that he would kill the bailout), Corbett, incredibly, authorized the bailout, which subsidizes union jobs to boot.
On Feb. 17, Corbett authorized the $42 million shipyard bailout. Two ships will now be constructed — even though there are neither buyers now, nor any in the foreseeable future — and hundreds of union jobs will now be subsidized. So much for the pledge of responsible government and fiscal restraint, especially in light of the $5 billion budget deficit.
It is bad enough Corbett is being labeled "Governor MIA" for scarce appearances during his first five weeks in office. But when his first sign of life is choosing a bailout associated with politically-connected powerbrokers over the taxpayers who just elected him, the idea that Pennsylvania is on the right track becomes a hard sell."
Trinacria| 5.4.12 @ 5:30PM
It's time for Judge Wapner, Clint. Got to watch Judge Wapner. I'm a really good driver...
Clint| 5.4.12 @ 9:14PM
We Heard Mittens' Drove Ya On Top Of His Car, Mittens' Kitten.
Oldefarte| 5.4.12 @ 5:35PM
No moron Media Matters Clunt-Boy, it not always about YOU YOU YOU/ME ME ME/I I I. Who gives a rats-ars about penisheads like Pennsylvania Eddie??????? I was referring to Scott Walker in Wisconsin and in reply to Jack in Wi. [not to your selfish Pennsylvania Yankee douchebag problem]. Pennsylvania does not represent a NATIONAL issue of importance the way Wisconsin does, in the liberals-Democrats labor unionistic assault upon their courageous governor Walker. Eddy Boy is a typical Democrat, blowhard, Obama-sucker politician and is insignificant and useless to this nation!!!!
Clint| 5.4.12 @ 9:23PM
It's Always The RINO-CINO Fart Man & His Ruling Elites' RINO-CINO Fop Frontman, Mittens Romney And Attempting To Use Conservatives As "Your "Useful Dupes" To Vote For Your "Lesser Evil" Democrap Lite Phoney Conservative Candidate, Mittens Romney.
" Gingrich: Conservatives Won't Let Wall St. And Romney "Buy Election"
"Look, the conservative movement is not going to sit by and let a Massachusetts liberal, who's pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-tax increase, pro-gay rights, whose Romneycare in two articles in the last 24 hours were described as the equivalent of Obamacare and who George Soros says is just fine. He'd be happy with either Obama or Romney [be]cause they are both the establishment -- that's just George Soros," Newt Gingrich told FOX News' Bret Baier on the campaign trail in Tampa, Florida.
"Now, the conservative movement isn't going to sit back and say 'Oh yes, let's let Wall Street, and Goldman Sachs and Mitt Romney buy the election. So you're going to see a real grass roots fight. It will be people power vs. Goldman Sachs and Mitt Romney," he added."
Oldefarte| 5.5.12 @ 11:04AM
You wouldn't know a CONSERVATIVE if one BIT YOU IN YOUR ARS [but you probably think ya bud Rahm is a 'conservative', right?]!!!!
Alan Brooks| 5.4.12 @ 11:50PM
Jack is correct, the summer is over and you are the aldermen of shark city: Afghanistan is a total loss.
And a word about Ryan's faith; what evidence can I offer? what sort of questions could be framed in a survey?:
“Ryan, are you using your faith in frightening your constituency to cough up funds?”
Such queries wont be answered forthrightly.. and without direct answers a survey cannot be completed. But I do know from five decades of observing houses of worship they are as everyone else: they only really care about their own families and getting other families to fork over money, zero sum gain-style. Religion is a many splendored thing, including funds transfer from one pocket to another. Similar in some way to how foreign aid is transfering funds from the poor/middle class in wealthy nations to rich kleptocrats in poor nations.
Don’t know what the situation is in Europe yet can tell you that in America there exist penniless Christians and there are Christians who live very high off the hog—they are sobbing about Jesus all the way to the bank and I am determined to no longer be intimidated by their fancy public relations apparati. People submerged in sewage up to their nostrils exclaiming, “don’t make a wave!”
"If you deposit $25 in the Deacon’s Envelope we can send a cleric to the Holy Land to discuss his latest pro-life fund drive with another cleric in Jerusalem!...”
Hype hype hype.
Libertarianism is hype as well:
“we hate the state so much we want the state to give our well-heeled grandparents thousands a month—good thing we hate the state so much or the situation would be even worse!...”
You know very well libertarianism is mostly for public consumption, don’t you? it is ironically based on Marx’s pop-clairvoyance of “the state will wither away”.. when the state has no intention of ever withering away. Where has the state ever ‘withered away’? In Africa when governments dissolved and tribal warfare/genocide ensued? States in Europe do not wither away, do they? Today America has as large a state as any in Europe but Americans cling to three decade old Reagan mythology and his “government is the enemy”—the same government which send checks to their grandparents so they can purchase an extra car or another voyage on a first class ship. I’m not complaining, because it is all a game, a game of chicken- to see who can be tricked the most before giving up on trying to outmaneuver the opposition. It’s like that in business, so why shouldn’t it be so in politics? ‘Public relations’ means to con suckers who take the bait on the hooks; the general sentiment is if they allow themselves to be snookered more than once, shame on them. So I’ll play along with the game. Now, there’s no respect involved in such con games, but one cannot complain without being considered bolshie and ungrateful.
Religion, naturally, is part of this, an integral part- and I accept religion’s role in the game as well because religion is more pleasant than politics and economics—
politics and economics being brawling and largely unappetizing if not ugly and disheartening. If someone needs to be conned into being gullible, let it be someone else, not me.
mzk1| 5.6.12 @ 7:48AM
Alan Brooks like one of our resident anti-semites. Figures.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.12 @ 7:44AM
Spoken like a true amateur, Jack.
oldfart| 5.4.12 @ 7:42AM
Georgetown is supposed to be, I believe, independent to the Archbishop of Washington, Donald Cardinal Wuerl. I could be wrong on this account. However, it seems that Cardinal Wuerl’s philosophy of political correctness is evident in the actions of these Georgetown Professors. This PC behavior by the Cardinal was also displayed in the ‘removal from priestly duties’ of a visiting Catholic Priest from Russia who refused the Host to a proclaimed Buddhist and lesbian who is openly living with her partner. The Priest’s actions are totally in accord with Cannon Law.
Mr. Hillier, I totally agree with you that this Country is losing the ability to have an open, honest debate about serious issues without personal acrimony on every topic. The last time something like this happened was in the 1850’s.
oldfart| 5.4.12 @ 7:44AM
Opps - sorry about the typo on Mr. Hillyer's name.
Stuart Koehl| 5.4.12 @ 9:52AM
I forgive you for the typo "cannon law".
Stuart Koehl| 5.4.12 @ 9:52AM
As a Jesuit university (or "a university in the Jesuit tradition", as it now fancies itself, Georgetown long ago ceased to be Catholic and instead made itself an intellectual leader for radical social, economic and political change, using its interpretation of Catholic social doctrine as cover for what, coming from a secular source, would be revealed as just the same old same old progressivism.
There is no reason for GU professors to take their marching orders from Cardinal Wuerl, because they are all fellow travelers, their thinking as alike as peas in a pod. Taken in the aggregate, you could think of them as "the Democratic National Committee at Prayer"--even their condemnation of the abortion mandate is lukewarm, a recognition that there are still a few lines they cannot cross without the fig leaf of their "catholicity" being ripped away.
Trinacria| 5.4.12 @ 1:56PM
Well said, Stuart. As a former GU student, I have been increasingly disappointed and, frankly, disgusted by the intellectually vacant and ideologically driven positions espoused by the marginally witted administrators of this once vernerable institution. It is profoundly embarrassing to see the shocking lack of intellectual depth and genuine understanding of basic Catholic moral principles in this and recent public statements and policy positions.
The "Jesuit tradition" and it's ill informed blind allegiance to the manufactured concept of "social justice" is among the root causes of the current regrettable state of affairs in both the Catholic Church and the United States.
I'm ashamed that I once sat at their feet; rest assured my children will not follow in my footsteps.
Stuart Koehl| 5.4.12 @ 3:42PM
I was rather fortunate in attending Georgetown as an unobservant Jew, so I never lost my faith to the legions of heterodox or apostate Jebbies and defrocked nuns who had the task of indoctrinating us through the six mandatory credit hours of theology they crammed down our unwilling throats. In fact, my contrary nature put me in the position of defending orthodox Christianity against the onslaughts of relativism, higher criticism and liberation theology that was in vogue back then.
A good two decades later, my wife and I decided to become Greek Catholics, but Georgetown had no positive role in that decision. In fact, almost from the time we graduated, we wanted nothing to do with the place. Whether it was closing down the Dental School, or demoting the School of Language and Linguistics (my wife's school) to a mere "faculty" of the College of Arts and Sciences, to the attempted removal of crucifixes from the classrooms (if I wasn't offended, why should anyone else have been?), to the acceptance of tens of millions of dollars from Saudi princes to establish an "Arab Studies Institute" that does little other than to legitimize the indefensible status quo in the Arab world, to its advocacy for gay rights to its allowing Barack Obama to speak at the University--just what is it that makes Georgetown think I will ever send them a dime?
It's significant that, when my daughter was looking for university with a strong Russian program, not for a second did she consider Georgetown, despite her mother receiving her BS and MS in Russian Linguistics there. She chose the utterly secular University of Pennsylvania, and never regretted it for a second. What's more, she never had to fend off professors trying to talk her out of her faith.
Oldefarte| 5.4.12 @ 4:37PM
Amen, agreed, here-here! I do think that it's not just the Jebbies, but all Catholic orders and also universally most all religions as well involved in this problem. Just as the Church was invaded by homosexuals that resulted in that problem, so too have mostly all religions been likewise invaded by LIBERALISM. Add to that the idea of liberalism's pushing the idea of seperation of church and state to the max for their purposeful intentions, and you see today's moral decay within our society!!!!!!
Trinacria| 5.4.12 @ 5:08PM
It saddens me deeply.
I'm delighted to hear your daugher found a more fruitful path. It was a wise decision indeed!
W| 5.4.12 @ 6:26PM
Didn't Georgetown cover the Catholic religious symbols on the podium when Obama spoke at the University? Did not want to offend Obama?
Stuart Koehl| 5.4.12 @ 6:40PM
Yes. They had to cover up the Georgetown seal, as a matter of fact.
Goldwaterite| 5.7.12 @ 7:40PM
GU faculty = "The DNC at Prayer" Love it!
(although I recognize the oxymoronic concept of Democrats promoting "faith-based" activities)
“I’m fairly certain that neither Jesus nor his rabbinic forebears, when speaking of giving, meant some obligation to the state. You tithe the priest, not the taxman." ---Dr. Charles Krauthammer
JP| 5.4.12 @ 12:29PM
Georgetown is a Jesuit institution; it has a board consisting of both lay and clergy. Its chain of command runs through the Society of Jesus. Like almost all Catholic schools, Georgetown prides itself on its "outreach" and adherence to many secular principals. In a pinch the profs can always fall back on that old but reliable shibboleth of "academic freedom."
But, that isn't to say the the local Bishop is without resources. Any institution that calls itself Roman Catholic must have the imprimatuer of the local Bishop - universities included. They function at the pleasure of the Bishop. And in cases of theology, Catholic Doctrine, and Catholic Morality, the Bishop has the final say. Most Bishops are very reluctant to upset Catholic colleges operating in thier dioceses. This is especially so concerning "gender issues", race issues, and "social justice". Most Catholic universities can pretty much get away with about anything. The last Catholic college I remember being offically "dis-affiliated" with the RCC was Manhatten College. We should also remember that many diocesian seminaries are host at these universities. So, there is some conflict of interest going on..
But, Bishops do have the auhtority cut a university's affiliation with the Church. Ultimately, the call belongs to the Vatican. But, the Vatican does not begin the process; that power belongs with the Bishop.
Trinacria| 5.4.12 @ 2:14PM
JP,
True enough. But it's not that Cardinal Wuerl is afraid of upsetting the administrators of Georgetown; it's that he AGREES with them. Their positions, like his, are founded on the theologically- (and logically-) flawed concept of "social justice", a profoundly intellectually lazy approach to understanding how one should "live the Gospel". From his perspective, they are doing precisely that - living the Gospel. Regrettably, he (like them) has neither the depth of thought nor the wisdom to understand the profoundly damaging effect their concept of social justice has on society.
One could be forgiven for supporting in good faith a position that has unintended consenquences, provided that the consequences are both genuinely unintended and reasonably unforeseen. But neither can be argued here, as the evidence based on 40+ years of "social justice" is irrefutably conclusive; therefore, the consequences are beyond reasonably foreseeable and proceeding with the full knowledge of the consequences certainly suggests that they are intended.
JeffC| 5.4.12 @ 7:44AM
"When four of the letter's signers were teaching me, they were far more open-minded, less ideological, and more collegial -- and certainly not insufferably boorish"
Quinn, I'm going to bet that they were always exactly like this they just hid it from you as a student ...
oldfart| 5.4.12 @ 7:46AM
Or these professors were ‘persuaded’ to slide their public positions to the left in order to keep their jobs.
Von Mises Jr| 5.4.12 @ 8:28AM
Jesus spoke of the "poor of spirit," not the 99%. He was converting people’s souls, not their living quarters and diet. He asks us to pick up OUR cross, not for everybody to carry one collective cross. He asked us Christians to love your neighbor like yourself, not to love your government who will take care of your neighbor. He calls us to be saved; he does not tell us we must choose Him. He asked for us to be charitable, not that He get ten percent bill as one was forced to give to Caesar.
This is why James Cohn invented Obama's Black Liberation nonsense. Because the Bible does not say that you must be saved for me to be saved, or vice versa. This collectivist mantra was invented for reparations and socialism.
oldfart| 5.4.12 @ 8:36AM
Spot on - Jesus did not DEMAND that Caesar care for the widow- Jesus ASKED us to do it.
W| 5.4.12 @ 11:51AM
Von,
Excellent points.
The left views the government as the only provider for the charity in the Gospels. The left does not believe in private charity, as you can see by the charitable donations by Algore and Biden, but insists, or demands, that we send our money to the government. The government then decides who gets what.
Von Mises Jr| 5.4.12 @ 1:36PM
Their G-d is government, W. And they are the Pharisees. They both seek to control the Church collections, as best as I can figure.
Oldefarte| 5.5.12 @ 11:11AM
The left wants to replace religion's charity with their welfare, so they can receive the political power/votes for Democrats in return!!!!!
Trinacria| 5.4.12 @ 2:22PM
Very well said, VM.
By the way, I'm always struck by the fact that those like Father Reese et al. cite their litany of quotes from the bible which they view as justification for redistributing wealth, while conveniently omitting perhaps the most instructive quote of all ("He who will not work, neither shall he eat." - Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians).
Von Mises Jr| 5.4.12 @ 3:49PM
Very inconvenient for socialist intellectuals.
DRed| 5.4.12 @ 4:47PM
"work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat."
That's from the 1936 Soviet Constitution. History is a funny thing.
Trinacria| 5.4.12 @ 5:16PM
I'll say this for the communists: at least they expected folks to work for their government checks...
In our reprehensible descent into progressivism, freedom has come to be defined as "the freedom from responsibility to earn what I receive."
Yes - history is a funny (and tragic) thing.
Von Mises Jr| 5.5.12 @ 9:34AM
Trinacria, The entitlements are designed to consolidate power. That's why they call the people who enslave themselves "Useful Idiots."
Lenin and later Stalin relegated all but the elite ruling class to slaves. There were no more fat pensions, Cadillac health plans, unempolyment checks and food stamps. It was misery for all. Actually Hitler shot his top Generals since they knew too much and had too much power. The "Useful Idiots" were of no use either since they were blind followers. They were gotten rid of so they did not follow someone else after the slavery took hold.
Oldefarte| 5.4.12 @ 4:28PM
G-d Almighty also granted everyone at birth with whats known as FREE WILL, whereby one can in most cases work hard and take care of their own personal needs in life. You can CHOOSE to DO THE RIGHT THING or alternatively to DO THE WRONG THING. The choice is yours. There are a few exceptional cases of some becoming subjected to various calamities in life and that need to be supported by others, and this is where charitable giving and governmental welfare truely needs occur, but governmental welfare is far far too excessively large in amounts and needs to be seriously downsized and/or eliminated!!!!
TLP| 5.4.12 @ 8:56AM
Welcome to another episode of 'Dog Bites Man'.
"In today's episode, our Hero laments that some of his former University Professors have written a letter in Favour of Runaway Liberal Spending Programs, that we CAN'T AFFORD, and are Attacking a Republican Congressman who HAS A PLAN, to bring Runaway Spending on Progressive Liberal Entitlement Programs (that are TRILLION$ in the Red, already) under control."
Wow. That never happens.
And you say that this happened at Georgetown University? Cause that's the same University that THE MUSLIM refused to speak at, unless all references of JESUS CHRIST were removed from the room, from which he was to speak. It's also the home base of Amerika's favourite Nymphomaniac, and the Record Holder for the largest Single Season Purchase of Condoms, Vaginal Creams, IUDs, Abortions, Coat Hangers, and Medicines for preventing Blood from Clotting.
These would also be the same Jesuits who were down there, in Central and South America, standing side by side with the Godless, Marxist Guerillas, as they sought to Murder their way to another Cuba.
Obviously, Mr. Hillyar is too "Gentle" to speak Truth to Power. Apparently, in his mind, calling a Spade, a Spade, is still "Racist" in the Circles he runs in.
I fail to understand his "surprise" that a bunch of Obama Loving, MarxistProfs, at Georgetown University, would take Umbrage at the idea that it is better, in the eyes of The Lord, to Teach a man to fish, rather than have him be enslaved by a Centralized Federal Government, and the Handouts it provides.
What's on tap for Monday?
Oy vey.
A story about spending a lot of time at Motor Vehicle?
Fluke Me| 5.4.12 @ 7:05PM
how 'bout ~
Julia is a slut
Oldefarte| 5.5.12 @ 11:13AM
Or a gov'ment HOE!!!!!!!!
PattyMor| 5.4.12 @ 9:13AM
Please inform the college professors and the Bishops that government programs are NOT charity. Government is force, plain and simple. I am forced to pay for people who refuse to work or get educated. I'm forced to pay for Planned Parenthood. And on and on. Quite frankly I'm tired of paying for slackers and miscreants.
What did Jesus really say? Render Unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's. Now please show me where in the Consitution that allows the gov'ment to run all these programs, much less the EPA, FEMA, etal?
Jesus did say to help the poor. He was commanding individuals to do this. This is what charity is. Individuals donating their money or their time to help someone.
Oldefarte| 5.4.12 @ 4:21PM
Amen! Liberal/Democrats have confiscated religious teachings in order to brainwash citizen-taxpayers into believing that their demands for higher taxiation is needed to fulfill the government's dispensation of more welfare!!!!!!
al222| 5.4.12 @ 9:14AM
"The budget battles in Washington are battles of political philosophy and policy-analysis, not of theology."
No, they're not. They are battles between those who can actually add and subtract, and those who are innumerate and more than willing to drive the nation into bankruptcy--even as they tout their moral superiority in the midst of doing so.
Mary| 5.4.12 @ 9:55AM
I agree with PattyMor. The bible doesn't say for the government to take care of the poor it mandates the individual to take care of the needy. It also says the poor will always be with us. In the almost fifty years that government has been waging the illegal war on poverty nothing has changed except the destruction of families and personal responsibility. Taking from one individual to give to another isn't charity it's theft.
Oldefarte| 5.4.12 @ 4:18PM
The poor have a REPONSIBILITY to wean themselves off of governmental welfare, and they do not fulfill that responsibility!!!!!
WM| 5.4.12 @ 8:57PM
Exactly!
Oldefarte| 5.5.12 @ 11:18AM
And the government of liberals/Democrats have as their agenda the continuation of eternal poverty/ignorance, so that they can continue to bestow governmental welfare and public school non-education upon same so as to maintain their dependence upon the government and the political power of liberals/Democrats!!!!
L Hendrix| 5.4.12 @ 10:11AM
There is no moral superiority in plunder--the forcible redistribution of property of labor; call it what you will, it is still theft.
Oldefarte| 5.4.12 @ 5:18PM
Amen.....in Obamaese, it's referred to as HOPE & CHANGE!!!!!
MRD| 5.4.12 @ 12:00PM
One thing that needs to be understood about the Congressman Ryan - Georgetown professors battle is the cognitive dissonance on the Catholic left. Like so much of everything today the underlying issue is connected to abortion. The Catholic left is today in a very difficult position. most people know the Catholic Church is opposed to the current legal regime of abortion on demand. In reality however abortion is not just any social issue, it is described by Vatican II as an "unspeakable crime" and described by Blessed John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae as "murder" of a particularly foul crime since the unborn child is absolutely innocent. Currently liberals and the Democrats are wed to abortion on demand probably more than to any other policy position. Even the master triangulator Bill Clinton moved rightward on things like Welfare reform, but was ruthless in his pro-abortion positions, supporting even "partial birth abortion". This puts much of the Catholic left in a very difficult spot, as their natural inclinations is to favor and politically support Democrats and liberals, but the Dems and the libs are wed to what even Vatican II called "unspeakable crime". As one might imagine this creates cognitive dissonance even among the Jesuits. It has lead to a frequent charge from those like me on the Catholic right, that your various Catholic liberals are not really Catholic at all. Pretty tough to see how you remain a Catholic and still support what your Church calls "unspeakable crime". The response to this has been to elevate their leftist policy preferences to the level of doctrine. This nonsense goes on, in spite of any number of references to Papal statements, Catholic theology etc because it has been aided and abetted by the leftists among the Bishops and the Church beaurocrats in the United States Confernce of Catholic Bishops. The USCCB periodically issues statements on economic policy which if followed would further injure the poor they claim to care so much about. Still the game on the left is something like this... you Catholics on the right are "dissenting "in regards economic and social justice issues, so you have no claim to call us out on our acceptance of abortion on demand over on the left... Thats the subtext of what is going on.
Rather pathetic isnt it? In any case Paul Ryan has done a great service to the country and the conservative movement by engaging the Catholic left on this. There are about 50 million or so Catholics in the US, if this demonstrates to them that the Democrat claim of superior concern for the poor is the nonsense it is, then it will be clear that a Catholic can no longer morally support the Democrats. You can not support the party of unspeakable crime, when they do not even throw you the bone of "social justice". If Ryan wins this argument , there Democrats will find future elections tough going.
Oldefarte| 5.4.12 @ 4:17PM
This editorial is NOT ABOUT ABORTION, and to sidetract its argument is incorrect. This is about whether Ryan's budgetary parameters destroys the charitable givings of government!!!!!!
Trinacria| 5.4.12 @ 5:18PM
They just can't freakin' help it, OF. One trick pony...
Fruit of the Spirit| 5.5.12 @ 4:08PM
And you're a one man circus.
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/0.....-9-months/
Oldefarte| 5.5.12 @ 4:29PM
Well obviously, you're the circus CLOWN, since this editorial ia again NOT ABOUT ABORTION, idiot[re-read the damned thing] !!!!!!!!!
Fruit of the Spirit| 5.5.12 @ 4:45PM
What's important to God is important to me and should be important to you as well. And He will do the sorting out of who are really the clowns and who are not, won't He?
The subject & issue of abortion has everything to do how we choose our elected leaders, and if it doesn't, then you're part of the problem.
Trinacria| 5.7.12 @ 1:57PM
Fruit,
How lovely for you that you've been granted exclusive insight into the mind of God and "what's important to Him". I rather suspect it makes life rather boring for you, though, what with knowing all the answers and all. But then again, I suppose it's a small price to pay for having the exclusive priviledge of being a confidant of the Almighty...
P.S. What's God's view on the Celtics' chances in the NBA finals (will postpone call to my bookie pending your reply).
fiscal| 5.4.12 @ 12:19PM
Not only should the government not be a party to providing a nanny state, it should also not be a party to preventing individuals from making their own moral decisions regarding abortion and marriage. The inconsistency of having smaller government for the things I don't agree with and larger government for the things I do agree with is the height of idiocy.
Paul Ryan's budget is wrong because it does not balance the budget in a reasonable period of time and does not cut corporate welfare or military spending. Furthermore, assuming we can actually cut spending, it does not open the possibility of people actually paying for those things they desire through added revenue. We've spent more than we take in. In what universe does it make sense not to pay for our overspending in the past? And yes, Obama's budget is even worse -- but not by that much if you actually look at the numbers.
The mistake that Hillyer makes is that he wants theology to be an important part of a secular government -- his theology, that is....
P Myshkin| 5.4.12 @ 1:52PM
How is it hypocritical to demand that the state exercise its duty to protect the lives of its people? It is a core duty of government to protect its people from unjust harm and attack at the hands of another. I appreciate that for you the unborn child is something other than a person, and it is not my intent to argue this point, but in calling Mr. Hillyer a hypocrite you do violence to his position; you ignore the fact that for many who are enemies of abortion, the terminated child is a person, and if I believe it to be a person, it is entirely morally consistent to demand that the government safeguard the right to life for that person; in fact, it would be hypocritical to believe that the unborn child is a person, but accept that, unlike any other person, she can be proactively killed. I certainly expect that were my life threatened that the government would not act in the interests of the one who threatened me either by restricting my right and means to defense or ignoring my request for assistance, yet you would have Mr. Hillyer not be a hypocrite by doing exactly that: believe the unborn to be a person but ignore the person’s right to life. It is thus not hypocritical to see small government w/a precisely defined role as an ideal while at the same time believing that one of those roles is defending its people against attack.
Trinacria| 5.4.12 @ 2:48PM
Check mate, fiscal.
fiscal| 5.4.12 @ 3:47PM
I'm afraid not, Trinacria....
MRD| 5.4.12 @ 4:04PM
This is not checkmate at all. The point is if the unborn child is a human being the government has a positive obligation to prevent you from killing it. In fact when the federal government was significantly smaller the state governments did just that. It is only since the imperialist federal supreme court in 1973 revoked state laws governing abortion that we have the situation we currently do.
As a practical matter, the idea that you will have a country in which moral libertarianism is wed to fiscal conservatism is a fantasy. For people to remain free they must remain good. When it becomes widely accepted that we can actually kill people because they are defective ( as we now have open season on the mentally disabled in utero) it is relatively small potatoes to think that it is somehow ok to rob someone blind via the tax system. When there is no morality, then it will soon come to pass that 51% of the population will have no problem discovering it can use the political process to take from the other 49%. Indeed this may have come to pass already.
In the end the kind of nightmare world of a libertarian morally decadent Ayn Rand is not a whole lot better than the nightmare world of the soft totalitarianism imagined by the likes of the Obaminites. I reject both
fiscal| 5.4.12 @ 4:21PM
Again, you hold to YOUR theological position life begins at conception. I believe that to be just as morally wrong -- perhaps more so -- than to withhold heathcare from anyone who needs it. If you were a Muslim, Jew, or an Atheist, you would not hold to that position. Personally, I have a real problem with 2nd and 3rd term abortions. In fact, since the fetus is viable in the 3rd term, I would not have a problem making it virtually impossible to obtain an abortion then. But what we are really talking about here, is 1st term abortions, and we are of differing theologies there.
I would also challenge you that social conservatism, of the type practiced by most extreme right wing conservatives, is wholly inconsistent with fiscal conservatism. There is mathematically no way to balance our current budget without raising revenue. Yes, the government should be a lot smaller, but have you gone through the exercise of cutting out 40% of the federal budget? I have, and you would be cutting the military in half and reducing Social Security and Medicare payments as well as getting rid of the FDA who protects our food supply.
Many on the religious left would accuse those on the religious right of being morally deficient. That was the genesis of this column. Unfortunately, I think both sides are wrong.
Trinacria| 5.4.12 @ 5:23PM
"There is mathematically no way to balance our current budget without raising revenue."
The problem, fiscal, is that you appear to cling to the demostrably flawed position that raising revenue is synonymous with raising taxes. Laffer curve - look it up.
DRed| 5.4.12 @ 5:43PM
The Laffer Curve is actually a parabola. At some points along it increasing taxes will increase revenue until you reach a point after which revenue decreases. Where that point is-well that's the question.
Believing that tax cuts always increase revenue is just as absurd as believing tax increases always increase revenue.
Trinacria| 5.4.12 @ 7:53PM
I beg your pardon, comrade, but did I assert that lowering taxes always raises revenue?
To state that raising taxes does not always raise revenue (or, more precisely, that raising taxes isn't the only way to raise revenue) does not imply the converse (i.e. that lowering taxes always raises revenue). But, as you so elegantly demonstrated, that's the problem with the liberal mind; it suffers from the pernicious effects of an inability to think in the abstract. Anyone with even the most pedestrian capacity for deductive reasoning could understand that there is a point at which reducing tax rates must result in reduced tax revenue. If tax rates were reduced to zero, tax revenue would be....anyone? (I'll give you a hint, sport, it begins with zero).
There's absolutely nothing about my statement above that is inconsistent with the parabolic Laffer Curve. If you can find some inconsistency, I invite you to point it out; otherwise, go fetch me me a Slurpee.
Fred| 5.4.12 @ 11:38PM
And if MY theological position is that people who disagree with me on moral matters should be killed, who are YOU to force YOUR morality on ME. Isn't this game fun?
Look, the fact that life begins at conception is both logically and empirically irrefutable. Logically, pro-choice people have what I call the "magic moment" problem. When does that "clump of cells" become a "person"? After it is born? When it is in the birth canal? Two minutes before that? Two hours before that? Exactly when? And exactly what divine miracle causes "personhood" to commence at that precise moment? The only logical way around the magic moment problem is to assert that the fetus never "becomes" a person because it always already _is_ a person, a person at a very early stage of development, but no less a person for that than at the infant, child, adolescent, or any other stage of development. Empirically, such procedures as in vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, and embryo implantation prove that, from conception, the fetus has a life of its own independent from that of the mother. No theology necessary. Laws against abortion would no more be "big government to support what I agree with" than would laws against rape, assault, or other forms of murder. The state, and all who live in it, have a vested interest in the protection of innocent life.
Fred| 5.4.12 @ 11:39PM
The above was meant as a reply to fiscal, not Trincaria.
Trinacria| 5.4.12 @ 5:19PM
Uh...did you read the post? Your arguing with folks who support your position. C'mon, sport. Keep up.
Fruit of the Spirit| 5.5.12 @ 4:12PM
Hey, sport: What exactly do you not get about God's Commandment: "Thou shall not Murder"?
Trinacria| 5.7.12 @ 2:05PM
Never been a fan of that one, Fruit. I lobbied him rather vigorously to replace it with "Thou shall not post inane comments under the pseudonym "Fruit of the Spirit" to conceal the one's true identity (which, I hasten to note, anyone who has read your rambling incoherent manifestos knows all too well)". Regrettably, he found that one to be far too specific and not applicable to mankind in general. Pity that.
fiscal| 5.4.12 @ 3:47PM
You hold to a theological position that life begins at conception. There are some on the religious left who hold a theological position that withholding healthcare or going to war causes the early termination of life. You rationalize your position by changing scientific principles to your liking. There are many of us who hold theological positions to the contrary. It is hypocritical to force one's theology on another who doesn't believe the same way whether you are part of the extreme right or the extreme left. Everyone believes that once someone is born, they are a life to be protected -- unless, that is, you don't think that if they get sick with no healthcare, it is all right for them to die....
MRD| 5.4.12 @ 4:13PM
I am a physician my theology has nothing to do with my position on abortion, it has everything to do with Ken Moore's understanding human embryology.
It is your position that is "theological' I would say since there is no meaningful morally significant difference between a premature infant at 24 weeks gestation who resides in neonatal intensive care unit, from another premature infant who resides in utero that killing either must be wrong, indeed is murder. It is you who sees some sort of "metaphysical" difference, based on what exactly? I think it is your position that is purely an arbitrary preference and mine that is objective. Please explain why this is not true. The Catholic church opposes abortion simply because it opposes murder period. It does not define as some sort of dogma that a human fetus is a human being. Common sense and science does that. I know of no physicians who deny an unborn child is a human being even the most vigorously pro-abortion docs admit the obvious. The pro-abortion docs I know simply think its ok to kill some human beings if society thinks its ok. If rejecting his view is "religious" and therefore out of bounds, well so much for all the laws against homicide
fiscal| 5.4.12 @ 4:28PM
Of course theology informs your position on abortion. There is no true scientific definition of "life" as science only speaks to levels of development. I have just as much of a problem with 3rd trimester abortions as you as the fetus is clearly viable. The scientific benchmarks could be at about 24 weeks when the fetus gets the ability to do rudimentary thinking, or it could be viability supported by machines, or it could be viability without machines.
And I do know a number of physicians who consider a first trimester fetus to be just a collection of developing cells, and not a full human being. We must travel in different circles.
Trinacria| 5.4.12 @ 5:27PM
"There is no true scientific definition of "life" as science only speaks to levels of development."
So let me just make one up and use that as the benchmark ("could be at about 24 weeks") while criticizing your definition as arbitrary...
Brilliant, sport; absolutely brilliant. I know a lot of physicians who would consider you to be just a collection of maldeveloped cells...
JP| 5.5.12 @ 10:07AM
Actually, biologists do define life when a unique strain of DNA is created, which occurs very soon after conception.
Mossad| 5.4.12 @ 5:53PM
Bad argument fiscal. Clint is still not doing rudimentary thinking.
Clint| 5.4.12 @ 9:39PM
Do Your Homework Israel Firster Smear Bund Liar, Mossad.
You Ain't Gonna Use Religious Conservatives As Your "Useful Dupes" Again This Time.
RINO-CINO Romney On Abortion-2002.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4
On The Other Hand.
"In 2005, 2007, 2009, and again in 2011, Dr.Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would have life defined as beginning at conception at the Federal level."
Fred| 5.4.12 @ 11:46PM
But what if it's _not_ conceived at the federal level?
Oldefarte| 5.5.12 @ 4:27PM
Clint not doing rudimentary thinking? Correction, he does not THINK period, since same is impossible. He's a DA radical white supremacist second coming of DAVIDDUKISM. How is that THINKING. As he asininely states......DO YOUR HOMEWORK [on him]????????
W| 5.4.12 @ 6:30PM
We had this discussio before. You choose to define "life" to suit your argument. There is no question when life begins, you are aruging for a legal definition of a human being. This is the same argument in the Dred Scott decision where the Court ruled a black slave was personal property and not a person. This is the intellectual ancestor for your argument about what is a human being, and worse you leave it to the government and a court to decide.
W| 5.4.12 @ 6:30PM
directed to fiscal obviously.
Oldefarte| 5.5.12 @ 11:27AM
Okay, if your narrowed subject of choice is abortion, then same is contraception/birth control of last resort. The problem is the immorality of sexual activity, not abortion! If you wish to protect the unborn and prevent abortion, then take your argument-fight to Hollywood, to academia, and to liberalism. Do you and yours watch Hollywood's produced movies and TV programming which protrays a liberal atmosphere of sexual activity, which youngsters view and grwo up thinking is the norm and okay to imitate? Then if they do do so and thereafter become pregnant and access abortion, what is the initial source of the problem? Put your horse before your cart in defining this issue!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 5.4.12 @ 4:12PM
I disagree! IMHO he is editorializing upon the Catholic Church's representatives critisism of Ryan's declaration that his budget conforms to true Church dogma. You are correct in that religious principles should not be part of government policies period. This government-Church connection involves the government attempting to become a church/religion through its dispensation of charitable governmental benefits aka WELFARE. Ryan should not have connected his budget to the Catholic Church or religion and the Church should stay out of governmental policy programing, period. Its called seperation of church and state. If the government would get out to of the charity business of granting welfare, then maybe this would all be a moot point!!!!
Petronius| 5.4.12 @ 1:32PM
What matters most to academics is their standing in the pecking order of their own cohort. Show me an intellectual with a wall full of degrees and I'll show you a charlatan with several shades of brown lipstick to apply as the occasion warrants.
What the entire country needs is a tough tongue lashing from the late Sister Consuelo, C.S.J. On the first day of 8th grade she strode into class, slammed her stainless steel combat yardstick on her desk and declaimed, "boys and girls, the World does Not Owe you a living!" But She was economically literate and understood that the world is an arena, not a sand box in a kindergarten, and the market is not an Easter egg hunt.
The left is totally fraudulent and criminal. They extort and confiscate the earnings of the producers, hand a tenth of it to the parasites in exchange for their votes, and claim they are charitable and do God's work with other people's money in expectation of admiration and love from the underclass. The Left will continue to win and conquer because they know that most people don't care how heavily their wallets are taxed so long as their minds are not. The academy could also care less because they want sheeple instead of competent thoughtful adults. All schools which get any public subsidy are the progeny of Woodrow Wilson and the first generation of determinist oligarchs. Ask Sandra Fluke. She'll tell you.
Doug| 5.4.12 @ 1:35PM
The Preposition Problem: Some folks talk WITH others; some AT them.
One is concerned about the recipient, engagement and dialogue, the other about one's own thoughts and positions and 'forcing' them on those they disagree with.
One is 'other' oriented the other is 'me' oriented.
One is light, the other darkness.
How to respond? I personally like A Lincoln's story/metaphor about the five-legged dog.
Starting from a position that is morally untenable where one violates the free will of another, all other moral positions must also in turn be immorally appropriated
There is no mystery here: sadly.
storage steve| 5.4.12 @ 1:57PM
Quin, by having the gov't take care of the poor the catholic church is actually doing the opposite of what Christ asked. Jesus wanted people to be charitiable with what they had since this showed their commitment to Him. People now give less to churches and charities because they say they are paying for it through the gov't. All this does is take the responsibility from christians and pass it to the gov't. This becomes a very convienent excuse for many christians. It also keeps people from being personally involved with the charities through the giving of their time, as they feel they have no control of how the gov't money is spent.
Oldefarte| 5.4.12 @ 4:02PM
Steve is absolutely correct in his theory, and that precisely is what liberals/Democrats wish to occur.....and that is the replacement of religious churches with the government. The government/state therefore becomes a RELIGION of sorts, with all citizens required to, instead of attending their churches, to instead worship the government. This coinsides with the liberals political attacks upon religions and churches through political correctness activities, diminishing the importance and status of these churches over time. Give to the government, not to your church is the implied cry/mantra of the government!!!!!!!!!!!
Trinacria| 5.4.12 @ 2:28PM
Mr. Hillyer,
An extremely well reasoned, well written, and insighful article. Spot on.
Oldefarte| 5.4.12 @ 3:54PM
Thank you Quin for bringing up this subject that indeed needs to be discussed, for it is IMHO the heart of most all political discussion between liberal and conservative. The latter believes that government should be used as a charity vehicle that funds the needs of indigents, whereas the former mostly does not. Charity should be a VOLUNTARY thing, not something forced upon an individual through governmental taxiation; and that is what has been and is happening today. Instead of a voluntary giving by one through religious churches or to various charitable organizations, liberals wish to mandate that every taxpayer become a charitable giver whether same wants to or not. Liberals are not demanding thus out of the goodness of their collective hearts, but rather as a means to an end of increasing their political power. After legislating charitable payments [ie welfare] to indigents, these liberals thereafter demand to be repaid by these governmental benefit receivers by the indigents voting for Democrat candidates [as the providers of governmental benefits/welfare]. It's called QUID-PRO-QUOISM! These liberals currently are tongue-lasing out at conservatives in their typical guilt laden messaging of THE NEED TO GIVE MORE, IE PAY MORE INCOME TAXES. Do these liberals truly care about the needs of the poor. Hades no, never will and never have......it's all about increasing their/Democrats' political power through the election of their candidates! The whole idea of governmental welfare is a corrupt concept and always has been, sonce from its inceptions [in the 1960 or beyond] welfare was oroginally intended to be TEMPORARY, not PERMANENT. Now whole generations are being supported from same, again at taxpayers' expense. Let discuss Catholic Theology 101, shall we? In a freshman class at my Catholic university of graduation, I was taught [and repeatedly so] that for every ''''''RIGHT'''''' that one supposedly has, that they also have a corrosponding and equal ''''''REPSONSIBILITY'''''' also. Example: If there is a RIGHT to attend free public school, then there is also a corresponding and equal RESPONSIBILITY to learn in that public school as much as is humanly psooible, to become educated and thereafter to be educationally qualified to go forth into the world, work, earn a financial living, pay taxes that support the public good and to become a productive citizen. Liberals in propogandizing the theory of RIGHTS fail to acknowledge the equal and corresponding REPSONSIBILITIES connected to said rights. One does not have the RIGHT to IRRESPONSIBILY produce/birth illegitimate children and then to demand that the state/government/taxpayers pay for the financial needs of same; and that is what liberals/Democrats constantly do politically. This whole discussion regarding Paul Ryan, his budget, and whether or not is conforms to Catholic doctrines regarding charity is pure BULL EXCREMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ken| 5.4.12 @ 4:31PM
I can't seem to find that place in the Bible where Jesus absolves us from helping the less fortunate but instead commands that Caesar take on this task.
Liberals reach the height of sanctimony when they read into other people's pockets to give to the less fortunate. Yet time after time we see that lefties are quite the tightwads when it comes to giving from their own storehouses.
Oldefarte| 5.4.12 @ 5:12PM
Again, it's a VOLUNTARY thing, not a FORCED/MANDATED one dictated by the GOV'MENT, and also the poor have a REPSONSIBILITY to take care of themselves [and they NEGLECT THEIR REPOSNSIBILITY and therefore become IMMORAL by ignoring their duty!!!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 5.4.12 @ 5:14PM
PS: Yes the Kennedyisk liberals conveniently ignore the principle of DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU!!!!
sagman888| 5.4.12 @ 6:04PM
"Do they not know. . . .? No, they don't know. They haven't listened to Ryan, weighed what he's said and written about the issues. All they know is the spin, which is a damn shame for such smart, educated people. And they're smart enough to know Ryan would destroy them in a debate, so you won't see any of these people attempting to engage him directly.
Shaboe Delucks| 5.4.12 @ 6:17PM
Substitute "pink unicorns" for "religion" or "Catholic" and this article is just as valid.
WM| 5.4.12 @ 8:56PM
Has anyone else noticed that Paul Ryan is constantly the victim? It seems like more than half the stories out there are about how beleaguered he is. He and his proxies have played the victim card more than a liberal female. Poor Paul Ryan, victim.
What really offends about this RINO is that he premises his perennial victimhood on his being FALSELY accused of trying to tear down the welfare/entitlement state. In other words, we are supposed to feel bad for him because the left is wrongly accusing him of acting like a true conservative, when really he is just as committed to saving the welfare/entitlement state as they are. It's ridiculous.
Bill| 5.5.12 @ 2:09PM
Team Romney
President: Mitt Romney
VP: Bob McDonald
AG: Pam Bondi
Treasury: Paul Ryan
Secretary of State: Michelle Bachmann
RCV| 5.5.12 @ 11:14PM
Romney isn't stupid enough to even contemplate letting Michelle Bachmann anywhere near the State Department, Bill.
Oldefarte| 5.5.12 @ 4:43PM
As a continuation of my above comments regarding this editorial, the poor do not have RIGHTS to continual governmental welfare provided by income producing taxpayers, but in fact do have a RESPONSIBILITY to get off of same ASAP, and they purposely do not do so and are proded along by liberals/Democrats for selfish political purposes. Governmental welfare was/is a TEMPORARY thing. The poor have a moral obligation to contribute to the good of society and are negligent in not doing so. Instead of liberals/Democrats beating us over the head constantly with guilt feelings concerning the downtrodden poor and the need for more and more welfare, we should be demanding that these poor get off of welfare and begin working for the good of society in general. How dare they sponge off of society for the entirety of their miserable lifetimes. What give an individual the RIGHT to produce/birth multiple children to be paid for by taxpayers when these people cannot even financially support themselves, much less their children? Why is not society outraged over this situation? Simple, because liberals/Democrats constantly hit them over their heads with the political guilt baseball bat of slavery implecations. Its called Cloward & Piven Political Brainwashing Propaganda 101, and these liberals/Democrats are the expert proponents of same. Its also known as Chicago styled COMMUNITY ORGANIZING 101. We're the meanies, the rich 1%, fat-cats all and we need to PAY MORE TAXES TO BE FAIR. Its all BULLEXCREMENT, and the sooner we realize same the better off this country will become!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oregun| 5.5.12 @ 7:55PM
It is another example of the cancer that grows in our so called pillars of higher education. Socialism has become a way of life and there is no room for any other thought. After all they are enlightened and elite... just ask them.
mzk1| 5.6.12 @ 7:54AM
If I were Ryan, I would remind these false prophets, pseudo-theologians, phony "men of God", of the prohibition agaisnt bearing false witness and leave it at that.
But I'm a Pharisee, so what do I know...
mzk1| 5.6.12 @ 7:55AM
What I've always found interest is that among Jews the lay clergy is the more liberal and the academic the more conservatinve, while among Christians it appears the reverse.
Goldwaterite| 5.7.12 @ 7:28PM
Paul Ryan's brilliant presentation of the moral advantages justified through capitalism to the Catholic left at Georgetown, followed by their subsequent revulsion, reminds me of an old quip from William F. Buckley, Jr :
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there ARE other views.”
Peter Calvet | 5.8.12 @ 10:05AM
"What goes around, comes around."
Paul Ryan just received a dose of the medicine his Party has administered to this President since he took office. Every move this President has made has been vilified with overblown rhetoric. Republicans and conservatives in particular have have turned every well-meaning initiative coming from Obama and/or the Democrats as apocalyptic and apt to destroy Civilization as we know it. He has been called, un-American, Socialist, Muslim, and candidate Mitt Romney makes it a talking point that Obama goes around “apologizing” for America.
Is it no wonder that there would finally be a reckoning? That the piper would have to be paid? Is it any wonder that the more liberal and moderate minded would eventually return the favor? Ryan has just tasted what it is like to be an authority figure, savaged by criticisms, most of it undeserved and irreverently overstated. It is not a pretty sight, but this is what happens when people go after a President tooth and nail with everything including not only the kitchen sink but every sink in the house.
There is an obvious solution going forward, and it comes from Scripture: in Matthew 7:12, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” This is usually referred to as the “Golden Rule” and it applies to politics even more than it does to our daily lives.