The election is not a dead heat. but tell you what: if Walker loses, I’ll concede the issue was of major importance.
That’s a fair answer to my question. But it’s not a Catholic answer. Catholics believe that Scripture is not interpreted alone, but in the light of Holy Tradition, by the magisterium of the Church.
The Church has always taught that Christ died to redeem the sins of all mankind – His death was not limited to redeeming the sins only of faithful Catholics, or baptized Christians. There is a path to heaven for almost all people. Hell certainly exists, of course, but God’s mercy is such that we expect that vast majority of people to end up in heaven – directly, or via a stop in Purgatory.
I mean “deserves” in the moral sense – in the sense of cosmic justice. Like a child who is abused did not deserve this abuse, and the abuser deserves serious punishment.
The “legally cognizable claim” goes to our beliefs about the role of government, and isn’t what I’m asking about. I’m asking about your sense of justice.
Beyond this, assuming we agree that it is “just” that a hard-working and decent individual, regardless of talent and skill, deserves (in the cosmic justice sense) these basic necessities, there’s a further question – what should we do about this injustice if they don’t get it? Obviously, I think the government should set conditions (minimum wage, assistance, health care, etc.) such that anyone who works hard and plays by the rules gets these necessities. You don’t – but you probably feel there’s some other way for this hard-working decent person to get justice. What way is this?
But what you think is wrong. So it doesn’t need to be taken seriously.
Regards,
Shodan
Noting the egregious errors of others is part and parcel of this board. Turning that observation into a insult that is based on their membership in a group is not appropriate.
[ /Moderating ]
Out of curiosity - does the Church consider this to have applied retroactively? Not that that would matter much in purely numbers terms.
I don’t think the natural universe is just. If a good, hard-working, decent husband and father is trapped in a burning building, the world of nature will not hearken to his cries; the laws of physics will not bend because his life has been exemplary.
So I’m willing to say that in some cosmic, unattainable sense, sure, someone who works hard and does everything right, insofar as he is able to discern what “right” is, ‘deserves’ the rewards you mention.
But the natural world is not remotely affected by that standard.
There isn’t. Sometimes, what we see as “justice” is simply not available. And I’m not generally willing to give Fred “justice” by ordering Sam to give him money out of Sam’s pocket so that Fred’s “justice” is attained, because that’s not justice towards Sam. To whom does Sam look, then, for his own justice?
Are you asking about people who died prior to Christ’s time on Earth?
Obviously not. In referring to a cosmic justice, I mean based on your understanding of what justice means in a broad moral sense. I think you get what I mean.
From my point of view, they both look to society. Society (or at least my ideal society) deems everyone contribute, to some degree, to “correct” situations that would otherwise be unjust, like Fred’s here. So Sam, and everyone else, chip in a bit for Fred and the others when they’re down on their luck – not to equalize everything, but just to make sure they’re getting by – and then when Sam is suffering, Fred and everyone else chip in to keep him going.
Yes. I’m sorry for the unclear question.
There’s a Scandinavian country, IIRC, that guarantees a basic minimum income for all citizens. I Can only imagine what magellan and Bricker think of that. That country must be a real hellhole, eh?
The timing and course of an unexpected conflagration are often things we have somewhat limited control over. The behavior of sociopaths intent on spreading misery in pursuit of personal gain is something we can realistically exercise somewhat greater control over. Society is not expected to hold up a mirror to nature, it is meant to improve upon it. Your jehovallah, the book says, made humans special, as compared to the rest of creation, from a religious perspective, you should be interested in improving upon the natural order, not just re-implementing the code of the jungle on top of society – that is just uncivilized.
Surely you’re against my imposing my religious views on secular policy, though. I mean, am I not supposed to keep my religion out of politics?
Give it a try, and get back to us. Think of it as an experiment.
I am saying you ought to show some moral consistency. You are clearly a catholic on abortion, but when it comes to otherwise working toward a more just and stable society, you seem to do what you want. Which kind of smacks of “cafeteria catholicism”.
Yeah, sometimes religious ideals conform to and converge with the things that make society fair and just. We should not reject an idea out of hand merely because some scribe copied into a sacred text. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a good one, though its origin is kind of lost in the mists of history.
And even if he wins, don’t you think the minimum-wage issue will shave his margin?
Not at all. I disfavor abortion for non-religious reasons.
Nope. I don’t see anyone who would otherwise vote for Walker to be dissuaded by this issue.
You don’t? Well, I guess that settles* that*!
It’s difficult to tell, but either that, the debate, or some other factor cut his polling margin recently from 5 percent to a tie. That’s drastic, all things considered.
Oh, and this:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17820252&postcount=220