T
TEPO
Guest
We are called to action, as Catholics, to end man made global warming. It is a moral obligation to all Catholics. It is part of our faith.
Among Republicans, Catholics stand with Pope Francis on the environment
- Status
T
TEPO
Guest
It is also a moral obligation, through our Catholic Faith, to help form a one world governance to mitigate air pollution.
P
powerofk
Guest
It’s pretty much due to how our Constitution was written 228 years ago. The writers of our Constitution wanted to strike a fine balance between state and federal powers, as they feared a return to a federal government that was too strong, yet saw from our first attempt at a government under the Articles of Confederation that too weak of a federal government wasn’t good, either. And, they wanted to maintain each state’s semi-autonomy. Our legislative branch and our executive branch are completely separate branches of government, unlike Parliamentarian systems that, even though there might be a “President” or “King” as the titular “Head of State”, the effective head of government and chief executive is actually the Prime Minister or Chancellor - the head of the majority party (or majority coalition) in the country’s Parliament.
With us, our President, the chief executive, head of state, and head of government, is elected separately from Congress through a system most people don’t quite understand - and actually only indirectly elected. Our founders had no provisions for a popular vote for the Presidency - the President was to be elected by slates of electors determined by the state legislatures - and if no candidate for the Presidency won a majority of the electors’ votes, the incoming House of Representatives would determine the next President (this happened twice - in the election of 1800 between Thomas Jefferson & Aaron Burr, spurring the need for the 12th amendment, where afterward the President and VP would be elected separately; before this, the VP was the Presidential candidate who came in second place - and in the election of 1824, where we had 4-5 Presidential candidates, all officially from the same political party (as, at that time, the only political party we had was the Jeffersonian Republicans).)
After this, Andrew Jackson, the runner-up, split apart from the Jeffersonian Republicans and formed the Democratic Party; those who didn’t leave with Jackson became the Whig Party - who couldn’t agree with anything other than the fact that they hated Andrew Jackson. It was Andrew Jackson’s Democratic Party which first championed a “popular vote” for the Presidency and also championed the convention system for nominating a Presidential candidate. Before this, anyone who wanted to (and could get the ballot access necessary) could and did run for President. Afterwards, the various Party conventions would determine who would run for President from a given Party - and decide what the Party’s platform would be. But since the Constitution mandates that the President be elected by slates of electors nominated by the states, the states changed their state laws so that the slates of electors would be determined by the individual political parties, and that the electors were expected to vote for the candidate who garnered the most popular votes in the state - in some states, for an elector to not do so is considered a felony, punishable by prison time.
But regardless, our system works for us. We’re probably the only country that our system would work for, but it works for us.
Y
Young_Ludovicus
Guest
We used to have electoral districts too. But in 1917 they changed that.
At the time we had kinda like 4 groups: Liberals, Socialists, Calvinists and Catholics.
Which were very diverse and many within their group were extremely at odds.
-Liberal (liberal is right wing in Europe)
Free Liberals (conservative right wing)
Liberals
Democratic Liberals (Lefty Liberals)
Conservatives died out at the end of the 19th century.
They either became Free Liberals or they became Confessionals.
- Confessional (Religious)
Calvinist free thinkers (they’d resemble either a Democratic Liberal or a Democratic Socialist)
Calvinist Conservative (they were pretty close to the Free Liberals)
Calvinist Rigid (rigid) Also started a schism to start a new denomination.
Catholics (which had all sorts of people under it’s Catholic umbrella)
Almost all the groups were against Catholic except many Liberals. So Calvinists and Catholics didn’t get along.
Democratic Socialism (Moderate Socialists)
Revolutionary Socialism (‘Communist’)
At the time only rich men could vote.
In 1917 they decided all men could vote and they wouldn’t have districts anymore.
The liberals wanted to get rid of the districts because they wouldn’t get the majority otherwise in any district, but in the entire country they could get some percentages of the votes. The Liberals were afraid that the country would turn Socialist. So they sought help from the Confessionals. The Confessionals agreed with this because they wanted to have christian schools for their children. etc. And the Liberals agreed with them. In 1919 Women did also get the right to vote.
But socialists didn’t rise dramatically…
Most of the people were Calvinist or Catholic. (Catholics were repressed for centuries)
So those parties rose extremely well, something the Liberals and Socialists didn’t except, as they thougth Socialism would win if all the poor people could vote.
This is basically the history of it all.
But I still think we have a better system that the USA, and you could say well it works for us. Well, if it could be improved you should. There’s no reason to stick with your system. We too implemented changes. There’s even people saying we should get rid of the First Chamber (which is like the House of Peers in the UK). Every nation get’s to decide their own way of governance. But as it is now there’s no way for many different parties to exist. Surely there could be more parties for socialists, Baptists, catholics etc. If you only have 2 parties it get’s scary. The winner takes all and the winner often makes a more extreme position to attract more votes. Some Republicans have to act more conservative or right wing during their campaign. The Democratic party and Republican party as they are now can’t come up for the needs of people. They might take care of the majority and completely go against anything the minority wants. Dictatorship of the 51% ruling over the 49%. You do know that you could have separate American and State elections. Nothing would change about the autonomy of your respective state.
I
ishii
Guest
We already have multiple parties - such as the Libertarian party, the Socialist party, etc. But they rarely get very many votes.
Ishii
Y
Young_Ludovicus
Guest
Yeah that’s because of the winner takes all system.
If that would go out of the window people would start voting really different.
E
estesbob
Guest
How do we stop something that doesn’t exist. Reconcile that statement with the pope specific declaration in his Encyclical that the church does not settle scientific matters?
The fact that the pope , rightly so, proclaims we need to protect God’s creation does not mean we need to support every crackpot scheme and idea that comes along to solve every environmental problem that comes along real and imagined
T
TEPO
Guest
The Pope has officially declared that man has the capacity to reverse climate change. I can give you the exact quotation from the encyclical of you like… With that, the pope has called us to take action by applying a global governance… This may seem far fetched -but it’s exactly what our Church has proclaimed several times over even.
If the encyclical is wrong on these moral obligations, then the Church is wrong on everything. So we have no choice as Catholics.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I already new that, and it’s a small perk for me that Catholics are somewhat better than their non-Catholic counterparts.
However, it is still quite abysmal that only 36% of Catholic Republicans accept that GW is caused by humans.
My own findings are that 68% of American Catholics in general accept that GW is happening and caused by humans; while only 62% of non-Catholics do.
Come on Republicans, the GOP is the party of Teddy Roosevelt and Richard Nixon – the 2 best environmental presidents we’ve had to date. Be not afraid to face the problems and find some great solutions that don’t harm our pocketbooks and the economy.
Or, have too many of the Republican candidates sold their souls to the devoils. That’s what I suspect. (I know the Dems have also done so to some extent, but perhaps not as much.)
L
lynnvinc
Guest
But. if you could just help mitigate it in ways that don’t cost or even save $$ and in ways that mitigate other problems, that would be fine.
What acceptance of AGW does is sort of light a fire behind a person to really seek our solutions, but if those who don’t accept, if they could at least help mitigate, that would be really great.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Not sure where that came from.
If everyone did their part – at home, work, school, church, orgs – and if each nation would do its part to incentivize reducing environmental harms (right now many are incentivizing the destruction of the environment) & reduce its own harms, that would be enough.
It’s not like a multilateral deal. Each nation and each person needs unilaterally to reduce harms. And since there is no silver bullet or single solution, this needs to be done in many and various ways (each person selecting maybe 100 things to do from the many 1000s that can be done, acc to one’s situation) – that just is not amenable to “one world governance.”
If this can’t be done, then we will all suffer, esp the poor.
D
Deus_tecum
Guest
What “rapid warming”?
T
TEPO
Guest
Chapter five – Lines of approach and action
*On this basis, Pope Francis is not afraid to judge international dynamics severely: “Recent World Summits on the environment have failed to live up to expectations because, due to lack of political will, they were unable to reach truly meaningful and effective global agreements on the environment” (166). And he asks “What would induce anyone, at this stage, to hold on to power only to be remembered for their inability to take action when it was urgent and necessary to do so?” (57). Instead, what is needed, as the Popes have repeated several times, starting with Pacem in terris, are forms and instruments for global governance (175): “an agreement on systems of governance for the whole range of the so-called “global commons”“ *
news.va/en/news/laudato-s…new-encyclical
…this outline of the encyclical was approved by CAF, and remains in the sticky section of the World News section.
T
TEPO
Guest
Pope Francis wishes to set up global governance for the “WHOLE RANGE” of so called “global commons”… The global commons are found here.
otherworldsarepossible.org/defending-global-commons
otherworldsarepossible.org/defending-global-commons
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Only 51% of Catholic Republicans believing the earth is warming and merely 36% believing human beings are the cause don’t exactly seem like huge percentages of Catholics to me. But then as Cardinal Wuerl said today, “Popes have always had to recognize, certainly as we bishops have to recognize, there are those who take part of what we say and there are others that take another part of what we say”. He spoke in terms of “the whole faith, the whole package”, while saying “there will always be some discussion among people what part they like best and for some, what part they’re going to accept”.
foxnews.com/transcript/2015/06/21/cardinal-donald-wuerl-on-pope-climate-change-message-can-rick-perry-escape/
(Wuerl’s comments on Fox News’ Wallace’s show can be found by scrolling a ways down in the transcript)
.
foxnews.com/transcript/2015/06/21/cardinal-donald-wuerl-on-pope-climate-change-message-can-rick-perry-escape/
(Wuerl’s comments on Fox News’ Wallace’s show can be found by scrolling a ways down in the transcript)
.
T
TEPO
Guest
Global Commons is an anti-capitalist, third world communist movement based in Central and South America from what I can tell. So it’s basically communist global governance.
…Unless I’m misinformed?
The North owes the South a debt…
What does it mean…?
…Unless I’m misinformed?
The North owes the South a debt…
What does it mean…?
B
bibcat
Guest
Not this Catholic! His Holiness may have a degree in chemistry, or so I’ve heard. But he’s no climatologist. He’s being deluded by liberal elites that are not only hostile to the Church, but to the working class he professes to support. Sure the Earth is getting warmer. Has been since the last ice age. And a slight tilt in the Earth’s orbit can do weird things. But human activity accelerating “climate change”? Jury is still out. And there has been too much cooking and cherry-picking of data by supporters of the man-made climate change idea
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Here’s something that might sail even in America:Global Commons is an anti-capitalist, third world communist movement based in Central and South America from what I can tell. So it’s basically communist global governance.
…Unless I’m misinformed?
The North owes the South a debt…
“Beyond capitalism and socialism: could a new economic approach save the planet?” at theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/apr/21/regenerative-economy-holism-economy-climate-change-inequality
To avoid social, environmental and economic collapse, the world needs to move beyond the standard choices of capitalism or socialism. That’s the conclusion of a new report released Wednesday by US think tank Capital Institute.
The non-partisan think tank argues that both systems are unsustainable, even if flawlessly executed, and that economists need to look to the “hard science of holism” to debunk outdated views held by both the left and the right…
…the capitalist tendency to isolate an economic process from its antecedents and effects is fundamentally flawed. The Capital Institute, created by former JP Morgan managing director John Fullerton, says that society’s economic worldview has relied on breaking complex systems down into simpler parts in order to understand and manage them…
The Capital Institute report, titled Regenerative Capitalism, emphasizes that the world economic system is closely related to, and dependent upon, the environment. “The failure of modern economic theory to acknowledge this reality has had profound consequences, not the least of which is global climate change,” it says.
The report: “REGENERATIVE CAPITALISM: How Universal Principles And Patterns
Will Shape Our New Economy” at capitalinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2015-Regenerative-Capitalism-4-20-15-final.pdf
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
There are several levels to this.
There are those who believe global warming is a fact.
Of those, some smaller percentage believe human activities are all or partly the cause.
Of those, some smaller number believes MMGW is a serious threat.
Of those, some smaller number believes there should be government programs to mitigate it.
Of those, some smaller number believes in the draconian Obama intent to “make utility bills skyrocket” and do things that will drive jobs overseas.
By the time you get to the “bottom line”, so to speak, I doubt the majority of Catholics, Repubs or Dems are still with the program.
There are those who believe global warming is a fact.
Of those, some smaller percentage believe human activities are all or partly the cause.
Of those, some smaller number believes MMGW is a serious threat.
Of those, some smaller number believes there should be government programs to mitigate it.
Of those, some smaller number believes in the draconian Obama intent to “make utility bills skyrocket” and do things that will drive jobs overseas.
By the time you get to the “bottom line”, so to speak, I doubt the majority of Catholics, Repubs or Dems are still with the program.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
I agree.
- Status