Quantcast

Comments about ‘Michael Gerson: GOP should embrace Catholic teachings on poor’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Nov. 16 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

"But President Obama's first term was a period of unexpected aggression against the rights of religious institutions."

---

Give us a break. There is no war against religious institution's rights. Health Insurance SHOULD provide ALL health related materials.

I believe that the Catholic Church does a lot of good in working with the poor and needy, Mormon leaders could take a lesson.

Additionally, if you truly believed in "religious freedom", you'd support gay marriages because there are those religions that believe it is OKAY. What about their religious freedom? Doesn't it count?

The GOP has a lot more problems than just connecting with minorities, the poor, etc. Their message of hate and intolerance doesn't sit well with those of us Independents who might swing either way. Jon Huntsman would have been much more palatable than Mitt Romney, yet he didn't really stand a chance in the party of step-off-the-edge-of-the-world righties.

Pete1215
Lafayette, IN

If a religion feels that a certain path leads to the Pearly Gates, then they have the duty to defend that path. At that point being tolerant of diverse opinion is illogical.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

@Ranchhand
You propose forcing Catholics to violate their teachings in the name of YOUR version of moral purity and then complain about religion forcing its viewpoints onto others.

You may not see the irony but many others do.

It is fascinating how pro-choice zealots have devolved into faux-choice/no-choice extremists; where abortion is not merely a choice - but no one has the choice to say NO to their own direct or oblique participation in it.

Forcing others to pay for abortion, abortofacient drugs or even contraception against their choice - is not pro-health - it is merely bullying.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Because of the actions of the Catholic church and other churches to place the churches themselves above the laws that secure the freedoms of individuals and the lies against our President Obama such as those in Michael Gerson’s article I choose to be critical and antagonistic toward those churches.

Churches, beyond their unsubstantiated dogma, are simply business operations seeking to garner and control the wealth and energy of others. Many in today’s world are giant commercial corporations seeking to own and control the wealth of the world just as other business corporations do. And like other corporations have a terrible history of oppression and enslavement of people.

Churches can be religious and have freedom of religion for their members or they can choose to be business organizations, they cannot be both.

Midvaliean
MIDVALE, UT

I don't always agree with RanchHand, but today I do. Well articulated Thanks.

Grover
Salt Lake City, UT

"Most pro abortion campaign ever"? Gerson was on his way to becoming a decent arbiter of the overall political landscape from the right. This statement dents that image. If one were to poll voters about who made abortion an issue front and center during the election, it would not be the President. Republican Senate candidates gave the left the gift that keeps on giving and cost themselves control of the Senate in the bargain.

As far as the Republican party embracing the Catholic position on social justice, it sounds like a good idea. They are without a compass in that area. However, doing so will not guarantee the "Catholic" vote since the Catholic bishops can't guarantee the Catholic vote. The bishops pounded the drum that the faithful should only vote for those who conformed to Catholic teaching. The result was that the Catholic vote went even more heavily for the President than Mr. Romney than did the vote of the general public.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@CounterI;

Nobody is forcing Catholics to TAKE birth control or HAVE same-sex marriages. They're free to choose to not do so.

Insurance providers, even those provided by religious organizations should provide the medicines and let the patients choose whether or not to partake.

Did you read about the woman in Ireland who was allowed to die because that "Catholic country" wouldn't provide her an abortion of a fetus that was dying? Instead, they let the poor woman die as well. And in case you were interested, she and her husband WANTED the child. Now, that is truly Christian, isn't it.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

@Ranchhand
"Did you read about the woman in Ireland who was allowed to die because that "Catholic country" wouldn't provide her an abortion" No; but I read about the massive gender imbalance in China because the unintended consequence of their aggressive "family planning" is the abortion of millions of female babies. Is this what you want? A conversation in the extreme?

Perhaps extremes are what you understand, but the reality is that the alternative to religious intolernace is NOT secular intolerance (as you advocate) - it is tolerance

"Nobody is forcing Catholics to TAKE birth control" Correct - and no one is being stopped from getting it on their own or buying supplemantal insurance; howver YOU are advocating forcing Catholics to pay for birth control, sterilization and abortofacient drugs against their will. (Perhps the Human Rights Campaign should be forced to cover ex-gay therapy for all of its employees as part of their insurance program)

This may be difficult to comprehend - but if you want tolerance you should offer it.

Jack
Aurora, CO

It has been noted that the Catholic Church does a lot for/with the poor and needy, and that the LDS Church should learn from it. For many years the LDS Church partnered with Catholic Charities in those efforts, and now the LDS Church has it's own such infrastructure and uses it quite effectively. You might recall Katrina, Haiti, more recently Sandy were all assisted by LDS Charities and volunteers. LDS Welfare Services have held as a model for others to follow, so I would offer that perhaps more attention to detail would be in order for those desiring to cast stones......

Autumn Cook
Lehi, UT

It's incredibly frustrating, even irritating, to hear the cries for change to the Republican party in the wake of the presidential election. One group cries, "You Republicans need to let go of your social positions (abortion, same-sex marriage) if you want to win." The other praises the social positions, and says instead, "You need to change your economic positions and embrace government provision of a multitude of services if you want to win."

When Republicans lose, we're told that we need to become more like the Democrats in order to win. But what good is gaining power if you gain it on principles you don't believe in - unless, of course, the only point is to gain power.

I think the Republican party needs to return to its roots and boldly defend and advance more limited government, while protecting the foundational societal structures and practices of civilization, such as marriage and respect for life. The party must resist calls to move to the left along with the Democrats. I contend that voters are sitting out because they don't have a true limited-government option. If the Republicans can become that option, they'll win.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments