Unemployment as Social Sin
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/us/15poll.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
The statistics here are frightening but not as frightening as they could be. How can anyone doubt the sinful nature of unemployment and the capitalism that causes it with this information? And yet, we hear more and more about abortion and so little about thespiritual cost that comes with unempolyment. These lives -- these lives of the unempoyed -- are just as valuable as those of the unborn and suffer just as much when their lives are aborted through capitalist profit. Where is the spiritual leadership for sustainable development, for sustainable green energy, for sustainable living.
Abortion results from the same carefree laissez-faire attitude that drives capitalism. It's the same as unemployment -- these lives are not valuable. These lives are not convenient. These lives are not profitable.
What we need is a change in attitude! A change away from the usury that controls our everyday lives. Until we live sustainable lives, we will always abort the unwanted because they aren't sustainable -- whether that's abortion of fetuses and embryos or abortion of whole living beings to a system of nihilism. Is it any wonder that zombies and vampires capture our modern minds they way they do?
The statistics here are frightening but not as frightening as they could be. How can anyone doubt the sinful nature of unemployment and the capitalism that causes it with this information? And yet, we hear more and more about abortion and so little about thespiritual cost that comes with unempolyment. These lives -- these lives of the unempoyed -- are just as valuable as those of the unborn and suffer just as much when their lives are aborted through capitalist profit. Where is the spiritual leadership for sustainable development, for sustainable green energy, for sustainable living.
Abortion results from the same carefree laissez-faire attitude that drives capitalism. It's the same as unemployment -- these lives are not valuable. These lives are not convenient. These lives are not profitable.
What we need is a change in attitude! A change away from the usury that controls our everyday lives. Until we live sustainable lives, we will always abort the unwanted because they aren't sustainable -- whether that's abortion of fetuses and embryos or abortion of whole living beings to a system of nihilism. Is it any wonder that zombies and vampires capture our modern minds they way they do?
Obama at Notre Dame -- OMG
A response to a NY Times article opposing Obama at
Notre Dame. Read
More...
Rolling back Bush Directive on Abortion -- NOT
28/02/09 00:43 Filed in: Obama | Catholic
Social Teaching
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/27/conscience.rollback/
I read this story with some sort of amusement. There have been laws in place for decades that protect health workers from performing duties that violate their conscience. I couldn’t believe something so fundamental would be left up to the whims of the current president, whoever that might be.
But the headlines, as always, deceive in order to get the reader interested. Why were there no similar headlines when Bush created the rule that Obama is overturning?
The problem here is that, on his last day in office, Bush issued an order that changed some wording on how health care workers are protected from harassment or job loss if they refuse to perform a procedure they disagree with. But there was no need to issue such an edict, since medical professionals have had such protections for decades.
What is more interesting is this: if Bush were so concerned with protecting people in their jobs because of moral objections, then why did he not issue the order when he FIRST took office rather than as he LEFT office? The answer is simple, of course. He intended to trap Obama. Now hear me out. If Bush really cared about these issues, he could have issued the order eight years ago. So we have to ask, why did he wait to do it in his last day of office knowing that Obama would overturn it?
One answer suffices: Bush, playing for his party, established the rule so that Obama would get bad press over the abortion issue. This is simply another trick by the GOP to make Obama lose the next election. It’s rather ingenious. On the other hand, we should recognize the insincerity with which the GOP uses the abortion issue purely to win votes. They don’t really care about the unborn or about protecting people’s privacy. If they did, Bush would have passed the rule early on. Rather, they use these issues to drive a wedge into people to split them over “moral” issues as if the failing economy, the lack of oversight, and the unjust war were not moral issues.
In this time of lent, we should commit ourselves as Christians to look at the whole picture, not to vote with our hearts only, and to consider the ways the major parties try to divide and conquer.
I read this story with some sort of amusement. There have been laws in place for decades that protect health workers from performing duties that violate their conscience. I couldn’t believe something so fundamental would be left up to the whims of the current president, whoever that might be.
But the headlines, as always, deceive in order to get the reader interested. Why were there no similar headlines when Bush created the rule that Obama is overturning?
The problem here is that, on his last day in office, Bush issued an order that changed some wording on how health care workers are protected from harassment or job loss if they refuse to perform a procedure they disagree with. But there was no need to issue such an edict, since medical professionals have had such protections for decades.
What is more interesting is this: if Bush were so concerned with protecting people in their jobs because of moral objections, then why did he not issue the order when he FIRST took office rather than as he LEFT office? The answer is simple, of course. He intended to trap Obama. Now hear me out. If Bush really cared about these issues, he could have issued the order eight years ago. So we have to ask, why did he wait to do it in his last day of office knowing that Obama would overturn it?
One answer suffices: Bush, playing for his party, established the rule so that Obama would get bad press over the abortion issue. This is simply another trick by the GOP to make Obama lose the next election. It’s rather ingenious. On the other hand, we should recognize the insincerity with which the GOP uses the abortion issue purely to win votes. They don’t really care about the unborn or about protecting people’s privacy. If they did, Bush would have passed the rule early on. Rather, they use these issues to drive a wedge into people to split them over “moral” issues as if the failing economy, the lack of oversight, and the unjust war were not moral issues.
In this time of lent, we should commit ourselves as Christians to look at the whole picture, not to vote with our hearts only, and to consider the ways the major parties try to divide and conquer.