Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

It seems to me that Latin Americans are the Responsibility of their own
Governments. We just watched the leaders of the Latin American Countries
confer with Obama about their helplessness and inability of their leadership
with regard to the welfare of their citizens.

Why didn't these so-called leaders of Latin America realize on their own
that they had a problem? Why did they have to wait until Obama was able
to convince them of their neediness and ineffective leadership at that meeting?

What world leaders will Obama seek out to convince next? Where will
this stop? Why doesn't Obama go to Detroit or Chicago or to Harlem or
any other American town or city with American Citizens facing poverty
and gangs. He should offer to help out those that have fallen through
the cracks of his inadequate Presidential leadership?

Taking on the responsibility of the poor of Latin America and any other
countries Obama sees fit to include in his fishing expedition is an unfair
burden on any and every American Citizen. Giving to Obama's Charitiy
is not a prerequisite as an American Citizen.

I have my own charities and I am sure each one of you do too. When
will Americans call Obama out on his wreckless behavior? Americans
are his responsibility, not the citizens of the rest of the world.

If you care about Latin Americans, give to Catholic Charities in Latin
America. Don't donate American taxpayers money.


LOCKED
Jul 26th new

Latin America is the 'middle-east' for Catholicism in the way that the Middle East is the same for Islam, the test of whether a religion is a sufficient condition for material peace and prosperity. For centuries, Roman Catholicism was the monopoly religion of the continent, facing off a few animist religions practised by numerically insignificant and politically harmless natives. By rights, the continent should be a powerhouse of all that is spiritually and secularly good, but something must have got in the way. What? Why was the Church unable to restore an Eden on the Latin American continent? Or was the Church of Latin America a part of the problem? Where was the Vatican in all of this?


Why did God ostensibly bless the heretics of Northern Europe with the gift of technological and economic advancement, as opposed to the Catholic south, from which the seeds of Latin American Europeanisation were sown?


We could ask as Catholics why, if Islam were so wonderful, the Middle East except for Israel is politically and technologically backward, and, but for the divine gift of petroleum, would have been marginal players on the world stage and probably all in need of foreign aid, but we'd, to be impartial, also have to ask why is it, with effectively no other religion than Roman Catholicism, Latin America (with a majority European population) never took off like the Protestant European-majority colonies.


There are three nations on the North American continent, but it's the Catholic one (despite some episodes of state-sponsored anticlericalism) that is the laggard.


What, if anything, did the Church in Latin America do wrong? What, if anything, did the Vatican, overseeing the Church in Latin America, do wrong? When you are given a greenfields site, with no religious competition, for a period of several centuries in which to do your work, is the outcome a talent turned into five, or a talent buried in the ground, or a talent dropped like a ball and lost?

LOCKED
Jul 26th new
(quote) Roystan-340472 said:

Latin America is the 'middle-east' for Catholicism in the way that the Middle East is the same for Islam, the test of whether a religion is a sufficient condition for material peace and prosperity. For centuries, Roman Catholicism was the monopoly religion of the continent, facing off a few animist religions practised by numerically insignificant and politically harmless natives. By rights, the continent should be a powerhouse of all that is spiritually and secularly good, but something must have got in the way. What? Why was the Church unable to restore an Eden on the Latin American continent? Or was the Church of Latin America a part of the problem? Where was the Vatican in all of this?


Why did God ostensibly bless the heretics of Northern Europe with the gift of technological and economic advancement, as opposed to the Catholic south, from which the seeds of Latin American Europeanisation were sown?


We could ask as Catholics why, if Islam were so wonderful, the Middle East except for Israel is politically and technologically backward, and, but for the divine gift of petroleum, would have been marginal players on the world stage and probably all in need of foreign aid, but we'd, to be impartial, also have to ask why is it, with effectively no other religion than Roman Catholicism, Latin America (with a majority European population) never took off like the Protestant European-majority colonies.


There are three nations on the North American continent, but it's the Catholic one (despite some episodes of state-sponsored anticlericalism) that is the laggard.


What, if anything, did the Church in Latin America do wrong? What, if anything, did the Vatican, overseeing the Church in Latin America, do wrong? When you are given a greenfields site, with no religious competition, for a period of several centuries in which to do your work, is the outcome a talent turned into five, or a talent buried in the ground, or a talent dropped like a ball and lost?

The last shall be first?


LOCKED
Jul 26th new
(quote) Roystan-340472 said:

Latin America is the 'middle-east' for Catholicism in the way that the Middle East is the same for Islam, the test of whether a religion is a sufficient condition for material peace and prosperity. For centuries, Roman Catholicism was the monopoly religion of the continent, facing off a few animist religions practised by numerically insignificant and politically harmless natives. By rights, the continent should be a powerhouse of all that is spiritually and secularly good, but something must have got in the way. What? Why was the Church unable to restore an Eden on the Latin American continent? Or was the Church of Latin America a part of the problem? Where was the Vatican in all of this?


Why did God ostensibly bless the heretics of Northern Europe with the gift of technological and economic advancement, as opposed to the Catholic south, from which the seeds of Latin American Europeanisation were sown?


We could ask as Catholics why, if Islam were so wonderful, the Middle East except for Israel is politically and technologically backward, and, but for the divine gift of petroleum, would have been marginal players on the world stage and probably all in need of foreign aid, but we'd, to be impartial, also have to ask why is it, with effectively no other religion than Roman Catholicism, Latin America (with a majority European population) never took off like the Protestant European-majority colonies.


There are three nations on the North American continent, but it's the Catholic one (despite some episodes of state-sponsored anticlericalism) that is the laggard.


What, if anything, did the Church in Latin America do wrong? What, if anything, did the Vatican, overseeing the Church in Latin America, do wrong? When you are given a greenfields site, with no religious competition, for a period of several centuries in which to do your work, is the outcome a talent turned into five, or a talent buried in the ground, or a talent dropped like a ball and lost?

There is another theory that IQ is inversely proportional to ambient temperature.
LOCKED
Jul 26th new
(quote) Roystan-340472 said:

Latin America is the 'middle-east' for Catholicism in the way that the Middle East is the same for Islam, the test of whether a religion is a sufficient condition for material peace and prosperity. For centuries, Roman Catholicism was the monopoly religion of the continent, facing off a few animist religions practised by numerically insignificant and politically harmless natives. By rights, the continent should be a powerhouse of all that is spiritually and secularly good, but something must have got in the way. What? Why was the Church unable to restore an Eden on the Latin American continent? Or was the Church of Latin America a part of the problem? Where was the Vatican in all of this?


Why did God ostensibly bless the heretics of Northern Europe with the gift of technological and economic advancement, as opposed to the Catholic south, from which the seeds of Latin American Europeanisation were sown?


We could ask as Catholics why, if Islam were so wonderful, the Middle East except for Israel is politically and technologically backward, and, but for the divine gift of petroleum, would have been marginal players on the world stage and probably all in need of foreign aid, but we'd, to be impartial, also have to ask why is it, with effectively no other religion than Roman Catholicism, Latin America (with a majority European population) never took off like the Protestant European-majority colonies.


There are three nations on the North American continent, but it's the Catholic one (despite some episodes of state-sponsored anticlericalism) that is the laggard.


What, if anything, did the Church in Latin America do wrong? What, if anything, did the Vatican, overseeing the Church in Latin America, do wrong? When you are given a greenfields site, with no religious competition, for a period of several centuries in which to do your work, is the outcome a talent turned into five, or a talent buried in the ground, or a talent dropped like a ball and lost?

Roystan:

I thank you for your response to my post. I am having a little trouble
understanding your gist though.

Being Catholic has nothing to do with prosperity as far as I am concerned.
Being Catholic has to do with your belief in God and the Trinity and the
Afterlife.

And Christianity may be the underpinnings of the laws of North America,
but the following does not make a great deal of sense.

"By rights, the continent should be a powerhouse of all that is spiritually and secularly good, but something must have got in the way."

Are you referring to the greed of the drug lords, or why the industrial revolution
did not prosper in Central America? How can the Church be responsible for this?

This is very confusing to me and gives too much responsibility to the Vatican.


LOCKED
Jul 26th new
(quote) Roystan-340472 said:

Latin America is the 'middle-east' for Catholicism in the way that the Middle East is the same for Islam, the test of whether a religion is a sufficient condition for material peace and prosperity. For centuries, Roman Catholicism was the monopoly religion of the continent, facing off a few animist religions practised by numerically insignificant and politically harmless natives. By rights, the continent should be a powerhouse of all that is spiritually and secularly good, but something must have got in the way. What? Why was the Church unable to restore an Eden on the Latin American continent? Or was the Church of Latin America a part of the problem? Where was the Vatican in all of this?


Why did God ostensibly bless the heretics of Northern Europe with the gift of technological and economic advancement, as opposed to the Catholic south, from which the seeds of Latin American Europeanisation were sown?


We could ask as Catholics why, if Islam were so wonderful, the Middle East except for Israel is politically and technologically backward, and, but for the divine gift of petroleum, would have been marginal players on the world stage and probably all in need of foreign aid, but we'd, to be impartial, also have to ask why is it, with effectively no other religion than Roman Catholicism, Latin America (with a majority European population) never took off like the Protestant European-majority colonies.


There are three nations on the North American continent, but it's the Catholic one (despite some episodes of state-sponsored anticlericalism) that is the laggard.


What, if anything, did the Church in Latin America do wrong? What, if anything, did the Vatican, overseeing the Church in Latin America, do wrong? When you are given a greenfields site, with no religious competition, for a period of several centuries in which to do your work, is the outcome a talent turned into five, or a talent buried in the ground, or a talent dropped like a ball and lost?

Wow, Roy, you have pulled together many complex and interrelated political, social, economic and religious factors into a global justice equation! (Showing ample proof that you benefited from.your political science degree.) Do you think it is a coincidence that Latin America is the origin of our Pope? Or that he champions issues of poverty, social justice and global unity? scratchchin
LOCKED
Jul 27th new

My post isn't a direct answer to your post. For that, mea culpa. You may allow your dog to bite me, but first she'll have to find me, of course ....


My point is that if a society as a whole lives according to the laws of God, material benefits should accrue also. It won't just be holy. It'll be happy and prosperous too. Things will run well. People who need to be looked after will be looked after but everyone else will live with the dignity that befits a prince or princess of the Kingdom.


When Catholicism came to what is now South America, there was hardly anybody living there. It was a great opportunity to conduct an experiment in what Catholicism, if lived truly, would return by way of material benefits. There were no religions really to compete with, no Islam, Buddhism, Orthodox and Reformation Christianity. There weren't even many people of different cultures with whom to co-exist. Basically, there were just the settlers and their padres. In terms of the ceteris paribus (all other things being equal) assumption in conducting a scientific experiment, if you populate a land rich in natural resources with a people of the same culture and religion, with no interference from anybody else (barring a few natives), will you get a Catholic confessional society that is spiritually and materially wealthy?


Apparently not, hence all those unaccompanied minors on your doorstep. So, what went wrong? What did the Church in South America do, or not do, that allowed things such as poverty and oligarchy to exist, that, over time, now have the effect of causing large numbers of people to turn up at your doorstep? We can't have it both ways. If we say that religion is important for social happiness, and for a while back there, there was only one religion operating in the land, we have to ask why it didn't contribute to social happiness, and why, despite its presence, poverty, civil wars and state and rebel violence were endemic to the land. Otherwise, criticising Islam because Arab societies don't run all that well might be like talking about a splinter in someone else's eye while wearing a plank in our own.

LOCKED
Jul 27th new
(quote) Marianne-100218 said:

It seems to me that Latin Americans are the Responsibility of their own
Governments. We just watched the leaders of the Latin American Countries
confer with Obama about their helplessness and inability of their leadership
with regard to the welfare of their citizens.

Why didn't these so-called leaders of Latin America realize on their own
that they had a problem? Why did they have to wait until Obama was able
to convince them of their neediness and ineffective leadership at that meeting?

What world leaders will Obama seek out to convince next? Where will
this stop? Why doesn't Obama go to Detroit or Chicago or to Harlem or
any other American town or city with American Citizens facing poverty
and gangs. He should offer to help out those that have fallen through
the cracks of his inadequate Presidential leadership?

Taking on the responsibility of the poor of Latin America and any other
countries Obama sees fit to include in his fishing expedition is an unfair
burden on any and every American Citizen. Giving to Obama's Charitiy
is not a prerequisite as an American Citizen.

I have my own charities and I am sure each one of you do too. When
will Americans call Obama out on his wreckless behavior? Americans
are his responsibility, not the citizens of the rest of the world.

If you care about Latin Americans, give to Catholic Charities in Latin
America. Don't donate American taxpayers money.


Hi Marianne, I am of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, our country all ready has more problems and debt than it can handle to maintain its own integrity and care for its citizens. And I say stop them from coming in and send the ones back who are already here ASAP. On the other hand, I understand that many of these Latin Americans are oppressed and are seeking a better life. So the humanitarian and social justice issues comes in to play. And this is a nation of immigrants. There has to be more to the story; the government tends to act in what it sees as its best interest.
LOCKED
Jul 27th new
(quote) Marianne-100218 said:

It seems to me that Latin Americans are the Responsibility of their own
Governments. We just watched the leaders of the Latin American Countries
confer with Obama about their helplessness and inability of their leadership
with regard to the welfare of their citizens.

Why didn't these so-called leaders of Latin America realize on their own
that they had a problem? Why did they have to wait until Obama was able
to convince them of their neediness and ineffective leadership at that meeting?

What world leaders will Obama seek out to convince next? Where will
this stop? Why doesn't Obama go to Detroit or Chicago or to Harlem or
any other American town or city with American Citizens facing poverty
and gangs. He should offer to help out those that have fallen through
the cracks of his inadequate Presidential leadership?

Taking on the responsibility of the poor of Latin America and any other
countries Obama sees fit to include in his fishing expedition is an unfair
burden on any and every American Citizen. Giving to Obama's Charitiy
is not a prerequisite as an American Citizen.

I have my own charities and I am sure each one of you do too. When
will Americans call Obama out on his wreckless behavior? Americans
are his responsibility, not the citizens of the rest of the world.

If you care about Latin Americans, give to Catholic Charities in Latin
America. Don't donate American taxpayers money.


Well, certainly this is a very complex issue. So without getting too deep into the weeds, I will just touch on the main subject line of your thread....

As you asked >>> "Are the People of Latin America the Responsibility of American Taxpayers?"
------------------------------


Using a double negative, I would say that we (U.S. taxpayers) don't have no responsibility for the people of Latin America. In other words, I think that we have a certain amount of responsibility, but it is difficult for me to assess the level of responsibility.



Here are some reasons, in no particular order, why we do have some responsibility (aside from any moral responsibility, which I would leave to each taxpayer to assess individually):

>> The U.S. is a signatory of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees - "Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (dating back to 1951)" - see document at www.unhcr.org

>> The U.S. has a physical land connection to Central and South America.

>> The U.S. shares legal and illegal trade with Central and South America.

>> The U.S. provides a demand for illegal drugs that are grown and manufactured in Central and South America.

>> The demand for illegal drugs has a certain amount of connection to some of the violence and corruption in Central and South America.


I am in no way saying that the U.S. taxpayers are mostly responsible for the messes in Central and South America or that they even have a major responsibility. I'm also not letting of the hook the highly dysfunctional governments and the rampant corruption in some of those countries. I'm just giving a few reasons why the U.S. taxpayer has some level of responsibility in this matter.

IMHO.

Ed





LOCKED
Jul 27th new
(quote) ED-20630 said: Well, certainly this is a very complex issue. So without getting too deep into the weeds, I will just touch on the main subject line of your thread....

As you asked >>> "Are the People of Latin America the Responsibility of American Taxpayers?"
------------------------------


Using a double negative, I would say that we (U.S. taxpayers) don't have no responsibility for the people of Latin America. In other words, I think that we have a certain amount of responsibility, but it is difficult for me to assess the level of responsibility.



Here are some reasons, in no particular order, why we do have some responsibility (aside from any moral responsibility, which I would leave to each taxpayer to assess individually):

>> The U.S. is a signatory of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees - "Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (dating back to 1951)" - see document at http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

>> The U.S. has a physical land connection to Central and South America.

>> The U.S. shares legal and illegal trade with Central and South America.

>> The U.S. provides a demand for illegal drugs that are grown and manufactured in Central and South America.

>> The demand for illegal drugs has a certain amount of connection to some of the violence and corruption in Central and South America.


I am in no way saying that the U.S. taxpayers are mostly responsible for the messes in Central and South America or that they even have a major responsibility. I'm also not letting of the hook the highly dysfunctional governments and the rampant corruption in some of those countries. I'm just giving a few reasons why the U.S. taxpayer has some level of responsibility in this matter.

IMHO.

Ed





Ed, That was a very cogent post. I also want to point out the reason so many children from non contiguous countries are coming is NOT because of Barack Obama but a bill George Bush signed in 2008. See link below.



www.nytimes.com.





LOCKED
Posts 1 - 10 of 184