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

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

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

Oct 20th 2012 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: Actually, charity places an obligation on each and everyone of us to help others. Since e...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

Actually, charity places an obligation on each and everyone of us to help others. Since each of us can do little, the church and other charities exist to do things we cannot do ourselves. But that does not remove our individual responsibilities to interact with individuals, as individuals and provide them charity when needed and within our means.

--hide--


Yes there are specific circumstances under which we would owe such to another person, such as giving support to those in grave poverty or the type of behaviour demanded in human interaction in general. But there is no duty to support those who have a natural recourse to support from family or the Catholic Church or from their own work, however, we can be merciful and freely help them.

Oct 20th 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: Simple, the House of Representatives would choose a president by majority vote. Our presidentia...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

Simple, the House of Representatives would choose a president by majority vote. Our presidential elections are not democratic. We vote for electors to fill an Electoral College, the electors vote for whomever they please. If no citizen voted for presidential parties or candidates, no electors could be chosen, and the choice would fall to our other elected representatives in the House of Representatives.

Either way, the citizens are kidding themselves if they think they choose the president and can vote him out if he does poorly.

--hide--

Technically speaking, as laid out in the Constitution, you are correct, an elector can vote for whomever they please. But in actual practice and as a matter of law in all the states or under the rules of the party that selects them they cannot.

On the ballot you vote for a candidate. The elector's name appears on no ballot in any US Jurisdiction. In any case, the elctors actual voteis are a mere formality since in every state by law the Elector's votes go either to the winner in that particular state or proportional to the popular votes as cast.

Oct 20th 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: (Quote) Paul-850415 said: In an effort to explain the significance of t...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

Quote:
Paul-850415 said:

In an effort to explain the significance of the concept of "civic duty", what do you believe would be the ultimate ramification if everyone followed your lead and not one person voted?

Simple, the House of Representatives would choose a president by majority vote. Our presidential elections are not democratic. We vote for electors to fill an Electoral College, the electors vote for whomever they please. If no citizen voted for presidential parties or candidates, no electors could be chosen, and the choice would fall to our other elected representatives in the House of Representatives.

Either way, the citizens are kidding themselves if they think they choose the president and can vote him out if he does poorly.

--hide--


Oops, my error, the Constitution does not say electors are chosen by popular vote! I just checked Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution, along with the 12th Amendment. It says they are appointed by the states " in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." Interesting. So maybe the popular vote does nothing at all.

Oct 20th 2012 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: Technically speaking, as laid out in the Constitution, you are correct, an elector can vo...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

Technically speaking, as laid out in the Constitution, you are correct, an elector can vote for whomever they please. But in actual practice and as a matter of law in all the states or under the rules of the party that selects them they cannot.

On the ballot you vote for a candidate. The elector's name appears on no ballot in any US Jurisdiction. In any case, the elctors actual voteis are a mere formality since in every state by law the Elector's votes go either to the winner in that particular state or proportional to the popular votes as cast.

--hide--


Thanks for the info.

Oct 20th 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: (Quote) Paul-866591 said: Technically speaking, as laid out in ...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

Quote:
Paul-866591 said:

Technically speaking, as laid out in the Constitution, you are correct, an elector can vote for whomever they please. But in actual practice and as a matter of law in all the states or under the rules of the party that selects them they cannot.

On the ballot you vote for a candidate. The elector's name appears on no ballot in any US Jurisdiction. In any case, the elctors actual voteis are a mere formality since in every state by law the Elector's votes go either to the winner in that particular state or proportional to the popular votes as cast.




Thanks for the info.

--hide--


I just read this:

Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
DELAWARE
GEORGIA
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MINNESOTA

MISSOURI
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
NORTH DAKOTA
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
WEST VIRGINIA

Oct 20th 2012 new
(Quote) Laura-857740 said: Hi Wendy. Yes we agree on the core issue. I also believe that in addition to making abortion illegal, we need to...
(Quote) Laura-857740 said: Hi Wendy. Yes we agree on the core issue. I also believe that in addition to making abortion illegal, we need to address the issues these people will have. Some rape victims have been known to kill, injure, or mentally and emotionally abuse the children they had, some improperly blame the child for the rape. Great to bring the child into the world, but we need to provide help so that they are protected and the mother is on the road of recovery. This may mean that we need to support them for their entire lifetime. Support does not mean money only. Counseling is key. We cannot forget we have the responsibility to help others. We're here for each other and God's will, not for ourselves and our own agenda and goals.
--hide--


Some perhaps, but I'm betting the vast majority of women who decide to keep a child conceived by rape are loving and nurturing mothers.
Oct 20th 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:Yes there are specific circumstances under which we would owe such to another person, such as givin...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:
Yes there are specific circumstances under which we would owe such to another person, such as giving support to those in grave poverty or the type of behaviour demanded in human interaction in general. But there is no duty to support those who have a natural recourse to support from family or the Catholic Church or from their own work, however, we can be merciful and freely help them.

--hide--

Sorry, that is not Christ's command or the Church's teaching. The obligation rests first on the individual and any organiztion like the Church or other charity or even the Government only when individuals cannot.

The Commandments are personal. That is, they apply to each of us as individuals and only by extension to groups of people. That is, because we are individually obligated the obligation transfers to a group because each of the members of the group are obligated.

As you posit it, the Good Samaritan should have gone to the local Synagogue ot Temple and sought help for the person who had been set upon by robbers and left for dead at the side of the road.

Oct 20th 2012 new
(Quote) Edward-512961 said: Some perhaps, but I'm betting the vast majority of women who decide to keep a child conceived by rape...
(Quote) Edward-512961 said:

Some perhaps, but I'm betting the vast majority of women who decide to keep a child conceived by rape are loving and nurturing mothers.
--hide--


Adoption is an option...especially in those cases.
Oct 20th 2012 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: Sorry, that is not Christ's command or the Church's teaching. The obligation rest...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

Sorry, that is not Christ's command or the Church's teaching. The obligation rests first on the individual and any organiztion like the Church or other charity or even the Government only when individuals cannot.

The Commandments are personal. That is, they apply to each of us as individuals and only by extension to groups of people. That is, because we are individually obligated the obligation transfers to a group because each of the members of the group are obligated.

As you posit it, the Good Samaritan should have gone to the local Synagogue ot Temple and sought help for the person who had been set upon by robbers and left for dead at the side of the road.

--hide--

No, the grave poverty in which the man was left who was beset by the robbers indicated the duty of the good Samaritan. Either the Samaritan act, or the reasonable conclusion is that the man would die or come to some other grave harm.

This, however, is not the same thing regarding material support of unwed mothers in general, no matter how they came to that situation. When it comes to non-family, if she is not in grave poverty, mercy/alms can be bestowed on her, but non-family has no duty to support those who have family to support them.

The human interaction element is also dictated by charity, as you say, so we could not look down on the unknown unwed mother. She could be a rape victim. But she could also be an unrepented grave sinner. Charity demands the benefit of the doubt regarding her good name.


Oct 20th 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: No, the grave poverty in which the man was left who was beset by the robbers indicated the duty...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

No, the grave poverty in which the man was left who was beset by the robbers indicated the duty of the good Samaritan. Either the Samaritan act, or the reasonable conclusion is that the man would die or come to some other grave harm.

This, however, is not the same thing regarding material support of unwed mothers in general, no matter how they came to that situation. When it comes to non-family, if she is not in grave poverty, mercy/alms can be bestowed on her, but non-family has no duty to support those who have family to support them.

The human interaction element is also dictated by charity, as you say, so we could not look down on the unknown unwed mother. She could be a rape victim. But she could also be an unrepented grave sinner. Charity demands the benefit of the doubt regarding her good name.

--hide--

No charity does not demand we give her the benefit of the doubt but to provide for her needs whether she is a graver sinner or not. Atthe same time we are required not to judge the state of her soul but can and should judge her acts.

As for the Good Samaritan, it is so very interesting how your mind works. It appears to me that If you agree with something you are more than willing to bend the rules you set out. But when you disagree, you will go to any lengths to insist that we must follow the rules to the letter.

I would also point out that virtually every homeless person on the street has some family somewhere that can and should support them. So applying your rule (and remember its your rule not mine) we should do absolutely nothing to help them.

Doesn't fly! Although I know you will find all kinds of reasons why it does.

Posts 61 - 70 of 71