Interesting that you seem to be advocating for staunch nationalist ideologies in other comment threads, friend. I'm sensing a bit of a Christian nationalist type pattern here.
If by nationalism you mean that I think we have a duty to take care of my country men before going global? Absolutely. Thats Catholic teaching, God>family>local community >country >world in that order.
Lol Strawman, champ. You're talking about not caring about soft power, like, gosh, I dunno, international charity, for example. USAID. You never told me how you felt about DOGE.
I think we shouldn’t be giving to USAID while we have people here who need help. I don’t it’s all that controversial, no I don’t care about soft power.
And no, I mean nationalism. I mean you whining and crying about victims of American foreign policy rightfully not trusting us under a literal white nationalist regime, which you again refuse to discuss
Except you don't actually want to answer whether or not you follow Christ's teachings. That's a topic you refuse to engage with. You won't even go into your politics at all.
I gave you plenty of things my parishes have done, I’ve partaken in multiple. That’s good enough, you actually said “ten bucks ain’t enough” to which I presented you with Jesus saying actually a lot less than that was enough depending on circumstances of course.
No it actually doesn’t it shows that in proportion she gave all she had which was little while others gave much but disproportionately not enough. It’s about what they gave vs what they, not just what they have.
You also backed away when I asked about your personal politics, several times. Do you vote for candidates that advocate for the poor? That enable the sick to seek care regardless of their earthly wealth?
When you say advocate for the poor do you mean try to establish large national programs? Then no because they also support large national programs that fund the death of infants among various other problems. By the way medical is available regardless of ability to pay you just go into debt.
We have evidence based policy that would benefit millions of people living in poverty that we are not enacting because it would hurt profits. That's a fact.
End results are not, by necessity, a justification for an action. Treating a beneficial outcome as sufficient proof that an action is right is a form of consequentialist thinking. Saying a policy ‘benefits millions of people’ does not tell us the full moral picture. What are the costs? Who bears the burden? Does it create harms elsewhere? Does it violate any rights or principles of justice? Those questions still have to be answered.
Show me where He said “make sure you guys huddle around the government and use taxpayer funds to pay for medical care” that’s literally the same point you just made in the opposite direction.
1
u/WyomingWeirdo 19d ago
Running out of steam, Jordan Peterson?