Can Catholics be Democrats?

[edtaylor51]

The differences in the parties at the time were more economic than social, and regional issues carried more weight than they do now. It was a different political climate. It’s not always as black and white as some would like you to believe. Fascism, for example, does not fit neatly in the linear Left-Right paradigm of today, no matter what the hyperpartisans will tell you.

 

[abucs]

It makes no sense to say the Republicans were Progressive 150 years ago. Every party thinks they are progressive in the sense they are making society a better place.

‘Progressive’ is simply an emotional tag. Hitler thought he was Progressive.

People at the turn of last century arguing for the superiority of different races thought they were being Progressive. They were overwhelmingly Liberals and thought religion obsolete and they were following Darwin’s latest scientific theory of survival of the fittest and the removal of inferior genes from the pool creating a better society.

Today we would think this is horrific.

The Soviets thought they were Progressive in building a state to dictate the culture to the populace, killing opponents and banishing dissidents to places like Siberia for slave labour. Mussolini, the prominent Italian Marxist thought exactly the same way.

Today we see the horrors of these outcomes.

One of many problems with Progressives is that they are constantly rewriting history redesignating the horrors of Progressivism as nothing to do with them and redesignating the good guys in history as Progressives.

Such thinking is circular and dangerous.

 

[abucs]

Most fascist regimes produce totalitarian leadership structures; a hallmark of classic conservative political theory.

Again this doesn’t make sense. How can you square this belief with the dozens of communist totalitarian regimes last century? While the Left have disowned Fascism for 70 years taking over the state run education systems to project this view, they haven’t yet been able to disown Communism as being on the left.

 

[abucs]

The differences in the parties at the time were more economic than social, and regional issues carried more weight than they do now. It was a different political climate. It’s not always as black and white as some would like you to believe. Fascism, for example, does not fit neatly in the linear Left-Right paradigm of today, no matter what the hyperpartisans will tell you.

Both communism and Fascism sought to violently put down Christianity and replace it by the state. Not just religion but every social group was to be attached to the state. You cannot get any more social than that, The movement was called Socialism after all. You would expect this level of social change being championed.

Have you read the 1919 Fascist Manifesto? Minimum wage, progressive taxation, state take over of all arms companies and most of their past profits nationalised and a commitment to defence only, voting rights to be given to the poor, voting rights to be given to women, state take over of church property and abolishing of diocese system et cetera,

This is the ground zero of what they thought of themselves rather than 70 years of Left controlled education projecting it otherwise. If we want to know what Marxism is we read Marx’s manifesto. If we want to know what Fascism is then we read the authors of the Fascist Manifesto, Mussolini and Gentile, the two creators of Fascism.

When Hitler’s National Socialists went to war with Britain the rhetoric in the SS publications was how Britain was an oppressive capitalist system with the London upper class exploiting the poor workers in contrast to the egalitarian social programs of Hitler’s Germany. It is right there in black and white (although in German). When Hitler’s Socialists betrayed the Soviets in their non aggression pact the rhetoric was how the National Socialists would “show the Russians what true Socialism is. There would be no come back for priests and rabbi’s.”

Hitler identified with big state socialism, the destruction of the Christian churches and the victim politics of claiming to be on the side of the oppressed worker. He did call his movement the National Socialist Workers Party after-all,

 

[Vonsalza]

It makes no sense to say the Republicans were Progressive 150 years ago.

Yes it does. They were the major advocates of social change during that point in American history.

They are no longer.

‘Progressive’ is simply an emotional tag. Hitler thought he was Progressive.

There’s actually a historical movement that carries the title. It is, in fact, a bit more than “an emotional title”.

People at the turn of last century arguing for the superiority of different races…

Today we would think this is horrific.

Because everyone tried it and found it to be mostly junk science by the late 60s or so.

One of many problems with Progressives is that…

Please use a more narrow brush if you’d like to make a truth claim.

 

[Vonsalza]

Most fascist regimes produce totalitarian leadership structures; a hallmark of classic conservative political theory.

In the classic sense, conservative political theory invokes elitism. Liberal political theory invokes egalitarianism; broadly speaking in both cases.

 

[brian_custer]

i tried to stay away from this thread for fear of being banned

but since it is still going on ( and on & on)… i’ll’ve just re-stated my original objection to the Democratic (US) party: the party’s most fundamental platform is 100% pro-abortion from the moment of conception up to & BEYOND the moment of birth

i can’t go along with that

ps i am not a Repukeblican

 

[MonteRCMS]

In the classic sense, conservative political theory invokes elitism. Liberal political theory invokes egalitarianism; broadly speaking in both cases.

Conservative means smaller government, local government, lower taxes. Classic subsidiarity. Family.

Liberalism means Communism … big government that runs everything.

 

[abucs]

What Monte said.

If you take the slavey issue in the 19th century you can say that the Democrats were the conservatives in the south in wanting to protect the status quo of slavery there but it is equally valid to say that they were Progressives because they were wanting slavery to be introduced into the western regions.

Likewise the Republicans who were created as a party to oppose the introduction of slavery in the western territories can be seen as Conservative because they wanted to protect the status quo there and oppose the social change of slavery but then you could also call them Progressive in wanting slavery abolished in the south.

Your definition of a Progressive as one wanting social change is extremely subjective to the point of not making sense.

A Progressive has to do this mind trick (which makes no sense) in order to stay on the ‘right side of history’ which they are taught is always where Progressives are.

If advocating social change is Progressive then someone today advocating for slavery would be a Progressive by that definition. That is, they want a social change.

Because slavery is abolished today everywhere in the US, those resisting slavery today would be considered Conservatives. So therefore Conservatives are the force that would oppose slavery. Everyone should be a
Conservative if they oppose slavery.

This definition is not rational, with respect. I’ve wrote further on this in another thread to point out the evil of people in the past who called themselves Progressive and the goodness of anti-Progressives only for the Progressives of today to do their irrational mind swap.

So for example neither the Republican Party nor the Black Conservative Christian churches would want to be called a Progressive (they would consider that an insult) both were at the forefront at opposing slavery and/or segregation, very much against the Democrats and yet Progressive Democrats today want the right to name these people as Progressives much like some American churches retrospectively baptising the dead into their faith and then claiming they were of their own faith.

Republicans wanted and still want citizens to be treated the same before the law. The Black Conservative churches, though voting Democrat stood strong against the segregation and are very definitely not Progressive.

Hitler and Mussolini however, both saw themselves as socialists and progressives.

So not only do Progressives retrospectively baptise good people they retrospectively ex-communicate bad ones.

This allows them to always think of their movement as one on the side of the angels when very often it is the opposite.

 

[MonteRCMS]

I STRONGLY recommend reading “Centesimus Annus”, the encyclical written by Pope St. John Paul II. [Ghost written for him by Michael Novak.] [And issued in American English] [Later issued in Latin, but originally in American English]

You can type in the name into Google and print out the encyclical for free.

Interesting reading … all about “subsidiarity”.

 

[Lovinglight]

Before my conversion I used to be a liberal actually…almost a socialist. I bought the whole thing hook …line…sinker as taught to me in school…until i started learning about the root political causes behind these ideologies which are atheism/anti theism/humanism/secularism/etc…then i changed everything.

I dont vote straight ticket according to party line. I look at the fundamental things regarding the sanctity of life issues and go from there.

This last election i didnt vote at all.

 

[josh987654321]

This last election i didnt vote at all.

I was just about to give your post a like until I read this. I cannot ever like this, I was happy at the start, but then incredibly saddened to read this, to have another Catholic here who says they stand up for life, but if you don’t vote, then your opinion doesn’t matter and you don’t stand up for life.

How hard is it to place a vote for a pro-life candidate? One day you’ll lose even the opportunity to do that. I feel betrayed, not as bad as those who call themselves ‘Catholic’ and vote against life, but rest assured those heretics and murderers will thank you for not voting.

“For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”

Thank you for reading.

 

[pnewton]

joyful will simply not address the issue that her “life-long” party is 1,000% pro-abortion

That is not mathematically possible.

 

[josh987654321]

In Australia with the same sex marriage plebiscite, there are ‘Catholics’ who have voted yes to it, they are indeed heretics and traitors, stabbing us in the back when we need them most. Then there are those who do believe in marriage, but don’t even bother to vote, what am I supposed to make of those people? all they need to do is tick a box and put it back in the mail box, it’s so easy, they will never get that opportunity again. It wouldn’t matter whether they were faithful Catholics or not since they made no difference.

“For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.:”

Thank you for reading.

 

[pnewton]

to have another Catholic here who says they stand up for life, but if you don’t vote, then your opinion doesn’t matter and you don’t stand up for life.

You do know there is more one can do to support life than just voting, don’t you? Even apart from protests and financial support of groups like priests for life, just one on one witness is a way to stand up for the unborn. You should never accuse a brother like this sentence does. If you always vote pro-life, but never protest, you are still standing up for life, even if you did not do that one specific thing.

I have scrolled through and I notice over the weekend the insults and ad hominems, seem to be coming from the conservative contingent, not counting posts like the one I linked, which is more an argument and not insult. Just an observation for those who wish to be kinder.

 

[josh987654321]

You do know there is more one can do to support life than just voting, don’t you?

How hard is it to place a vote? How can one stand up for life in other regards and not do something so simple and so fundamental for the cause as to vote pro-life?

I don’t mean to attack @Lovinglight, but at the same time I must try and make them aware of the severe gravity of what they have said and failed to do, so hopefully next time they will be sure to vote pro-life with us while we still can, why do we not all thirst for that chance over this grave injustice? I’m very thankful I can vote a big fat NO to these murderers, and I take that chance in a heartbeat. Like I said, they can rest assured that all the heretics and murderers voting pro-death will thank them for their apathy in this regard.

All Catholics should be voting pro-life and if Catholics actually did that, these pro-death politicians days would be numbered.

“For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”

Thank you for reading.

 

[pnewton]

How can one stand up for life in other regards and not do something so simple and so fundamental for the cause as to vote pro-life?

This year, it was pretty tough. I voted third party myself. There was not major candidate that showed much consistency at all on life issues. Trump was a shaky, political anti-abortion candidate, but weak on other life issues. Then there was Hillary the Terrible.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In Australia with the same sex marriage plebiscite, there are ‘Catholics’ who have voted yes to it, they are indeed heretics and traitors…

Voting “yes” on that plebiscite is not necessarily an heretical act. They may have voted yes on allowing same sex couples to enjoy the secular benefits of the state’s recognition of marriage without implying that their relationship was actually the same as sacramental marriage and without implying their relationship was not sinful. A heretic is someone who obstinately denies an element of the faith. There is no element of the faith that says that a couple of women can’t get a tax benefit that is normally given to a married couple. Just because a couple of men are living in sin does not mean one should not be allowed to visit the other in the hospital.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

In the classic sense, conservative political theory invokes elitism. Liberal political theory invokes egalitarianism; broadly speaking in both cases.

Conservative means smaller government, local government, lower taxes. Classic subsidiarity. Family.

Liberalism means Communism … big government that runs everything.

A decent basic treatment, albeit dated (which is fine because this material doesn’t really change).

CLASSICAL LIBERALISM: THE BEST OF POLITICAL CREEDS

“The classical liberal valued equal treatment under law as much as liberty. He was also keenly aware of one of the main vulnerabilities of democratic government which is to fall under the sway of influential special interests who hold some form of power in society and who therefore expect special privileges, including that of the “right” to rule.”

“The conservatives have also tried to define themselves. They too proclaim the same adherence to the rule of law, like the liberals, but their fealty stresses submission to its authority rather than its role as guardian of liberty.”

It’s a blog, but one hosted by Michigan State and it’s reasonably neutral. A decent read.

I think it pretty well puts THIS particular sub-discussion “to bed”.

 

[Vonsalza]

In Australia with the same sex marriage plebiscite, there are ‘Catholics’ who have voted yes to it, they are indeed heretics and traitors, stabbing us in the back when we need them most.

I understand the feeling.

But when we create something called “secular governance”, that means that it can’t affirm any one view.

While human history pretty clearly shows that we prefer that our religious and governmental structures affirm one-another, in a secular state that simply can’t happen.

The government belongs to those homosexuals as well.

Vis-a-vis, when a government must define “marriage” for its own bureaucratic purposes, it holds no obligation to a Catholic or Muslim understanding of “marriage”.

I think the best solution would be to remove the concept from secular government. But until then…