- Thread starter
- #41
We both know there is a lot of difference between most Catholics and most Evans and fundamentalist. Don't try and deny it.
So sorry, dunce.
I'm not allowing you to squirm out from under this absurd attempted lie:
"...the RC philosophy of socialism."
the monastic life------is entirely SOCIALISTIC ---. Socialism has definite roots in Christianity and Judaism.
The tithe as a religious requirement is also a socialist concept. In agriculture the gleaners corner REQUIRE-
MENT is also a form of socialism There are societies that are entirely NON-SOCIALISTIC having no actual
material "sharing" laws and religious requirements? I cannot think of any
"There are societies that are entirely NON-SOCIALISTIC having no actual
material "sharing" laws and religious requirements? I cannot think of any"
A fallacious argument, because you don't recognize that theft by coercion is not the same as voluntary giving.
Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that human needs were taken care of by other human beings- not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.
Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..
Here's the Biblical....and American....system of taking care of those who need help:
1. Well, how was "welfare" formerly handled? Noted in the minutes of the Fairfield, Connecticut town council meeting: "April 16, 1673, Seriant Squire and Sam moorhouse [agreed] to Take care of Roger knaps family in this time of their great weaknes...." "Heritage of American Social Work: Readings in Its Philosophical and Institutional Development," by Ralph Pumphrey and W. Muriel Pumphrey, p.22.
2. November, 1753, from the Chelmsford, Massachusetts town meeting: "payment to Mr. W. Parker for takng one Joanna Cory, a poor child of John Cory, deceased, and to take caree of her while [until] 18 years old."
See The Social Service Review XI (September 1937), p. 452.
3. The Scots' Charitable Society, organized in 1684, "open[ed] the bowells of our compassion" to widows like Mrs. Stewart, who had "lost the use of her left arm" and whose husband was "Wash'd Overboard in a Storm."
Pumphrey, Op.Cit., p. 29.
4. And here is the major difference between current efforts and the earlier: charity was not handed out indiscriminately- "no prophane or diselut person, or openly scandelous shall have any pairt or portione herein."
The able-bodied were expected to find work, and if they chose not to, well....it was considered perfectly appropriate to press them to change their mind.
Olasky, "The Tragedy of American Compassion," chapter one.
Please stop pretending that the Liberal "charity" and 'welfare system' is based on anything but accruing votes.