Politics

[Bluto]

That's not too encouraging. See: Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc.

This is a bunch of baloney. Socialist Europe has several countries that outperform the US in just about every quality of life and social mobility metric out there. What has consistently gotten those countries you listed into trouble is systemic corruption within the political system and cronyism. Now that should sound familiar to anyone who follows US politics.

 

[Wild Bill]

I'll take a sincere socialist* like Sanders over a corrupt mandarin like Hillary every day of the week.

*And to be honest, even though he self-identifies as one, Sanders views aren't very socialistic compared to his European counterparts.

Sanders is a career politician. I question his sincerity, no different than Ms. Clinton or the 2000 candidates in the GOP.

Nice interview from Democracy Now:

So, what we’ve seen—and Bernie said it quite right—is a massive change in the tax structure, benefiting the richest and putting the burden on the middle and the bottom. And all we are asking—people like Bernie Sanders or, for that matter, me—is that we go back to what we had, especially when you remember that the '50s and ’60s, when we taxed the rich, we had rates of economic growth much faster than we've had now that we don’t tax them anymore. We have lower kinds of economic development, because we help the rich, which is bizarre, because the argument for helping the rich has always been that’s what you need to do to get economic growth, but the actual history of the United States is the reverse.

This is why I question his sincerity. The numbers clearly show the so called rich are carrying the tax burden for the rest of the country.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.html

The top-earning 1 percent of Americans will pay nearly half of the federal income taxes for 2014, the largest share in at least three years, according to a study.

According to a projection from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of Americans will pay 45.7 percent of the individual income taxes in 2014—up from 43 percent in 2013 and 40 percent in 2012

The bottom 80 percent of Americans are expected to pay 15 percent of all federal income taxes in 2014, according to the study. The bottom 60 percent are expected to pay less than 2 percent of federal income taxes.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

So the Catholic church opposes in vitro and surrogacy? Can you expand on the reasoning behind that? Furthermore, what are their thoughts on in vitro where the egg and sperm of the actual parents are used? Which is a very common practice for couples struggling to conceive, but without any clear obstacle (low sperm count, bad egg development, etc).

The USCCB addresses this in depth here, but the short answer is that: (1) IVF almost always results in the destruction of many fertilized embryos; and (2) by commodifying the procreative process, it does violence to the dignity of the people involved.

If a married couple is unable to conceive naturally, they ought to prayerfully discern whether they're actually being called to parenthood. If they are, they ought to adopt. There are currently 120,000 orphans in this country who are in desperate need of loving parents. To disregard that need in favor of an unnatural technological solution merely because the couple wants a child of their own bodies is, to put it mildly, not a very Christian choice.

 

[ND NYC]

Job shifts under Obama: Fewer government workers, more caregivers and temps | Pew Research Center


from Jan 2009 till Dec 2014:

"Government payrolls at nearly all levels also have been cut. Local governments have shed 446,000 jobs, about 3% of their total workforce; state governments have cut a net 121,000 jobs, with small growth in education more than offset by cuts elsewhere. And while the federal government has added 62,700 non-postal jobs, the Postal Service has reduced its workforce nearly 18%, or 129,400 jobs. The Postal Service now employs fewer than 600,000 people, its smallest payroll since 1964"

state, local and federal workforces have decreased under Obama. damn socialist.

 

[woolybug25]

The USCCB addresses this in depth here, but the short answer is that: (1) IVF almost always results in the destruction of many fertilized embryos; and (2) by commodifying the procreative process, it does violence to the dignity of the people involved.

If a married couple is unable to conceive naturally, they ought to prayerfully discern whether they're actually being called to parenthood. If they are, they ought to adopt. There are currently 120,000 orphans in this country who are in desperate need of loving parents. To disregard that need in favor of an unnatural technological solution merely because the couple wants a child of their own bodies is, to put it mildly, not a very Christian choice.

Interesting. This is one of those things I respectfully disagree with the Catholic doctrine. The argument about orphans is a good point, but disingenuous. The same thing could be said about couples that choose to not have children. Are they sinning because their marriage doesn't have the purpose of children? Should they feel a moral duty to adopt if they already have a child "of their own body"? It could be said that even couples that can conceive are making that same "unchristian" choice of wanting a child of their own body over an orphan. Just seems out of touch in this century.

What do you mean by point #1? In regards specifically to couples using the method with their own egg/sperm, when are embryos destroyed?

 

[DSully1995]

This is a bunch of baloney. Socialist Europe has several countries that outperform the US in just about every quality of life and social mobility metric out there. What has consistently gotten those countries you listed into trouble is systemic corruption within the political system and cronyism. Now that should sound familiar to anyone who follows US politics.

So the answer to a crony US government is...more government? Do you see how that might sound absurd to some? Then basically you need to prove that this politician, today, is unlike the others of the past and will re-ignite democracy and open government. Which, they all say, always.

 

[Cackalacky]

Sanders is a career politician. I question his sincerity, no different than Ms. Clinton or the 2000 candidates in the GOP.





This is why I question his sincerity. The numbers clearly show the so called rich are carrying the tax burden for the rest of the country.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.html

When accounting for numerous sources of tax "revenue" paid by an individual, our tax code is very regressive at the state and local level and marginally less so at the federal level. Here is an article from the Economist:

Taxes and the rich
Looking at all the taxes

MY COLLEAGUE suggests that America’s wealthy already pay at least their fair share of the cost for the public goods they depend on to prosper. He notes that in recent years, the top 5% of earners have received 32% of the country’s adjusted gross income, but paid 59% of federal individual income taxes. “If that’s not giving something back, what is?”, he asks.

This is a case of cherry-picking the data. Yes, the federal income-tax system is progressive through most of the income distribution—although it becomes extremely regressive at the high end, because of the low rates applied to qualified dividends and long-term capital gains (as Mitt Romney can attest).

However, federal income taxes account for just 27% of total government revenue collected in America. And the remaining three-quarters of the tax pie is quite regressive. The middle class may not pay much federal income tax. But they sure pay the payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare, which the rich can mostly skip out on since it only applies to the first $110,000 of wage income. (The Medicare levy, unlike its bigger Social Security counterpart, is not capped). The masses also pay a much greater share of their income in sales and excise taxes than the rich do, because they cannot afford to save.

The fact of the matter is that the American tax code as a whole is almost perfectly flat. The bottom 20% of earners make 3% of the income and pay 2% of the taxes; the middle 20% make 11% and pay 10%; and the top 1% make 21% and pay 22%. Steve Forbes couldn’t have drawn it up any better.

A charitable interpretation of the position that the rich already pay enough taxes is that its advocates have simply made a good-faith oversight about all those other pesky levies that the vast majority of Americans get stuck with. If they really think that a world where people earning the top 32% of income pay 59% of the taxes is fair, then they should support radical reform to make that a reality.

To start, we’d have to eliminate the flat payroll tax and its $110,000 income ceiling, and replace those revenues with the progressive income tax. We’d also need to tax dividends and capital gains as ordinary income. Then we’d have to modify sales taxes—by, say, taxing things rich people buy, like yachts, at a higher rate than things poor people buy, like generic-brand groceries.

However, I am yet to see the Cato Institute or Tax Foundation beating the drums for such policies. That suggests a somewhat less sympathetic account: that they are trying to focus public attention on a narrow slice of data that justifies letting the rich pay as little as possible, while obscuring the full picture, which leads to precisely the opposite conclusion.

Addendum: A commenter reminds me that most states do indeed exempt food from sales tax, in a rare nod to progressivity outside the income-tax system. However, it’s worth noting that Mississippi, the poorest state in the union, is one of the few that still levy the full rate.

This post has been revised to reflect the distinction between the Social Security and Medicare portions of the payroll tax.

Also he is including taxing corporations more in his assessments though that doesn't come through in the quote you pulled out. He has been remarkably consistent in his philosophy and positions. I encourage you to check him out. He is not a "career politician" in the same vein as Hilldog and everyone of the Republican Nominees.

 

[pkt77242]

Sanders is a career politician. I question his sincerity, no different than Ms. Clinton or the 2000 candidates in the GOP.





This is why I question his sincerity. The numbers clearly show the so called rich are carrying the tax burden for the rest of the country.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.html

Yes but from that same article

The CBO said that the average federal income tax rate paid by the top 1 percent has also dropped since 1979—falling from 22.7 percent in 1979 to 20.3 percent in 2011.

and

In 1979, the top one percenters earned 8.9 percent of pretax income and paid 18 percent of federal income taxes. In 2011, the top 1 percent earned 14.6 percent of income and paid 25.4 percent in 2011 of federal income taxes.

So while they are carrying the federal income tax burden it is more because they have seen growth in their income while the middle class and poor haven't seen that growth.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The same thing could be said about couples that choose to not have children.

Indeed it could. Whether or not that choice is sinful depends upon their reasoning behind it, but if a couple is incapable of performing the marital act or openly admits that their plans do not include children, then the Catholic Church will not marry them.

Are they sinning because their marriage doesn't have the purpose of children?

Again, it depends on their reasoning behind it. But in general, yes. Children are central to the purpose of Christian marriage. If you adamantly refuse to procreate or adopt, then you're either just a selfish dickhead, or you're being called to something other than marriage.

Should they feel a moral duty to adopt if they already have a child "of their own body"?

Marriage/ parenthood are vocations which require prayerful discernment. Many large Catholic families choose to adopt because they are called to do so. Others do not. There's not a uniform moral duty re adoption that applies to every married couple regardless of situation.

It could be said that even couples that can conceive are making that same "unchristian" choice of wanting a child of their own body over an orphan.

Except that's the whole point of marriage-- channeling the sexuality of a man and woman in such a way that their union improves them both as people (by forcing them to put the needs of others before their own), and provides a stable loving environment for the children that are the inevitable product of most such unions.

But I've surely just skated over massively important topics regarding metaphysics, human anthropology, and Natural Law that you disagree with as well. Catholic doctrine is medieval and realist, while your worldview (along with most of the Western world) is modern and nominalist. They're not compatible.

Just seems out of touch in this century.

Just so. It hasn't changed in 2,000 years.

What do you mean by point #1? In regards specifically to couples using the method with their own egg/sperm, when are embryos destroyed?

IVF is a numbers game. A certain number of embryos will generally fail to implant, and of those that do implant, some will fail to impregnate the woman. So fertility clinics play the odds and fertilize enough embryos to maximize the chance of producing a single child. But this process also results in a lot of couples who have to undergo multiple expensive IVF treatments because all of the embryos failed, and other couples who end up with a multiple pregnancy because more embryos succeeded than expected.

It's an imprecise process, so it involves the destruction of many fertilized embryos. Catholics believe each fertilized embryo to be a unique human life deserving of protection, so the Church has condemned the practice.

 

[woolybug25]

Indeed it could. Whether or not that choice is sinful depends upon their reasoning behind it, but if a couple is incapable of performing the marital act or openly admits that their plans do not include children, then the Catholic Church will not marry them.

So does the Catholic doctrine see marriage as nothing more than a physical & religious agreement to procreate? Would the Catholic Church refuse to marry an impotent man because of his inability to procreate? Or a women that had her ovaries removed because of cancer?

Again, it depends on their reasoning behind it. But in general, yes. Children are central to the purpose of Christian marriage. If you adamantly refuse to procreate or adopt, then you're either just a selfish dickhead, or you're being called to something other than marriage.

What if a couple is called to marriage simply because of their mutual love for eachother? Maybe they have a genetic predisposition to a horrible disease and do not want to put a child through that? What if two people who love each other with severe mental or physical disabilities, which would be detrimental to a child's upbringing, wanted to wed? Would that still be considered wrong?

Except that's the whole point of marriage-- channeling the sexuality of a man and woman in such a way that their union improves them both as people (by forcing them to put the needs of others before their own), and provides a stable loving environment for the children that are the inevitable product of most such unions.

Why is a child the only thing that can force people to put needs of others over their own?

But I've surely just skated over massively important topics regarding metaphysics, human anthropology, and Natural Law that you disagree with as well. Catholic doctrine is medieval and realist, while your worldview (along with most of the Western world) is modern and nominalist. They're not compatible.

No, i'm quite interested in those topics, and even if they differ with my worldview I am eager to learn more about the topic. Why is it that there is no room to evolve? To change philosophy based off of the world around us?

Just so. It hasn't changed in 2,000 years.

I guess that is a disconnect for me. How did people, who wrote the doctrine, know what would be moral in today's society? Morality in itself is something that evolves with conditions. Is it not?

IVF is a numbers game. A certain number of embryos will generally fail to implant, and of those that do implant, some will fail to impregnate the woman. So fertility clinics play the odds and fertilize enough embryos to maximize the chance of producing a single child. But this process also results in a lot of couples who have to undergo multiple expensive IVF treatments because all of the embryos failed, and other couples who end up with a multiple pregnancy because more embryos succeeded than expected.

It's an imprecise process, so it involves the destruction of many fertilized embryos. Catholics believe each fertilized embryo to be a unique human life deserving of protection, so the Church has condemned the practice.

How is that morally any different than a married couple who is prone to miscarriage? Would the church see their continued pursuit, despite multiple failures, morally reprehensible? What about a couple who pursues children despite their genetic predisposition to a deadly disease?

 

[GoIrish41]

This is why I question his sincerity. The numbers clearly show the so called rich are carrying the tax burden for the rest of the country.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.html

Of course they are paying 45 percent of the taxes. Because the top 10 percent are getting a record 48.2 percent of the total earnings of the entire country. The wealthiest 1 percent Americans earned more than 19 percent of the country's household income last year – their biggest share since 1928, the year before the stock market crash.

 

[IrishLax]

You can make a logical case for increasing taxes on capital gains, etc.

You cannot make a logical case for a significantly augmented sales tax on "luxury" goods, because that will flat out hurt industries and the economy as a whole. That's Economics 101.

Furthermore, you cannot make a logical case for progressive payroll taxes unless the people paying in more are going to start seeing more on the back end... which, obviously, they aren't. In fact, the argument that they are already inherently progressive in their nature is one that can be made. Rich people pay in more than they will get out, poor people pay in less and get out more.

None of these items are the actual problem. The problem is that our overall tax code is inefficient and does not work. Proposals to overhaul fail because of lobbyists from H&R Block, Evil Megacorp XYZ, etc. who have a vested interest in either 1) a tax code that is so fucked and inefficient you can build an industry around it 2) a tax code that you can easily bury tons of loopholes in for your corporation to exploit.

 

[Wild Bill]

When accounting for numerous sources of tax "revenue" paid by an individual, our tax code is very regressive at the state and local level and marginally less so at the federal level. Here is an article from the Economist:

Also he is including taxing corporations more in his assessments though that doesn't come through in the quote you pulled out. He has been remarkably consistent in his philosophy and positions. I encourage you to check him out. He is not a "career politician" in the same vein as Hilldog and everyone of the Republican Nominees.

The internal revenue code is not regressive. The bottom 50% pay less than 3% of the federal taxes collected. These citizens have no skin in the game yet politicians line up to tell them they're getting a raw deal. I just want an honest conversation. There are state and local taxes that are regressive as hell and should be re-examined.

I've done some research on him. He's not my flavor. I fundamentally disagree with his tax/spend policies. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to some safety nets (we all go through hard times and need some help) but I think increasing the scope of them is a mistake. I don't agree cap gains tax should increase (cap gains are built with income earned and subsequently taxed at the ordinary income level and we should encourage investment) or a corporate tax increase. We have to figure out a system that's competitive internationally and encourages companies to stay home. I don't know what that would be but it sure as hell isn't making them pay more.

His anti war stance is something that I agree with but I don't agree we should make drastic cuts to our military. There are benefits to having the best military in the world. Nobody could seriously deny that. But as whiskey once put it, if you walk around with a big hammer, everything looks like nail. This is what concerns me as a conservative. I don't want to use force against other countries simply b/c we have the firepower. Ideally, I'd want to keep our military powerful to deter attacks and protect borders but I'm not sure the slobs in DC can control themselves. It's a tough one.

Yes but from that same article

and


So while they are carrying the federal income tax burden it is more because they have seen growth in their income while the middle class and poor haven't seen that growth.

But the message isn't "the rich pay almost all of the taxes but they should pay more". It seems to be more along the lines of "the rich aren't paying their fair share and it's burdening the rest of us" which is misleading at best and a lie at worst. He's a politician just like the rest.

 

[Bluto]

So the answer to a crony US government is...more government? Do you see how that might sound absurd to some? Then basically you need to prove that this politician, today, is unlike the others of the past and will re-ignite democracy and open government. Which, they all say, always.

I didn't make that statement. I called baloney on pointing to "socialism" as the catalyst for the woes of the countries he listed, when in my opinion what is consistent with all those countries is corruption and cronyism. In fact those are the big issues with most "screwed up" countries regardless of their preferred economic model and it is often driven by a concentration of wealth and the power associated with that. That's the path the US is on right now and is the biggest issue facing our political system not the fake boogeyman of "socialism".

To your statement, the answer to ending the crony US government is 100% public funding of all political campaigns in my opinion. Socializing healthcare, childcare and education would do a world of good in this country in my opinion as well.

 

[woolybug25]

Speaking of taxation, how do you all feel about property tax? I personally see where it could be deemed unconstitutional in and of itself. For instance, the 7th amendment states:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

But in today's world, property taxes have continued to soar. People may be priced out of their own home simply because the taxes get too high. Or... take the example of a retiree, whom owns his residence outright. He has no mortgage or liens on his property. Per the 7th amendment, that person should not have his home taken without due compensation. But if he refuses to pay his property tax, his home would be seized.

Thoughts?

 

[RDU Irish]

The USCCB addresses this in depth here, but the short answer is that: (1) IVF almost always results in the destruction of many fertilized embryos; and (2) by commodifying the procreative process, it does violence to the dignity of the people involved.

If a married couple is unable to conceive naturally, they ought to prayerfully discern whether they're actually being called to parenthood. If they are, they ought to adopt. There are currently 120,000 orphans in this country who are in desperate need of loving parents. To disregard that need in favor of an unnatural technological solution merely because the couple wants a child of their own bodies is, to put it mildly, not a very Christian choice.

Interesting discussion, I'll draw out the orphan comment though. If orphans were not attached to the dysfunctional parents/families they were most often removed from it would be a lot easier to adopt. Most of the reason people adopt internationally (dropping 10s of thousands of dollars in the process) is because the deal is binding and irreversible with no shadows from the past lurking about constantly. Make termination of parental rights much more permanent and you would see a big drop in the number of unclaimed kids, especially if the monthly $$$s attached to them were continued to some degree.

 

[phgreek]

This is a bunch of baloney. Socialist Europe has several countries that outperform the US in just about every quality of life and social mobility metric out there. What has consistently gotten those countries you listed into trouble is systemic corruption within the political system and cronyism. Now that should sound familiar to anyone who follows US politics.

...seems like the desire has changed from guaranteed opportunity to pursue quality of life you desire to quality of life guarantees...life, liberty, pursuit of happiness...we seem to heap alot on government these days to achieve those...

I think we can take care of a few things regarding corruption and lobbyists before we embrace Bernie....JMHO.

 

[Wild Bill]

Speaking of taxation, how do you all feel about property tax? I personally see where it could be deemed unconstitutional in and of itself. For instance, the 7th amendment states:

But in today's world, property taxes have continued to soar. People may be priced out of their own home simply because the taxes get too high. Or... take the example of a retiree, whom owns his residence outright. He has no mortgage or liens on his property. Per the 7th amendment, that person should not have his home taken without due compensation. But if he refuses to pay his property tax, his home would be seized.

Thoughts?

They may escape the 7th amendment b/c the county, at least in most jurisdictions, is not seizing the property. They are selling the unpaid taxes to a private third party tax purchaser. Once the sale is made, the homeowner is given a redemption date to repay the private purchaser. Just a guess. I'm really not sure.

It's downright scary how much some people in this area pay, and there are proposed increases.

 

[NDgradstudent]

This is a bunch of baloney. Socialist Europe has several countries that outperform the US in just about every quality of life and social mobility metric out there. What has consistently gotten those countries you listed into trouble is systemic corruption within the political system and cronyism. Now that should sound familiar to anyone who follows US politics.

If you could turn Americans into Swedes, our quality of life would be higher, too.

 

[Bluto]

If you could turn Americans into Swedes, our quality of life would be higher, too.

I have no doubt you're hard at work on that. Lol.

 

[phgreek]

Speaking of taxation, how do you all feel about property tax? I personally see where it could be deemed unconstitutional in and of itself. For instance, the 7th amendment states:



But in today's world, property taxes have continued to soar. People may be priced out of their own home simply because the taxes get too high. Or... take the example of a retiree, whom owns his residence outright. He has no mortgage or liens on his property. Per the 7th amendment, that person should not have his home taken without due compensation. But if he refuses to pay his property tax, his home would be seized.

Thoughts?

I think once you are on fixed income, property value should freeze, and the increases in rate get tied to whatever social security increases you get. So if Social security increases 3%, then your property tax can increase .003% or the like.

A number of problems come about because we run the old folks out of neighborhoods...not the least of which is how to DIY.

In terms of failure to pay property taxes...I think if a person owned outright, the auction proceeds go to service the tax debt, and the remainder is given to the owner whose property was seized...not sure though. If that is not the case, then I'd think that would be in violation of the 7th amendment.

 

[Wild Bill]

I think once you are on fixed income, property value should freeze, and the increases in rate get tied to whatever social security increases you get. So if Social security increases 3%, then your property tax can increase .003% or the like.

A number of problems come about because we run the old folks out of neighborhoods...not the least of which is how to DIY.

In terms of failure to pay property taxes...I think if a person owned outright, the auction proceeds go to service the tax debt, and the remainder is given to the owner whose property was seized...not sure though. If that is not the case, then I'd think that would be in violation of the 7th amendment.

In most places, the property is not auctioned. The property taxes are sold to a tax purchaser. The property itself is still owned by the homeowner. A redemption date is provided and if the taxes are not repaid to the tax purchaser by that date, the tax purchaser takes ownership of the property free and clear of any liens. The tax purchaser, once they file their deed, owes the original homeowner nothing.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

So does the Catholic doctrine see marriage as nothing more than a physical & religious agreement to procreate? Would the Catholic Church refuse to marry an impotent man because of his inability to procreate? Or a women that had her ovaries removed because of cancer?

Sex is fundamental to marriage. An impotent man is incapable of the marital act, so the Church cannot marry him. Infertility is not an impediment to the marital act, so infertile couples can still be validly married. This article explains the difference in detail.

What if a couple is called to marriage simply because of their mutual love for each other?

If that calling includes sexual attraction to each other, and they're capable of the act, then they can be validly married.

Maybe they have a genetic predisposition to a horrible disease and do not want to put a child through that?

This assumes a utilitarian calculus that the Church finds abhorrent (disabled lives are not worth living, etc.) Human sexuality is primarily ordered toward procreation, and sex is fundamental to marriage. If a couple isn't prepared to consummate their marriage in a way that is open to the generation of new life, then they shouldn't get married.

What if two people who love each other with severe mental or physical disabilities, which would be detrimental to a child's upbringing, wanted to wed? Would that still be considered wrong?

Again, this is smuggling in assumptions about what sorts of lives are worth living. The orthodox Christian view of marriage has, for millenia, been conjugal and at least open to the possibility of new life. If you can't enthusiastically check both of those boxes, then you're not being called to marriage.

Why is a child the only thing that can force people to put needs of others over their own?

It's not and, coincidentally, marriage isn't the only option for those seeking companionship and support. I understand that most people are repulsed by the idea that some are simply unfit for marriage as deeply inegalitarian. But I think that says more about the impoverished modern concept of "love" than it does about flaws in Catholic doctrine.

No, i'm quite interested in those topics, and even if they differ with my worldview I am eager to learn more about the topic. Why is it that there is no room to evolve? To change philosophy based off of the world around us?

It has evolved, and continues to do so; but slowly and organically. Changes have to be logical outgrowths of what has come before. The modern concept of "marriage" is a radical break with orthodox Christianity. I don't see any way that a voidable legal arrangement for property rights can be reconciled with the Christian institution.

I guess that is a disconnect for me. How did people, who wrote the doctrine, know what would be moral in today's society? Morality in itself is something that evolves with conditions. Is it not?

They believed in the Revelation of Scripture, the existence of an objective moral law, and that human reason was capable of at least partially discerning that law. William of Ockham challenged that last bit, which led to nominalism undermining the second, and empiricism robbing the first of its authority.

I didn't mean my previous comment about "incompatibility" to be dismissive, wooly. I try to approach this subject with epistemic humility. I'm usually arguing a minority position based on a metaphysics radically different from the majority. So I expect others to disagree with my first principles as much (or more) than a Buddhist or a Wiccan would.

How is that morally any different than a married couple who is prone to miscarriage?

Such a couple is conceiving through the natural marital act (rather than via a technician combining biological matter in a test tube), and they aren't creating fertilized embryos en masse for a scatter shot attempt at pregnancy.

Would the church see their continued pursuit, despite multiple failures, morally reprehensible?

Not at all. Based on my understanding, the Church would commend them for taking their marital duties seriously, and probably suggest that they consider adopting if they continue experiencing difficulties with natural pregnancy.

What about a couple who pursues children despite their genetic predisposition to a deadly disease?

What's the issue? The Catholic Church is one of the few institutions left coherently arguing against the eugenic culling of disabled children in utero.

 

[RDU Irish]

Speaking of taxation, how do you all feel about property tax? I personally see where it could be deemed unconstitutional in and of itself. For instance, the 7th amendment states:



But in today's world, property taxes have continued to soar. People may be priced out of their own home simply because the taxes get too high. Or... take the example of a retiree, whom owns his residence outright. He has no mortgage or liens on his property. Per the 7th amendment, that person should not have his home taken without due compensation. But if he refuses to pay his property tax, his home would be seized.

Thoughts?

Fair points. Federal makes up 0% of a property tax bill, it is all city/county/state. I can't imagine it hasn't been challenged.

 

[phgreek]

In most places, the property is not auctioned. The property taxes are sold to a tax purchaser. The property itself is still owned by the homeowner. A redemption date is provided and if the taxes are not repaid to the tax purchaser by that date, the tax purchaser takes ownership of the property free and clear of any liens. The tax purchaser, once they file their deed, owes the original homeowner nothing.

Yea I've seen that happen. But I've also seen it go to auction. I guess different municipalities have preferred means to deal with this stuff?

I think the tax grab deal is horrible...I know people do it, I just don't respect it / them.

 

[RDU Irish]

Sex is fundamental to marriage.



If that calling includes sexual attraction to each other, and they're capable of the act, then they can be validly married.


I].

Point A) Could you let my wife in on this important Catholic doctrine?

Point B) How can you be sure if you don't test the waters?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Point A) Could you let my wife in on this important Catholic doctrine?

Only if you talk to mine first.

Point B) How can you be sure if you don't test the waters?

Sure of what? Whether or not you're sexually attracted to your fiance?

 

[Wild Bill]

Yea I've seen that happen. But I've also seen it go to auction. I guess different municipalities have preferred means to deal with this stuff?

I think the tax grab deal is horrible...I know people do it, I just don't respect it / them.

Don't judge me!

 

[woolybug25]

First of all, I understand that you are coming from the Catholic Doctrine and simply explaining the concepts as they are detailed. But my broader point is that marriage is not a Christian act alone. Buddists, Muslims, Athiests, etc all get married. I think that is where the Catholic Doctrine disconnects with the general population. Where they see it as a function of religious institution, the majority of America see it as an act of love and a contractual obligation to their union.

Sex is fundamental to marriage. An impotent man is incapable of the marital act, so the Church cannot marry him. Infertility is not an impediment to the marital act, so infertile couples can still be validly married. This article explains the difference in detail.

If that calling includes sexual attraction to each other, and they're capable of the act, then they can be validly married.

See my point above. I suppose that is a disconnect where non-Catholics see it as something entirely different than an ticket to procreate.

This assumes a utilitarian calculus that the Church finds abhorrent (disabled lives are not worth living, etc.) Human sexuality is primarily ordered toward procreation, and sex is fundamental to marriage. If a couple isn't prepared to consummate their marriage in a way that is open to the generation of new life, then they shouldn't get married.

I think this is why you will see more people continually move away from the church. Also a relevant point to the Libertarian view of why government should stay out of the "marriage business". I agree with that point, but if the church denounces one's right to union, what other choice do people have to that contract and rights therein?

Again, this is smuggling in assumptions about what sorts of lives are worth living. The orthodox Christian view of marriage has, for millenia, been conjugal and at least open to the possibility of new life. If you can't enthusiastically check both of those boxes, then you're not being called to marriage.

My comment didn't mean to infer the value of said life, but rather a couple's desire to not put a child through that pain. Say they married with the intent of children, found that they would be giving a child a painful existence, and are choosing not to do so. They cannot divorce in this case either, so what choice do they have but to live in sin?

It's not and, coincidentally, marriage isn't the only option for those seeking companionship and support. I understand that most people are repulsed by the idea that some are simply unfit for marriage as deeply inegalitarian. But I think that says more about the impoverished modern concept of "love" than it does about flaws in Catholic doctrine.

I think this is where the church struggles with modern ideology. I believe it is a difficult task to convince people that they are unfit for love simply because they do not desire children. See... the modern concept of marriage is rooted in love and rights, not the ability to procreate. The more the church stresses that fundamental difference, the more they will pull away from the modern ideals.

It has evolved, and continues to do so; but slowly and organically. Changes have to be logical outgrowths of what has come before. The modern concept of "marriage" is a radical break with orthodox Christianity. I don't see any way that a voidable legal arrangement for property rights can be reconciled with the Christian institution.

Regardless, that is where we are in today's world. Marriage has a far wider breadth in today's society outside of children. It's definitely something the church needs to address, but in what manner is outside of my pay grade. A difficult issue that they should have addressed far before the meaning of the sacrament changed to more of a legal/social event.

I didn't mean my previous comment about "incompatibility" to be dismissive, wooly. I try to approach this subject with epistemic humility. I'm usually arguing a minority position based on a metaphysics radically different from the majority. So I expect others to disagree with my first principles as much (or more) than a Buddhist or a Wiccan would.

No worries, I didn't see it as dismissive and certainly do not take any of the debate into personal context. Your approach is always well received on my end.

Such a couple is conceiving through the natural marital act (rather than via a technician combining biological matter in a test tube), and they aren't creating fertilized embryos en masse for a scatter shot attempt at pregnancy.

Not at all. Based on my understanding, the Church would commend them for taking their marital duties seriously, and probably suggest that they consider adopting if they continue experiencing difficulties with natural pregnancy.

I combined these two points because my comment addresses both. On some level, the "natural act" of child bearing is a thing of the past. Even if one abstained from prenatal vitamins, hormone therapy, ovulation medication or IVF. The act is still predominantly science-driven, even by practicing Catholics. They still will use ovulation calendars, they still will utilize technological advances to create a healthy baby. It's not a simple act of God that creates the child through natural means, imo. It's all a drawn out medical procedure at this point.

In regards to the IVF, I fail to see a fundamental difference between sending multiple fertilized eggs into a uterus with knowledge of many failing and continuously getting pregnant when you know most will not make it to birth. Whether through miscarriage or stillbirth. The latter far more unethical than having fertilized eggs die.

What's the issue? The Catholic Church is one of the few institutions left coherently arguing against the eugenic culling of disabled children in utero.

While I by no means am trying to discredit the life of someone with disabilities, I understand why someone wouldn't want to create one if they knew it was probable. Most Americans agree with the value of life, regardless of disability. This isn't an argument of culling "in utero", it's a decision made pre "in utero". Choosing to abstain isn't culling anything, as it must exist to be culled. But I think the church will have quite a difficult task convincing modern society that their marriage is not valid if they don't purposely have a child that they knowingly will be born with disability or disease. I don't believe that the general public sees that as "culling" but rather moral obligation.

 

[woolybug25]

They may escape the 7th amendment b/c the county, at least in most jurisdictions, is not seizing the property. They are selling the unpaid taxes to a private third party tax purchaser. Once the sale is made, the homeowner is given a redemption date to repay the private purchaser. Just a guess. I'm really not sure.

It's downright scary how much some people in this area pay, and there are proposed increases.

I hear ya, but I think one would have the argument that the city, state, etc has no right to their personal assets without representation. They have no lien right to the personal property, they have no collateral interest in the transaction. If one chooses not to participate in their service (ie property taxes), then I fundamentally do not believe a municipality has any legal right to their assets. They would certainly be within their rights to seek damages for amounts they feel are due to them, but the tie to their personal property is strange to me. Every other debtor must take lien, why are municipalities allowed to bypass that?

For instance, use a different piece of collateral. Say a county decided that they want to tax dogs. If you own a dog, you have to pay $1,000 a year for that right. If you did not comply, they do not have the right to come take your dog and euthanize it. That is essentially what has become common place in real estate law.