Israel is losing Americans (support)
- By Tom8907
- American Politics
- 159 Replies
Good as there is no biblical notion to support the nation-that-calls-itself-Israel.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That was one of the strengths of the ACA - it made preventive care, including annual checkups and vaccines, be included in any covered insurance plan.Not all things can be addressed early but things like screenings and staying generally healthy weight, diet things like that can be.
2403 The right to private property, acquired by work or received from others by inheritance or gift, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. the universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.
2404 "In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself."187 The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.
-Catechism of the Catholic Church
The footnote 371 refers to Rerum Novarum #11, which says nothing about "common and promiscuous dominion" (it turns out that the translations and references are often inconsistent in these documents, including DT).176. By means of work and making use of the gift of intelligence, people are able to exercise dominion over the earth and make it a fitting home: “In this way, he makes part of the earth his own, precisely the part which he has acquired through work; this is the origin of individual property”[368]. Private property and other forms of private ownership of goods “assure a person a highly necessary sphere for the exercise of his personal and family autonomy and ought to be considered as an extension of human freedom ... stimulating exercise of responsibility, it constitutes one of the conditions for civil liberty”[369]. Private property is an essential element of an authentically social and democratic economic policy, and it is the guarantee of a correct social order. The Church's social doctrine requires that ownership of goods be equally accessible to all[370], so that all may become, at least in some measure, owners, and it excludes recourse to forms of “common and promiscuous dominion”[371].
-Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church
11. With reason, then, the common opinion of mankind, little affected by the few dissentients who have contended for the opposite view, has found in the careful study of nature, and in the laws of nature, the foundations of the division of property, and the practice of all ages has consecrated the principle of private ownership, as being pre-eminently in conformity with human nature, and as conducing in the most unmistakable manner to the peace and tranquillity of human existence. The same principle is confirmed and enforced by the civil laws-laws which, so long as they are just, derive from the law of nature their binding force. The authority of the divine law adds its sanction, forbidding us in severest terms even to covet that which is another's: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife; nor his house, nor his field, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is his."(2)
Rerum Novarum, #11
So many claims to fame...was it the remarkable feat of voting for that bill without having read it, or the ingenious insider trading she pulled off, or was it successfully breaking the law by getting her hair did in public without a mask during covid, which she had self-righteously admonished we the peons for doing? Historians will have to sort it out.Her major claim to fame during her time with the gavel basically just includes getting the Affordable Care Act pushed through, which while a large piece of legislation, the numbers were stacked in her favor.
"Might" have testifiedDoes this man have any self-respect?
He does provide a way of escape ... but often people don't take it ... this is true.So you understand and agree with the point I originally made about 1 Corinthians 10:13 (coppied below for convenience)?
12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. 13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it. (1 Co 10:12–13)
Do you see in 1 Co 10:13 that every time a person succumbs to temptation that it reprepresents a failure to take the way of escape that God provided?
Whether one is Right or Left the Catholic Social Teaching will be a challenge. The challenge is consistency. Our political biases are usually pretty inconsistent.As a faithful Catholic, I can only consider myself a very, very moderate conservative, and resisted Republican. Neither political party has my "allegiance."
Christ comes first. Always.
Very well said, my friend.![]()

That is a matter of perspective.I'd be more inclined to think "accept the bad with the even worse"
I think the mechanics of "holding elections" is categorically different than the set of things you will be voting on, and what constitutes those things.It is a bit confusing to me as to what you are trying to argue. I pointed out how congress has the ability to set its own rules for House and Senate elections, overturning those of states. You seem to be arguing they can't? Except, once again, as the Constitution says:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
So Congress can overrule them, and it has on various occasions (usually more in the form of establishing general requirements rather than micro-managing things).
Or perhaps you are trying to claim that even states can't decide things like congressional districts? But it's obvious that's included, because states have been doing that since the day the Constitution was ratified. The idea that states don't have the ability to set their districts doesn't make sense, that's obviously include in "manner" and is what every state has done since it started holding House elections.
Actually, the requirement of single-member districts is a requirement by Congress, most recently reiterated I believe in the 1970 Uniform Congressional District Act. I think they should get rid of it, which would allow states to experiment with things like multi-member districts or even proportional representation, but for now it is still the law and was an example of how these things can be set by congress.