Did anyone happen to see that nun on BOR tonight? He did not challenge her support well..how about the abortion and denial of care..it was disgusting. I hope he gets a lot of crap sandwiches in his email bag tomorrow.
“Did anyone happen to see that nun on BOR tonight? He did not challenge her support well..how about the abortion and denial of care..it was disgusting.” ~ celtic gal bttt
Yes. Once again he proved that he is an incompetent and uninformed when it comes to interviewing religious figures.
Like Proudhon , the French socialist, both Obama and that left-wing nun draw a different conclusion from Scripture than the Framers of our Constitution did.
They knew that the sort of socialism that conforms to the biblical worldview is the form that is commonly practiced on a small scale within families, within churches, and other organizations. It is always going to be a __voluntary__ sharing of resources.
The Bible teaches that the church and the family should care for the poor rather than the state.
8th Commandment: You shall not steal. This is a guarantee of private property.
10th Commandment: You shall not covet. Again, a guarantee of private property.
Acts 5: Barnabas sellls a piece of property and brought the money to the Apostles.
Ananias and Saphira decided to do the same - except they sold a property - kept some of the money back - and lied about how much they had been paid.
Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own power?’ “
There you go! An apostolic confirmation of the right of private property. Not only the means of production, but also the results of that production were in Ananias’ and Saphira’s power, not in the power or hands of the state or the church.
Proudhon , the French socialist said, “Property is theft.”
But the commandment forbidding theft teaches the right of private property and is in complete contradiction to socialist concepts.
So if they are going to invoke the Scriptures to back up their plan to FORCE everyone to use his resources to “help others”, O’Reilly should have told her that she, of all people - being a Catholic, should know better — and to listen to her Pope - since he would tell her that it is actually IMMORAL to support anyone who advocates forcing his fellow man to act against his conscience and free will.
<>
O’Reilly needs to educate himself on what his church teaches:
Pope: “Non-Negotiable Human Rights” include “Right to Life and Right to Freedom of Conscience”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2245094/posts?page=5#5
VATICAN CITY, MAY 5, 2009
- Pope Benedict XVI addressed members of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences yesterday at their plenary session which is focused on the theme of Catholic social teaching and human rights, and called for the promotion of universal human rights based on both faith and reason, affirming the “right to life and the right to freedom of conscience and religion as being at the center of those rights that spring from human nature itself.” ...
<>
Pope John Paul II, and now Pope Benedict XVI teach that the individual Christian’s responsibilities toward God fall in this order:
“..an authentic...theology: [is] one that puts
[1] God and the life of the spirit first,
[2] direct charitable care of others second,
[3] and only then draws consequences for a just social order.”
HERE http://ncrcafe.org/node/1091
<>
Excerpts From Pacem In Terris: Peace on Earth
Encyclical of Pope John XXIII, On Establishing Universal Peace In Truth, Justice, Charity, And Liberty, April 11, 1963
“Man’s personal dignity requires besides that he enjoy freedom and be able to make up his own mind when he acts.
In his association with his fellows, therefore, there is every reason why his recognition of rights, observance of duties, and many-sided collaboration with other men, should be primarily a matter of his own personal decision.
Each man should act on his own initiative, conviction, and sense of responsibility, not under the constant pressure of external coercion or enticement.
There is nothing human about a society that is welded together by force.
Far from encouraging, as it should, the attainment of man’s progress and perfection, it is merely an obstacle to his freedom.”
“Hence, a regime which governs solely or mainly by means of threats and intimidation or promises of reward, provides men with no effective incentive to work for the common good.
And even if it did, it would certainly be offensive to the dignity of free and rational human beings.”
“Consequently, laws and decrees passed in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience, since ‘it is right to obey God rather than men.’”
<>
Why is the ACLU not all up in arms over the fact that Obama is using the church to support his statist objectives of _forcing_ non-Christians / non-religious people to conform to “scripture”?
Where _IS_ the ACLU in all this? We all know what the outcry would be if Bush, or ANY Republican, would try such tactics!