Ron Paul Is The Only Choice For Catholics

[Adrestia]

Kids with leukemia (or other chronic diseases that alter their immune systems) can't go to day care or school if just [i]one[/i] kid is not immunized against common childhood infections. The healthy, non-vaccinated kid is protected by herd immunity, but the child with leukemia is stuck at home.

[brianthephysicist]

I'm not as up on my politics as I probably should be, but I was kind of hoping to get back to the original intent of this post.

From what I've heard, Ron Paul seems like he says what he believes very consistently, instead of pandering to the various crowds he is in front of. I've also been told that his voting record corresponds extremely well with what he has said in campaigns over the course of his 12 terms - or is it 13 terms? (again, not very up on my politics). I feel that this shows a lot more integrity than what we have seen in most recent candidates.

The only problem, is that I am still unsure of whether or not he represents what we as Catholics believe. I seem to be reading on this phorum some mixed ideas about whether his views line up with ours or not. Would anyone be able to give a side-by-side view comparing his views with other candidates? Or does anyone know of a good website in which to compare this type of information?

I like the idea of a side-by-side comparison because instead of simply picking apart a single candidate's views, it offers another option depending on which issues you hold strongest.

Thank you in advance for your help with this

[Adrestia]

I liked Ron Paul until I moved to his congressional district. He's a no-show. I might as well be represented by Donald Duck.

[rizz_loves_jesus]

Well since PM is literally not letting me quote your post Soc, I'm going to have to resort to drastic measures and put your quotes in bold. Sorry

[b]Marriage has always involved legal issues and legal recognition; it has always involves such things as inheritance of property and title, etc.[/b]

Not really. It used to just be a church issue. Marriage licenses originated in many states purely for eugenics purposes. That right there tells me that they should never have existed in the first place.

[b]And there's no way to deal with legal issues surrounding things like marital infidelity if marriage is never acknowledged in the first place.[/b]

Besides being grounds for divorce in a court, what legal issues are there surrounding marital infidelity? Adultery is legal, provided the adulterer is cheating with someone over the age of 18.

[b]And I don't think, as a married man, I should be required to get and sign a POA for such things as getting to visit my wife in the hospital.[/b]

Honestly, I sort of doubt you'd even have to. The vast majority of hospitals in the US (if not every one in the US) would recognize you as your wife's immediate family. The only marriages that would have to get a POA for those kinds of things would be controversial couples like homosexuals or polygamists.

[b](And, yes, I realize my standards on this are different than those involving homosexual couples. That's exactly the point; real marriage is fundamental to and the foundation of any healthy human society. Homosexual relations are not, and they should not be treated the same by law, as Card. Ratzinger explains multiple times in the document I linked to. In short, people should not enjoy any legal status that any other single adult does not have.)[/b]

I'm sort of confused what you're saying here. Could you elaborate on this please?

[b]I fail to see how limiting legal recognition to marriages between a man and a woman actually gives any scary new powers to government.[/b]

Well as others have said, once you let the government into marriage, they have the power to prevent anyone they see fit from getting married. I just don't see the point of letting them in, because I don't see that as their job.

[b]It would simply codify what has always been understood, against those who would redefine marriage to mean something entirely different. [/b]
[b]Legally defining marriage as between man and woman is not creating a new definition - it merely acknowledges the true definition of marriage which has always existed.[/b]

Agreed.

[b]Just as legally defining murder as the killing of an innocent person acknowledges the reality and moral wrongness of what murder is.[/b]

A murderer infringes upon another person's natural right to life. Murder is gravely wrong, but that's not why it's illegal--it's illegal because someone's rights are being infringed upon when a murder takes place.

[b]The truth is, you can't separate law and morality. All law enforces morality of some kind (that it is wrong to murder, rape, or steal, for instance), and law which does not acknowledge or enforce morality is an unjust law.[/b]

Like I said, those things are illegal because someone's rights are infringed upon--in the case of murder, the right to life. With rape, the right to liberty. With theft, the right to property.

There are plenty of immoral things that are legal, for example, premarital sex, pornography, and being an arse. If you want to legislate morality, why not go all the way? Why not make those things illegal as well?

[b]The raising of a family - which is the primary purpose of marriage - is quite costly in today's world, and the modest tax breaks given to married couples are just one small way to ease the burden on those with families and preventing it from becoming unduly costly.[/b]

For Libertarians like Ron Paul, this is a moot point. The federal income tax was never supposed to be continuous. It's been going on for almost a century. Most of us think it should be abolished.

[b]If "getting the government out of marriage" is really so important to you, then perhaps when you get married (I'm presuming you're currently single), you and your husband should simply not apply for a marriage license. Then the state will not recognize your marriage at all, and you and your spouse can enjoy the same legal status as any two single persons without government oppression.[/b]

Provided the income tax is abolished by the time I get married, I am 100% ok with this

[b]That's not the way the Church views this issue. I'll repeat what I quoted earlier from the CDF document: "The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society."[/b]

[b]If the law fails to acknowledge marriage at all, as you propose, then the law certainly cannot "recognize, promote, and protect marriage," as Card. Ratzinger teaches is not just a suggestion, but a [i]requirement[/i] to promote the common good.[/b]

Why does he not think that natural law and churches are enough? Not trying to be disrespectful or insubordinate, but I genuinely do not understand. Marriage was fine before licenses were issued.

Edited September 5, 2011 by rizz_loves_jesus

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' timestamp='1315264047' post='2300679'][b]Marriage has always involved legal issues and legal recognition; it has always involves such things as inheritance of property and title, etc.[/b]

Not really. It used to just be a church issue. Marriage licenses originated in many states purely for eugenics purposes. That right there tells me that they should never have existed in the first place.[/quote]Also to undermine the authority of the Church in marriage. Like guaranteeing divorce as a right and circumventing the Church's influence in marriages.[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' timestamp='1315264047' post='2300679'][b]And there's no way to deal with legal issues surrounding things like marital infidelity if marriage is never acknowledged in the first place.[/b]

Besides being grounds for divorce in a court, what legal issues are there surrounding marital infidelity? Adultery is legal, provided the adulterer is cheating with someone over the age of 18.[/quote]Technically under Catholic definitions divorce would [b]not [/b]be a guaranteed right, but it is with state marriages.

But if state marriage was abolished, adultery could still be handled under marriage agreements, as a violation of oath or contract as it is now in courts. While I do support the abolishing of the state institution of marriage, I do think there should be laws protecting marriage oaths and contracts.[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' timestamp='1315264047' post='2300679'][b]The truth is, you can't separate law and morality. All law enforces morality of some kind (that it is wrong to murder, rape, or steal, for instance), and law which does not acknowledge or enforce morality is an unjust law.[/b]

Like I said, those things are illegal because someone's rights are infringed upon--in the case of murder, the right to life. With rape, the right to liberty. With theft, the right to property.

There are plenty of immoral things that are legal, for example, premarital sex, pornography, and being an arse. If you want to legislate morality, why not go all the way? Why not make those things illegal as well?[/quote]In a Catholic state all these things would be illegal, if not criminal. Notorious heretics might be penalized.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Winchester]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1315257072' post='2300617']
I liked Ron Paul until I moved to his congressional district. He's a no-show. I might as well be represented by Donald Duck.
[/quote]
You mean he doesn't get special favors for you?

That's the idea.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1315267518' post='2300707']You mean he doesn't get special favors for you?
That's the idea.[/quote]
You have no idea what is going on down here. Neither does he, and that's a problem. The state of Texas, run by Rick Perry, is forcing Galveston, Ron Paul's area, to rebuild a ridiculously high number of public housing units. Due to HUD rules, they're also planning to build additional mixed income units along side the new public housing units. The island already has plenty of unoccupied homes. It's nuts. There's a lot more to the story, but I doubt you care. Ron Paul should be fighting for us - it's not a special favor, it's his job.

[Aloysius]

sounds like a state issue; why should it be a Federal Congressman's job? I believe your state congressman should be fighting for you on that issue. that is the way the system is supposed to work.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1315282298' post='2300944']
sounds like a state issue; why should it be a Federal Congressman's job? I believe your state congressman should be fighting for you on that issue. that is the way the system is supposed to work.
[/quote]
The state is selling us out to get [i]federal[/i] money. The federal money at stake is for the entire state of Texas. Federal money = federal issue = our representative to congress should at least pretend he notices or cares.


edit: It SHOULD be a local issue, I'm upset that the state is involved. They are forcing us - no one from Galveston had any input on the reconciliation agreement. My local representative is doing everything in her power to change the course... but it doesn't look good.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Adrestia

[Winchester]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1315279168' post='2300897']
You have no idea what is going on down here. Neither does he, and that's a problem. The state of Texas, run by Rick Perry, is forcing Galveston, Ron Paul's area, to rebuild a ridiculously high number of public housing units. Due to HUD rules, they're also planning to build additional mixed income units along side the new public housing units. The island already has plenty of unoccupied homes. It's nuts. There's a lot more to the story, but I doubt you care. Ron Paul should be fighting for us - it's not a special favor, it's his job.
[/quote]
Do you wish to abolish HUD?

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1315315552' post='2301047']
Do you wish to abolish HUD?
[/quote]
I'm sorry I wasn't clear earlier.

I wish that Ron Paul paid attention to his congressional district. This isn't HUD's fault; the State of Texas did this to Galveston to get FEMA money. The State of Texas is forcing us to follow HUD rules even though they are not practical for this area. The State of Texas is doing this for federal money and our federal representative has been silent on the issue.

I hope this statement is easier for you to understand.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1315317117' post='2301062']
I'm sorry I wasn't clear earlier.

I wish that Ron Paul paid attention to his congressional district. This isn't HUD's fault; the State of Texas did this to Galveston to get FEMA money. The State of Texas is forcing us to follow HUD rules even though they are not practical for this area. The State of Texas is doing this for federal money and our federal representative has been silent on the issue.

I hope this statement is easier for you to understand.
[/quote]
It is HUD's fault, and anyone who supports the special government favor that is HUD cannot complain when those favors don't benefit them. This may seem harsh, but it's a fact. Sooner or later, this central planning croutons is going to harm the people who support it. HUD has been harming people for years, and the crony system set up to make states compete for Federal money needs to end. Paul is one of the only people who will oppose that.

The comment that our State gov't should be stepping up is correct. Paul can't prevent it--he doesn't run the State. He likely has commented on it, and you will find that he opposes the very idea of what's going on and has been speaking out for years in an attempt to prevent such occurrences. Speaking out on this event is merely hacking at a branch. Moreover, the branch isn't in his jurisdiction--the HUD rules cannot simply be changed, and if Texas does the proper dance it gets the money. Paul can't control Texas and has no direct control over HUD.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Winchester

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1315318002' post='2301073']
It is HUD's fault, and anyone who supports the special government favor that is HUD cannot complain when those favors don't benefit them. This may seem harsh, but it's a fact. Sooner or later, this central planning croutons is going to harm the people who support it. HUD has been harming people for years, and the crony system set up to make states compete for Federal money needs to end. Paul is one of the only people who will oppose that.

The comment that our State gov't should be stepping up is correct. Paul can't prevent it--he doesn't run the State. He likely has commented on it, and you will find that he opposes the very idea of what's going on and has been speaking out for years in an attempt to prevent such occurrences. Speaking out on this event is merely hacking at a branch. Moreover, the branch isn't in his jurisdiction--the HUD rules cannot simply be changed, and if Texas does the proper dance it gets the money. Paul can't control Texas and has no direct control over HUD.
[/quote]


Ron Paul's general stance on the subject is clear. His actions (lack thereof) regarding his congressional district are a problem for me. You don't live here, so it's easy for you to act as if his hands are clean. Hacking at a branch can have a huge effect in a city this size.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1315319457' post='2301084']


Ron Paul's general stance on the subject is clear. His actions (lack thereof) regarding his congressional district are a problem for me. You don't live here, so it's easy for you to act as if his hands are clean. Hacking at a branch can have a huge effect in a city this size.
[/quote]
You don't live outside of Galveston, so you cannot possibly understand my perspective.

What do you think Ron Paul could do to control Texas or HUD?

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1315320905' post='2301086']
You don't live outside of Galveston, so you cannot possibly understand my perspective.
[/quote]
Wrong. I have lived outside of Galveston. I clearly said that I liked him before I moved here.
[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1315320905' post='2301086']
What do you think Ron Paul could do to control Texas or HUD?
[/quote]

Show up, learn about the issue, & make a statement. That's all I ask. I would not blame him if his statement is ignored. I do blame him for not even trying. I think that if he were to point out how hypocritical and harmful the state of Texas is being to this city, it might have an effect on this situation - especially since Perry is running for president. It won't affect HUD at all; but again, HUD did not create this problem). This is about Texas selling us (the city of Galveston) out to get their hands on federal money.