In Opinion on December 5, 2013 at 11:50 am
After posting a critique of Pope Francis’s Evangelii Gaudium, I was accused of not having read carefully enough or taking certain parts out of context.
Not this time. My line-by-line mark-up is here > Evangelii Gaudium Markup.
I look forward to your retort and request that you:
(a) offer responses as specific as are these comments, critiques and questions;
(b) refrain from pointing out typos and parsing my words – I didn’t edit or review my comments, so some might not be perfectly drafted;
(c) excuse the occasional snark – Pope Francis poked mankind in the eye, and I took the liberty to poke back; and
(d) not make the silly comment that I’ve taken something out of context – it’s interlineated in the context (and that’s redundant).
I addressed only the section of Chapter 2 that discusses economic matters directly. If there is a superseding never mind or notwithstanding Chapter 2 provision, elsewhere in the document, I hope you’ll point me to it.
My comments are in red.
In Opinion on November 30, 2013 at 2:45 pm
Alexis deTocqueville, writing of the activists of his day:
“The members of these associations respond to a watchword, like soldiers on duty; they profess the doctrine of passive obedience; say, rather, that in uniting together they at once abjure the exercise of their own judgment and free will; and the tyrannical control that these societies exercise is often far more insupportable than the authority possessed over society by the government which they attack. Their moral force is much diminished by these proceedings, and they lose the sacred character which always attaches to a struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors. He who in given cases consents to obey his fellows with servility and who submits his will and even his thoughts to their control, how can he pretend that he wishes to be free?”
Health care is a right, background checks, freedom of choice, economic security, climate change, the common good – these are the modern watchwords which, like soldiers, liberals salute and obey with no regard to their own judgment or will.
That your liberal brethren have surrendered their freedom is the root of their violent objection when you declare that your own is not for sale. Do they loathe being unfree? Do they envy and resent that your free will and better judgment have empowered you to refuse to be equally unfree with them?
Yes and Yes. Wouldn’t that make you scream in anger too?
In Opinion on November 29, 2013 at 5:27 pm
How much of a man’s life can he sell you? How much do you want to own?
It’s time we stopped taking life from the poor. We rob them of life by giving them someone else’s money for food and shelter. Let them be free. Free to fail. Free to starve. And free to succeed and to thrive. That’s living; without the risk of failure, there is no success.
The progressive “givernment” does not want to poor to live, it wants them to survive, to subsist. Oh, and vote. Vote to keep progressive government in charge of the lives of their
slaves . . . oops, I meant to type their ‘dependent class’ but I guess my keyboard made me type the truth.
Are they free? Do we know the answer?
Unconditional, anonymous, clerical ‘charity’ – the kind referred to as entitlements – enervate the human spirit and stultify initiative. It is destructive. It kills.
Stop the killing.