As controversial as it is... Spanish Civil War

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ioana
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ll agree to disagree. If having our last election come down to Donald trump and Hilary Clinton isn’t proof the majority shouldn’t have a say than I don’t know what is.
 
Having a benevolent Catholic monarch would be great. The problem comes up if he or she has some horrible Caligula like kid, and we have no means of getting rid of them without civil war.

Democracy has lower highs, but at least higher lows. Monarchy is a very high stakes bet.
 
wkj_123 said:
It’s democracy. If the people want communist rule that’s what they should get.
Click to expand...
I disagree with that. Just because someone is popular doesn’t mean they are doing the right thing.

Stalin and Hitler were both very popular with their constituents., you know.
 
Those nations have been monarchies in name only for well over a hundred years. Those aren’t good examples of monarchies in action.
 
wkj_123 said:
Catholic supreme monarchs, or communist party dictators, are both the wrong answer. Freedom is the correct answer.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously equating monarchy with communist dictatorship? They’re as different as apples and oranges.
 
deMontfort said:
Those nations have been monarchies in name only for well over a hundred years. Those aren’t good examples of monarchies in action.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. The Queen still has many prerogative powers and she performs vitally important state functions. And the Black Spider memos scandal proves that the Royals exercise a great deal of influence behind the scenes.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
If having our last election come down to Donald trump and Hilary Clinton
Click to expand...
Mrs. Clinton is a highly connected gal with a wealth of involvement in governmental work as well as far left politics. Further, the unparalleled humiliation that she suffered in the WH with her tomcat husband openly chasing interns, meant she had paid her dues and was entitled to the nomination and being considered seriously.

Mr. Trump was highly accomplished long before he decided to run for President, whose very name is synonymous with success. You name it, Trump did it- real estate, airlines, merchandising, TV, professional wrestling. President is the only thing he hadn’t done.
 
Anyways I was wondering more about the pre-war tension. Why did the Spanish left hate the church so much basically.
 
Having a benevolent Catholic monarch who is immortal is even better.

This reminds me and I know it’s cliche but aren’t we already subjects of a kingdom, under an immortal king?
 
Arkansan said:
Ends are the only things that can justify means (if you disagree then you shouldn’t do anything, at all).

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2001.htm#article1
Click to expand...
The “ends justify the means” does not mean that people don’t act towards ends, but it does mean that the ends people are acting towards cannot be attained by disordered means. We can say that humans do and are allowed to act towards ends, but they must still do so within the specification of the Catholic Church, and part of that specification is that should do no evil.
Arkansan said:
Most of those killed died during the war. There were also people executed for their crimes after the fact, just as there were after WWII. No one has produced any evidence that the Franco regime went around randomly killing people.
Click to expand...
First of all, there is a massive gap between justified killing and randomly killing people. Killing people in war or by executing criminals is not inherently justified. In fact, the Catechism makes it very clear that, in the latter case, there’s almost never a justifiable reason to execute criminals in our modern day.

Second, when it comes to killing, the Catechism consistently puts the burden of proof on the one doing or justifying the killing. Killing, by its nature, is inherently disordered, so we have to prove that a war is a just war or that there is no other option but to execute the criminal. No one has to prove that any killing is wrong, because that’s the default assumption. We do have to prove that any killing that we are carrying out or defending is justified.
 
Interestingly the Carlist motto was ‘Dios, Patria, Fueros, Rey’ meaning God, Fatherland, Local Rule (roughly), King.

Note that King comes last, and is checked by the Church and the autonomy of regional authority. Most people hear ‘King’ and immediately think of a power hungry absolute monarch. But that’s not what the Carlists wanted at all.
 
Read the book “Triumph: the power and glory of the Catholic Church” it goes into decent detail while maintaining readability.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
Saxum:
The rich corporations manipulate and brainwash the masses to vote for policies they want. The rich also purchase political office. The result is a dictatorship cloaked in democracy.
Click to expand...
Does that mean that the USA is a dictatorship cloaked in democracy ?
Click to expand...
It is now, and has been since the 2017 inauguration of the current POTUS.
 
thistle said:
40.png
Arkansan:
There’s nothing wrong with executing malefactors.
Click to expand...
So you contend that 400,000 plus people were criminals just because they opposed Franco.That is stupid and false.
Also these people were not tried. They were simply forcibly taken away from their families and killed.
Click to expand...
Most of the dead were killed in battle. I can’t answer non-specific allegations. If you have some sort of evidence of impropriety, please present it. Of course you can’t because this is all just commie propaganda.
ZMystiCat said:
The “ends justify the means” does not mean that people don’t act towards ends, but it does mean that the ends people are acting towards cannot be attained by disordered means. We can say that humans do and are allowed to act towards ends, but they must still do so within the specification of the Catholic Church, and part of that specification is that should do no evil.
Click to expand...
Right. And the means in question are not disordered.
First of all, there is a massive gap between justified killing and randomly killing people. Killing people in war or by executing criminals is not inherently justified. In fact, the Catechism makes it very clear that, in the latter case, there’s almost never a justifiable reason to execute criminals in our modern day.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree with that assessment of the world, but in any case 1930’s Spain was a very different ballgame.
Second, when it comes to killing, the Catechism consistently puts the burden of proof on the one doing or justifying the killing. Killing, by its nature, is inherently disordered, so we have to prove that a war is a just war or that there is no other option but to execute the criminal. No one has to prove that any killing is wrong, because that’s the default assumption. We do have to prove that any killing that we are carrying out or defending is justified.
Click to expand...
The war killings were justified because the war was justified. The executions were justified by the crimes committed by the executed.
 
kill051 said:
It is now, and has been since the 2017 inauguration of the current POTUS.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but this is completely ridiculous regardless of one’s political orientation.

When people make statements like this, credibility goes right out the window.

The US government processes are operating pretty much like they always do. Stepping up immigration policies does not equal “fascism” all of a sudden.

I would normally just let this go by, but a lot of non-US people read this forum and believe hyperbole like this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top