I am not certain which is the bigger offence to God; to not use that which god gave us for the purpose which it was given or to refuse that person to act upon these gifts. I do believe that God will find offense with those that think they know what is best in spite of God. He made all of what is and there are those that believe they know what is better and that we should not just ignore the writings that were inspired by his disciples but in fact, to ultimately ignore that which he placed in our heart and left us understanding was right. That is liberty, the right to move forward in pursuit of that which we believe to be right and equality lies in the limitation placed upon that right to not interfere with that god given right to others.

God bless you
Michael Gormley

You are indeed correct that the sentence was ‘lessened considerably’….as in the time he had served. One could conjecture that this is an elegant compromise for a judge seeking to apply a remedy to an unfair charge and conviction without insulting the ‘honor and dignity’ of the Prime Minister – which in Kuwait is always a member of the royal family. As long as any member of your government is above reproach, then your government will never be a true democracy.

I have no problem with dealing with a non-democratic government. Let’s not pretend that your nation is something it’s not. Did the government explain the millions of unaccounted expenditures? Who got that money? Where did it go? How about the government’s admission – admission – that they use money to presumably secretly purchase the loyalty of the press?

I understand the charge was slander. It should have been lese majesty….but that would have been a little too obvious, wouldn’t it?

This conversation is closed.

We are not “..people from behind their closed doors.” We have a very active democracy in which we are free to say what we want, and those who find offense in it and equally free to take us to court if they think we are making false accusations.

Let’s first dispense with what we agree on so we don’t waste space. We agree on the Howell dismissal (for somewhat different reasons), and agree that the framers of the Constitution envisioned a much more limited government.

Now for the two central disagreements.

US Constitution
First, while the Constitution was a cutting edge document for the latter part of the 18th century, strict interpretation of it makes it very unsuited for the 21st century. It was a great document for an agrarian, slave-owning, society separated by great distances, limited transportation, limited communication, and a lack of a shared national identity. It hardly would work in a multiethnic, industrial/post-industrial society, and its interpretation (and substance through 27 Amendments) has necessarily changed in response to those societal changes. Without these “safety valves” it is not unlikely that the entire Constitution would have been scrapped already.

Second, the expansion of powers of the federal government is completely allowed by the Constitution. The Commerce Clause (“The Congress shall have the power to…regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States…”) is the basis for most of this expansion, along with the doctrine of Implied Powers established in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The expansion does not make the Constituition moot, rather, the Constitution legitimizes it. The boundaries have relaxed and expanded, but they are still there.

Catholicism and the U.S. Constitution
I read the sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that you recommended – thank-you. However, I find nothing that necessarily precludes “socialist” policies, and actually thought that the sections such as “Just Wages”(2433-2434), “Sinful Inequalities”(1938) and “Law of the Marketplace”(2425) support “socialist” legislation.

Maybe the problem lies in what we consider “socialism.” Policies like minimum wages/maximum hours, abolition of child labor, old age pensions, and progressive income taxes are all “socialist” policies that Western societies have embraced and (to my read) are all consistent with Catholic social teachings. I suspect you oppose universal health care, another socialist policy, but the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops clearly states “For decades, the United States Catholic bishops have actively supported universal health care. The Catholic Church teaches that health care is a basic human right, essential for human life and dignity.” They opposed the recently-enacted legislation because of their concerns with the potential for public funding of abortion, not because of its goal or means. Socialist programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Pell Grants, (etc.) all support the dignity of the individual; just look at whatlife was like for millions of Americans before them.

An let’s also be clear – even with all of these programs and “Obamacare” thrown in, the U.S. remains among the 2-3 “least” socialist countries of any developed country in the world. (And frankly, I think we have the balance about right).

I don’t see your point on socialism and God, but then I approach the “-isms” from a purely political-economic angle. In my many readings on 20th century political movements and political economy, I don’t recall any discussion of God or religion, with the exception of efforts to address clerical power in France and Italy. Communism and National Socialism specifically address God and religion, and many socialists may be atheists, but atheism is no more a core component of socialism than Christianity is of capitalism.

As for the Constituiton, as originally written, it would clearly run afoul of Catholic social teaching, principally in its support of slavery. And of course, the Constitution, as originally written and strictly enforced, does nothing to prevent states from denying Catholics the right to vote or hold office (as history shows).

In short, thank God the Constitution has evolved and enabled a much more just society than at any time in U.S. history!

I appreciate the time and substance you devoted to your reply. I honestly have only enough time to devote to another round or two of exchanges, so at some point I must beg off. Still, thanks for the intellectual exchange.