www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall V is for Vicious, Vile and aVoid

Dear CDL,

You are certainly free to give your opinion, and I can't help but feel that those who dissagree with you are 'misreading' your intentions. But then again, I think we all tend to do that at times.

I think you're owed an apology. Those attacks on you for expressing yourself were uncharitable, and after all, I did humble myself and apologized to Logus Teen. Frankly, it did my soul a world of good.

Zenovia

Zenovia,

Did you read my last post to you?

I apologized as well and also commented on my "liberalism" vs. your "conservativism."

And, I'm ashamed to say, my basic grammar skills have left me: is it conservatism or conservativism? I think it's the latter. I can't believe I don't know this.

Just didn't want to to miss my apology.

Logos Teen

Teen Logos:

I have always wondered how someone can give a critical analysis of a book or a movie without having read or watched it. How can you acclaim or criticize the latest hip-hop song if you have not listened to it?

It reminds me of the U.S. Supreme Court about 30 years ago on the issue of whether the movie Deep Throat was obscene. Justices Brennan, Marshall, and others said the movie was protected by the First Amendment, even though they had never seen it.

On the other hand, Justice Rehnquist dissented on the grounds that the movie was obviously obscene. It was reported that Justice Rehnquist and his law clerks saw the movie no less than four times, and even brought popcorn to the theatre so they could better decide if the movie was obscene.

I have not seen the movie V for Vendetta; therefore, you will not hear reviews from me. I just wonder how others are able to comment about it when they have not seen it.

For those who have seen it, your comments are very much appreciated. Last thing I want to do is spend a bunch of money to see trash.

JP

Dear Logus Teen,

I did read your apology and do accept it, and thank you for it. As for your grammar skills, I'm a total idiot so I can't help you with that one...sorry!

Now to respond to your other post, I really didn't want to get into politics but being what I am, I can't control myself. So here's my outspoken 'political' opinions.

You said:

"I do know what you mean about social pressure as regards to freedom of speech. I believe certain groups of people have "hijacked" the Holocaust, as if it only happened to them. We all know that that the Holocaust sought to destroy more than one group of people.

I say:

Actually Hitler being German and therefore hating his neighbors, (as all nations do because of boundaries), said in response to the League of Nations when they made demands: How can we listen to them when they have people as inferior as the Czechs.

You said:

"I don't know why you paint me as a liberal. I totally pro-life. Is that liberal?"

I say:

Actually your viewpoints on many issues are liberal. You tend to do what many do, and that is take one part, such as being pro-life, but reject everything that has brought about abortion. I don't think you realize that the Republican party is the party that is trying to change the culture. The same culture that has brought about abortions, etc.

You said:

At the same time, I am anti-war (unless it's "Just," and that can get pretty tricky),

I say:

You know we would have had a war sooner or later, so the sooner we faced reality and tried to do something about it, the less the amount of people that will suffer or die. I say this because what is going on with the Muslims is basically the same that happened with Japan and Germany before the Second World War. The death toll then was about 60,000,000, not to mention the total destruction of Germany, and almost all of Europe.

We don't want a repetition of that, nor do we want to live in a Muslim society. You know it took ten years of our occupation to change the German mindset. We're still there, and we're still in Japan because we always feared that they would become militaristic again. (I think though we're about ready to take our troops out). Do you know that the German children were not allowed to play with toy guns for many years after the war?

Actually Germany and Japan decided to put their agressive tendencies into raising their economies. A lot better I think

You said:

".. anti-death penalty unless absolutely necessary,"

I say:

I am not for the death penalty as a punishment. Actually I believe in restitution for criminal acts. Each criminal should work at an average wage in jail for enough time to repay every person he hurt, including the wages of the judge, court, police, etc.

At one time the death penalty was working. When the Lindburgh baby was kidnapped in the early 1930's and the death penalty was imposed, kidnapping immediately stopped.

Today though, the criminals are so many and so crazy, that it frankly wouldn't do anything, so why bother. Better though than having to either feed them or kill them, is to have them work to pay back everyone. The only problem with that are the labor unions. They fear that the criminals will be taking their jobs away.

You said:

".. am for preserving our environment,.."

I say:

The problem here is our economic system. Certain actions could lead to a world depression where millions of people would die of starvation or from the wars that it would bring about. Preserving the environment is great, but it would have to come about gradually.

Also, I find it disheartening for property owners, as well as small business men, when they find out that they can't use part of their land because of some environmental law and so on. There has to be a balance, otherwise we'll all end up like California.

You said:

"... am for higher taxation for the wealthier for heavy estate taxes, etc."

I say:

That is socialism, and it has been found to lower the standard of living. It doesn't work. Now what is smarter is to eliminate the income tax.

A graduating Sales tax would be a smart idea. The more expensive an item, the higher tax one would pay on it. I know of countries that do that.

Think of it, a rock star that wants to buy 10 Rolls Royces, would end up paying five times the cost. The problem though with that is will it lessen production, and therefore people might lose jobs. One would have to tread carefully.

Then there is the flat tax. This would eliminate all the loop holes in our tax system that has the billionaires paying nothing, and the middle class carrying the load of our nations debts. But then again, we wouldn't want to stop mortgage deductions or charitable one's, so again we would have to tread carefully.

Zenovia

Dear Logos Teen,

I just couldn't get over your post, and kept thinking of those things that I had forgotten to mention. Now I know that this shouldn't be on this 'thread', and hope that by doing so, I'm not boring or anoying others. If so, I apologize and beg them to bare with me.

Now you said:

".. am for higher taxation for the wealthier, for heavy estate taxes, etc."

I say:

I personally feel that it's a pity that so many of the children of farmers were not able to inherit the land after so many generations because of estate taxes. Most have been bought up by multi-billion corporations.

Also, high taxes, medical insurances because of law suits, and all the different environmental legislation, (under the Dems of course), have hindered people from opening, or expanding small businesses and thereby hindering job growth. I believe though that some of these problems have been solved by this administration...fortunately.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not against these multi-billion corporations. I realize that our standard of living would not be as high as it is, but more important they give jobs to people in the far east and India that would normally be starving. It's just that we shouldn't hinder Americans from using their minds and intiative to open and have their own businesses. It's these small businesses that create jobs for Americans and have made America great. In other words, it's respect for the individual and their freedom to build on their dream.

Also there is another factor I didn't mention. About a third of our economy, (or so I heard), is underground. Now that runs into trillions of dollars.

As an example: Most workers will give a lower price if some service is paid in cash. That way they will not report it as income. Also large deals are made overseas where some money is not shown, and is deposited directly into Swiss accounts.

So we have here a failing income tax system, where the middle class, (and that could run from $30,000 a year to $250,000 a year depending where one lives), pays all the taxes. About one third of our economy is not taxed because it is underground, and another third because of the tax loop holes lobbied by those that can afford the accountants. All in all, a failed system where those that can most afford it, pay nothing.

Now according to you, you would like a socialist system and have the government take over everything. The problem is that governments create bureaucracy, and most of the money is ill spent. Again as an example: When charity is given by the government, one has to consider the wages. If though the money is given by faith based charities, the amount given to workers is minimal.

So as they say the government is not the solution, but the problem.

Zenovia

Why would anyone want to see a movie that can corrupt their soul. Does not anyone believe in spiritual warware anymore? The devil uses tools such as television shows and movies to undermine the diginity of eech person. If we live by a set of moral standards set forth by our Church, why would we want to see people on the screen committing sins that we are forbidden to commit? It is especially horrible for one to watch a movie that not only portrays violent and sexual scenes, but parades them as good.

Seminarian,

Thank you for your insight. We are on the same page.

CDL