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.
How does Santorum demonstrate that he is not a social Darwinist? Are their policies that he advocates that demonstrates that he is not a social Darwinist? Or if that's to specific what are some examples of not being a social Darwinist?
Specifically how does Sanatorium demonstrate concern for the poor? For example does he hold the door for more poor people, does he donate more money, does he work in soup kitchens more, dose he advocate that more of the fruits of another person's labor be taken under threat of violence and used for the benefit of poor people than the other candidates?
Specifically how does Sanatorium demonstrate concern for the poor? For example does he hold the door for more poor people, does he donate more money, does he work in soup kitchens more, dose he advocate that more of the fruits of another person's labor be taken under threat of violence and used for the benefit of poor people than the other candidates?
Romney, Gingrich, Paul and Obama are all social darwinists in my opinion.
How is Paul a social Darwinist?
I'm a funny guy...That's a funny way to put things.
Supply side economics demonstrates a higher level of respect and concern for the poor? Then as an extension, he supports supply side economics more than the other candidates?But the second post in this thread is called "Santorum on the Poor". Check it out.
I don't know the answers. I'm not the one asserting that Santorum has more "respect" and is more "concerned" about the poor than the other candidates. In this context "respect" and "concern" are nothing more than platitudes. Hence why I am trying to find actual demonstrations of how he has more "respect" and "concern" for the poor than the other candidates.And you tell me about the answers to your questions if you know them. Don't expect me to be all-knowing, please.
If the poor are straight and Christian, maybe; enough to pay them lip service.He's against abortion and concerned about the poor.
That's a funny way to put things. But the second post in this thread is called "Santorum on the Poor". Check it out.
And you tell me about the answers to your questions if you know them. Don't expect me to be all-knowing, please.
Err...no...that's exactly the way government works.
Specifically how does Sanatorium demonstrate concern for the poor? For example does he hold the door for more poor people, does he donate more money, does he work in soup kitchens more, dose he advocate that more of the fruits of another person's labor be taken under threat of violence and used for the benefit of poor people than the other candidates?
Ding, ding , ding... I think we have a winner!
So one can't protest any tax that is imposed on people?If you don't like it then get out of the civilized world and try out doing things on your own.
Notice I didn't say "through violence," I said "under threat of violence." A subtle yet important difference, as I don't think many people want physical violence used to collect taxes. They hope everyone pays them without resisting.What are you suggesting with this? Who, outside of your paranoid nightmares, advocates taxation through violence?
He doesn't think that people deserve less respect because they're poor, for example. It makes me glad because I'm so sick of something that's rather typical of American politics regardless of which party we're talking about: social darwinist dog eat dog logic, and even going so far as trying to make it seem like it's morally right. *puke*
He's against abortion and concerned about the poor.
So one can't protest any tax that is imposed on people?
It seems you don't support abortion. If there was a tax that funded abortion would you not speak out against it and advocate that others vote against it?
Do you apply this logic to everything governments do?
The issue generally isn't whether or not Christians should pay taxes. Usually the issue is whether people should advocate that politicians have the fruit of another persons labor taken under threat of violence. Some of us believe it's wrong to take the fruit of another person's labor under threat of violence so we vote and advocate that this practice be lessened and/or ceased.
**********Notice I didn't say "through violence," I said "under threat of violence." A subtle yet important difference, as I don't think many people want physical violence used to collect taxes. They hope everyone pays them without resisting.
Are you saying that if someone doesn't pay their taxes people with badges and guns won't come and take their property and/or put them in a cage? Or do you not consider those to be violent acts?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?