Among Republicans, Catholics stand with Pope Francis on the environment

[gilliam]

The conventional wisdom goes that in the United States, Democrats believe in manmade climate change and want the government to do something about, while Republicans don’t. But dig a little deeper, and it’s more complex, especially when it comes to Catholicism.

A majority (51 percent) of Republicans who identify as Catholic believe that the earth is warming, compared to just 44 percent of non-Catholic Republicans. Additionally, more Catholic Republicans (36 percent) than non-Catholic Republicans (30 percent) believe human beings are the cause, according to researchers at Yale University.

cruxnow.com/church/2015/06/19/among-republicans-catholics-stand-with-pope-francis-on-the-environment/

 

[ringil]

The GOP certainly has it’s work cut out for it this upcoming presidential election.

 

[estesbob]

The GOP certainly has it’s work cut out for it this upcoming presidential election.

Not if Hillary is the Democrat nomination

 

[ringil]

Not if Hillary is the Democrat nomination

I’m not the biggest Hillary fan but I do believe she has this in the bag.

There are many dynamics going against the GOP this time around. They seem to have developed a specific problem unifying their white-evangelical base with the moderate and independent votes they need to win.

They should run Christie.

 

[Deus_tecum]

I am a Catholic conservative and I believe that climate warms and cools in cycles much larger than our individual lifetimes, and this is primarily driven by larger more complex systems designed by God that man has little to no control over. I also believe that the hypothesis that man is causing global climate change is false, but is being promoted as theory for the purpose of political control. Those behind it have been masterminds of promoting this false belief, and I think the Pope has gotten duped by it. God bless him, but our older generation has always been more trusting in general, which is why they get scammed by telemarketers.

 

[estesbob]

I’m not the biggest Hillary fan but I do believe she has this in the bag.

There are many dynamics going against the GOP this time around. They seem to have developed a specific problem unifying their white-evangelical base with the moderate and independent votes they need to win.

They should run Christie.

I’m always amused with liberals telling the Republican Party they should nominate . It even further amuses me when they claim we should nominate a moderate when their definition of moderate includes or taxes, more regulations and supporting abortion on demand and homosexual marriage .

The best chance the Democratic Party has of winning the presidency the next time around is of Hillary implodes before she gets the nomination not after .

 

[ringil]

I’m always amused with liberals telling the Republican Party they should nominate . It even further amuses me when they claim we should nominate a moderate when their definition of moderate includes or taxes, more regulations and supporting abortion on demand and homosexual marriage .

The best chance the Democratic Party has of winning the presidency the next time around is of Hillary implodes before she gets the nomination not after .

Didn’t you predict a Romney win?

 

[ExMethodist]

The conventional wisdom goes that in the United States, Democrats believe in manmade climate change and want the government to do something about, while Republicans don’t. But dig a little deeper, and it’s more complex, especially when it comes to Catholicism.

A majority (51 percent) of Republicans who identify as Catholic believe that the earth is warming, compared to just 44 percent of non-Catholic Republicans. Additionally, more Catholic Republicans (36 percent) than non-Catholic Republicans (30 percent) believe human beings are the cause, according to researchers at Yale University.

cruxnow.com/church/2015/06/19/among-republicans-catholics-stand-with-pope-francis-on-the-environment/

Yet you won’t hear many, if any of the Democrats who are Catholics (like Martin O’Malley) even acknowledge the language about abortion in the encylical.

 

[estesbob]

Didn’t you predict a Romney win?

Yes. However I didn’t understand the extent that using the IRS to squash political distant would affect the outcome of the election .

 

[stinkcat_14]

Yes. However I didn’t understand the extent that using the IRS to squash political distant would affect the outcome of the election .

ergo hoc post propter hoc

 

[estesbob]

ergo hoc post propter hoc

Si

 

[pete_29]

Who doesn’t want a cleaner planet, but until you get China, India, and Russia on board it’s really just an exercise in futility.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Who doesn’t want a cleaner planet, but until you get China, India, and Russia on board it’s really just an exercise in futility.

Which makes the encyclical all the more relevant.

 

[ishii]

I’m not the biggest Hillary fan but I do believe she has this in the bag.

Not the biggest Hillary fan? Then that means you a big Hillary fan? Or just “Hillary fan” ?

  There are many dynamics going against the GOP this time around.  They seem to have developed a specific problem unifying their white-evangelical base with the moderate and independent votes they need to win.

They should run Christie.

The problem the Republicans have is they’re up against the ever increasing number of recipients of government entitlements / aid of some kind or another, who are naturally going to support the party which promises the entitlements to not only keep coming and even increase in $ amount, but which also accuses the GOP of wanting to cut or take away the entitlements. I think Alexis D’Tocqueville said it well:

The American republic will endure until the congress realizes it can bribe the public with the public’s money.

The other component to that is immigration, in which the Democrat is now promising Hispanics in this country immediate amnesty / citizenship (and by extension, the entitlements promised to everyone else) - which will result in fresh new crops of faithful Democrat voters to add to the already growing Democrat base.

The reason why the Democrats don’t quite yet have an electoral lock on the presidency, and the reason why Hillary isn’t quite a shoo-in yet, is because they are largely incompetent when governing. Also because Hillary has a voice made for silent film.

Ishii

 

[powerofk]

Not the biggest Hillary fan? Then that means you a big Hillary fan? Or just “Hillary fan” ?

The problem the Republicans have is they’re up against the ever increasing number of recipients of government entitlements / aid of some kind or another, who are naturally going to support the party which promises the entitlements to not only keep coming and even increase in $ amount, but which also accuses the GOP of wanting to cut or take away the entitlements. I think Alexis D’Tocqueville said it well:

The American republic will endure until the congress realizes it can bribe the public with the public’s money.

The other component to that is immigration, in which the Democrat is now promising Hispanics in this country immediate amnesty / citizenship (and by extension, the entitlements promised to everyone else) - which will result in fresh new crops of faithful Democrat voters to add to the already growing Democrat base.

The reason why the Democrats don’t quite yet have an electoral lock on the presidency, and the reason why Hillary isn’t quite a shoo-in yet, is because they are largely incompetent when governing. Also because Hillary has a voice made for silent film.

Ishii

Ugh. Honestly, in 2008 (which even the infamous King John of England of Magna Carta fame could have won if he were on the Dem ticket - the GOP chances that year were pretty much nil), Hillary lost the Dem nomination because of her being cocky and pretty much because she felt owed the Presidency. She’s running again, this time with only token opposition. Did the rest of the Dem party back away just because they want a female Presidential candidate - in order that they can paint the rest of the country sexist should she lose? In their mind, it’s a win-win. Either they get the first female President or they can rail against the “misogynist, sexist, anti-choice, Bible-thumping, blah, blah, blah, white men” and, just like when John Kerry lost in 2004, apologize to Western Europe.

Oddly enough, though, it’s seemed to me that whichever party that wins the White House really only has much control for about one year (about 3 months after a re-election) before the rest of the country sours on them and vote for the other party to run the state governments.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I am a Catholic conservative and I believe that climate warms and cools in cycles much larger than our individual lifetimes, and this is primarily driven by larger more complex systems designed by God that man has little to no control over. I also believe that the hypothesis that man is causing global climate change is false, but is being promoted as theory for the purpose of political control. Those behind it have been masterminds of promoting this false belief, and I think the Pope has gotten duped by it. God bless him, but our older generation has always been more trusting in general, which is why they get scammed by telemarketers.

I also consider myself a conservative and share your thoughts.

 

[Tony_Micelli]

I am a Catholic conservative and I believe that climate warms and cools in cycles much larger than our individual lifetimes, and this is primarily driven by larger more complex systems designed by God that man has little to no control over. I also believe that the hypothesis that man is causing global climate change is false, but is being promoted as theory for the purpose of political control.

there are certainly long term cycles that drive ice ages called milankovich cycles of orbital wobbling and variation (100k yr). There are also climatic cycles of higher frequency probably related mostly to ocean circulation cycles that we don’t know much about. There are solar cycles too but we can measure those.

Basically, scientists can measure and estimate all the natural climate forcings that are responsible for warming or cooling the earth’s atmosphere. And they have established that the rapid warming we are experiencing can only be from anthropogenic GHGs.

I’d say we are at a 95% confidence level that current global warming is caused by the massive combustion of fossil fuels over the past 150+ years.

 

[Larry1700]

Originally Posted by Deus tecum
I am a Catholic conservative and I believe that climate warms and cools in cycles much larger than our individual lifetimes, and this is primarily driven by larger more complex systems designed by God that man has little to no control over. I also believe that the hypothesis that man is causing global climate change is false, but is being promoted as theory for the purpose of political control. Those behind it have been masterminds of promoting this false belief, and I think the Pope has gotten duped by it. God bless him, but our older generation has always been more trusting in general, which is why they get scammed by telemarketers.

I also consider myself a conservative and share your thoughts.

I “third” your comment, Deus tecum!

 

[Young_Ludovicus]

To be honest, I don’t understand why you keep up with the way your politics are.

2 major parties.

In every state, winner takes all. Why?

Dutch politics are best understood in the context of themselves; although there is some overlap with Belgian, German and Scandinavian politics, the Dutch political system is unique and has features not seen anywhere else. (The same goes for all other political systems, by the way.) I doubt there are universal lessons to be drawn from these pages, but I’ll leave judging that to you.

In general the Dutch consider nine the minimum number of parties necessary to adequately represent themselves politically. Foreign students of Dutch politics, especially those from the Anglo-Saxon countries, will have to learn to live with this fact.

Proportional representation

The Dutch elect only their legislative bodies; all executives are nominated by the Crown.

Dutch elections are based on proportional representation. A party that gets 7% of the national vote gets 7% of the seats in national parliament. It does not matter where these votes were cast; there are no electoral districts.

Proportional representation allows small parties to be represented in parliament, which is generally considered a Good Thing. The downside is that no party ever gets a majority by itself; in order to form a stable government, several parties will have to form a coalition.

Parliament and the three large parties

Dutch parliament has 150 seats; and 76 are necessary for a majority (and hence a viable government coalition).

A government coalition consists of two of the three large parties. Until 1994 that was enough; thereafter the two large parties had to invite a third, smaller coalition party to obtain a majority.

Note to American readers: in European politics, Liberal denotes the moderate right, and not the left. This site uses Liberal exclusively in this European sense.

If you know something of German politics, compare PvdA to SPD, CDA to CDU, and VVD to FDP.

The three large parties are:

left-wing PvdA (Labour; social-democrat)
centrist CDA (christian-democrat)
right-wing VVD (liberal)
Generally the VVD is about 10 to 20 seats smaller than the other two.

The two-out-of-three rule favours centrist CDA. Left-wing PvdA and right-wing VVD rarely agree with each other and can therefore only form a coalition with the CDA. This rule was broken only during the Purple period, and that was considered a radical turning point in Dutch politics.

Government formation

After elections, the largest party takes the initiative and selects another large party (as well as, nowadays, a smaller one). If they can reach an agreement, a new government is formed. If, after protracted negotiations, the largest party is unable to form a government, the second-largest can have a try.

The party leader of the largest party becomes prime minister. His government is known by his name, followed by a Roman numeral if it’s his second or later government. After the 2006 elections the Balkenende IV government was formed; i.e. the fourth government prime minister Balkenende (CDA) presided over.

Small parties

In addition to the three large parties there are tons of smaller ones.

The two large parties have to select one small party for their coalition, and during this the selection process the small parties are on their best behaviour.

Thus, before the elections small parties have to be different enough for voters to prefer them over a larger party, and after the elections they have to be moderate and reasonable enough to present themselves as viable and serious coalition partners.

There are some parties like the SGP (a very strict Dutch Reformed protestantism party), Party for the Animals (Left wing in favour of Animal rights and the environment) and 50+ (A party for the elederly) that get a few seats in parliament most of the times 1 or in extreme cases 3.

I don’t understand why the Americans put up with their undemocratic system. There’s only two legitimate options.

 

[estesbob]

I stand with the Pope on our obligation to prporect the environment . I just don’t agree with AGW ,nor as a Catholic am I required to do so .