Can Catholics be Democrats?

[abucs]

Not at all. It was the “net” the GOP used to scoop up these disaffected democrats.

You guys invited the racists right into your party.

I never claimed the republicans appealed to the dems directly on race; particularly at the platform level.
Don’t drift, please.

The south has consistently voted Republican since the 1980’s. In 1980 and 1984 the whole county voted Republican. Using phrases like ‘scoop up’ is sophistry which insinuates malevolence. The phrase ‘invited the racists into your party’ is similar sophistry meant to attribute malevolence. I am asking you to prove that malevolence and you can’t because it was not there. How about saying the Republicans converted these people and for the first time in the early 1980’s the whole country voted as one and put the racist laws behind them? You have just admitted the Republican party did not appeal to the south on racist grounds. That we can agree on. But you are still wanting to ascribe racism to the southern people voting Republican today and insinuate the Republican Party somehow facilitates this or in some malevolent way is racist itself. That is prejudice and an attribute that you cannot prove.

The Republicans ‘invited’ these people into the Republican Party like the Catholic Church ‘invited’ the human sacrificing Aztecs into the church. If one was to have a prejudice against the Catholic church one might use phrases like the church ‘scooped up these human sacrificing people’. But there is no human sacrificing today. The church converted these people. There is no moves to segregated black people today in the Republican south. The Republican party converted them.

 

[abucs]

Judging another time and place by contemporary norms is a quintessential anachronism - one you happily commit.

Sub par.

You are using sophistry again in a very non rational way, to attribute malevolence (happily commit) and wanting to disregard views without engaging with them rationally.

You are incorrect on all counts here. There is an objective morality Catholics call God which we are called to follow.

Pope Gregory XVI more than 20 years before the American civil war.

“We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort… that no one in the future dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples… We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this trade in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in these Apostolic Letters” (In supremo apostolatus, 1839).

So you are wrong to chide me for ‘happily committing’ quintessential anachronism in a sub par way. You are being condescending and making a fool of yourself at the same time. All of this discussion was based on the original conversation that the northern Democratic position was racist in the 1860’s. You have admitted this already and now you are trying to save face with catty sophistry which is itself based on falsehood.

 

[abucs]

Here you go with your broad brush again. Claiming that northern democrats supported slavery in the same way as southern dems is factually incorrect. A quarter of that segment of the party explicitly rejected it en toto, the other 3/4 thought it was a state issue and not the be decided by the federal government.

Southern dems, on the other hand, openly supported the institution and argued for its necessity.

These are facts that your broad brush is errantly and fallaciously trying to paint over.

Again, sub-par.

You have already admitted that the Republican position was the only morally acceptable one at this time. So this means that the Democratic positions (north and south) are not morally acceptable. You are trying to save face here by attributing to me the idea that they are exactly the same views. That is a red herring. Both views are morally unacceptable. You have admitted this already. Whether both Democratic views (which you admit are not moral) are exactly the same is not something that is being discussed. They were both morally wrong.

 

[abucs]

If the dems were par for the course then Republicans were trailblazers for civil fairness and freedom.

Indeed they were. What’s equally true is that they’ve surrendered that mantle to the dems today.

No that is not true at all. Democrats believe they are the trailblazers for civil fairness and freedom. I think they are dangerously pandering to victim politics and an out of date socialism lite policy (basically a form of fascism) which is very bad for society.

If you’re progressive, you’re generally no longer republican.

Yes this we can agree on. What you are not realising though is that because you associate Progressiveness with fairness and freedom that doesn’t mean others also do.

Hitler was building his Progress on what he considered the modern science of Darwinian evolution and the survival of the fittest which he believed made his race superior to others. In removing inferior genes, Hitler believed he was progressing society. He believed that Germany needed to remove Christianity and build a strong secular state for the common oppressed German worker. In pandering to the German working class victim politics of blaming the rich Jews for their miseries he was playing identity politics. His rallying cry was the more equal distribution of wealth to the victim class of German workers. This is why his party was called the National Socialist Workers Party. He saw himself as a Progressive.

I see Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot as Progressives.

I am happy not to be associated with any of them but this is a different discussion.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Since no one wants to bring back the Democrats slavery, Jim Crow or Ku Klux Klan it Is obvious that the south have accepted the Republicans moral anti racist philosophy.

The VAST majority of Republicans, Democrats and Independents in the South do not want any of that and are NOT racist.

My question is for people who try to graft the sins of the Democrat past onto the GOP and the South if they are just looking to soothe their conscience knowing they support a party platform that supports anti-Catholic garbage with pride.

You have admitted this already and now you are trying to save face with catty sophistry which is itself based on falsehood.

Which isn’t even necessary on @Vonsalza’s part if he would just say he votes on principle and stops trying to graft the Democratic past on others he doesn’t agree with. No one is held responsible for what their party did 150 years ago, because you can’t do that and be able to vote on principle.

 

[TheLittleLady]

To the OP.

As you can see from this thread, elephant Catholics will not have any fellowship with non-elephant Catholics,

 

[sainteriksrose]

Fr. Frank Pavone said years ago that if he voted for a pro-abortion Democrat, it would be a mortal sin.

I don’t know how any Christian could think otherwise, as we DO know the Church’s position on sins that are abominations before God. Since we are to always hate the sin, to SUPPORT the sin with our vote is saying it’s okay to offend God - and we’re SUPPOSED to ALWAYS put HIM first!

Jesus died on the Cross for us. The VERY least we can do is support His teachings - among them to “sin no more” - with our vote.

 

[SuperLuigi]

To the OP.

As you can see from this thread, elephant Catholics will not have any fellowship with non-elephant Catholics,

More character attacks.

The Democrat platform is pro-abortion, anti-marriage and anti-child. The Democrats could help themselves a lot with Catholics by dumping these policies.

And I should note: It’s the SJW left that is trying to shut down conversation, and it’s anyone guess as to how much the Democrats are going to dog whistle to them just so they can stick it to Donald J. Trump.

 

[Indyann]

Fellowship, or accept your position as ,ok or even as a good thing?

 

[TheLittleLady]

Fellowship. Sit down, have a cup of coffee, speak as if we are equals instead of enemies.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’ll pick this one since it’s a pretty nice summary of your paradigms as I see it and I’ve been away for long enough that I don’t want to take the time to respond to each post individually.

abucs:

You have admitted this already and now you are trying to save face with catty sophistry which is itself based on falsehood.

Which isn’t even necessary on @Vonsalza’s part if he would just say he votes on principle and stops trying to graft the Democratic past on others he doesn’t agree with. No one is held responsible for what their party did 150 years ago, because you can’t do that and be able to vote on principle.

I’m not at all trying to justify the votes of southern dems 150 years back.

I’m just trying to correctly point out that the objective truth is the democratic party was split over the issue by roughly the Mason-Dixon line. Northern dems either saw the issue like the republicans saw it, or they felt if was an attempt for the federal government to assume a power left to the states in the constitution. Southern dems, on the other hand, openly advocated the institution. “But that make’s the northern dems pro-slavery as it leads to a similar end!” If that’s the case, they’re no more explicitly pro-slavery than virtually anyone else in the two-and-a-half millennia of western civilization that immediately preceded and produced them.

With such a wide collection of stances across the party at that time, trying to identify the democrats of 1860 as “the party of slavery” is just a factually stupid thing to do. It’s just obvious anachronism. I say that as gently as I can.

I think the primary bee in @abucs bonnet is that he/she cannot accept the reality that when the south shifted republican, the shift largely took southern racists with it. Frankly, this is a pretty firmly established historical fact.

Now, this leaves the reps in a difficult position of not historically nor explicitly supporting these views, but needing these vote-bases nonetheless. And as a natural, unavoidable result, many of the newly elected southern republicans carried these awful views with them and into the party up to this day. Now the language is no longer about “the blacks”, it’s coded into less obvious buzzwords like “society” and “order” as we first read explicitly in many of the Nixon papers on the “Southern Strategy”.

It’s the unfortunate, but obvious truth. People like David Duke and those in my town who describe the black neighborhood as “N****r Creek” generally don’t vote dem these days. I think most people can see that.
And I agree that many places in the south are becoming less racist. But that’s also accompanying a steady blue-shift, as we can see particularly in Texas, Georgia, Virginia and North Carolina.

In sum, republicans aren’t racists. But, generally, racists are republican. At least these days.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

You think David Duke went for Hillary?

I lived in St. Francisville, Louisiana for 1989 to 1992 while working at Riverbend Nuclear Power Plant.
As soon as my co-workers saw my wife, they said to me: “Do not ever cross into Livingston Parish”. I asked why. They responded more or less the same: That Parish is 100% white and klan. They still kill non-whites who venture into their turf". I took them at face value.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

I have yet to meet a racist conservative.

I meet them everyday. Nearly my whole family on my Dad’s side are racist conservatives.

Next cubicle office over contains 4 of them.

Some are overt about it, others are covert about it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Fr. Frank Pavone said years ago that if he voted for a pro-abortion Democrat, it would be a mortal sin.

I don’t know how any Christian could think otherwise, as we DO know the Church’s position on sins that are abominations before God. Since we are to always hate the sin, to SUPPORT the sin with our vote is saying it’s okay to offend God - and we’re SUPPOSED to ALWAYS put HIM first!

As has been said many times before, a vote for a candidate for public office is not a vote for every single thing that candidate believes.

 

[Vonsalza]

sainteriksrose:

Fr. Frank Pavone said years ago that if he voted for a pro-abortion Democrat, it would be a mortal sin.

I don’t know how any Christian could think otherwise, as we DO know the Church’s position on sins that are abominations before God. Since we are to always hate the sin, to SUPPORT the sin with our vote is saying it’s okay to offend God - and we’re SUPPOSED to ALWAYS put HIM first!

As has been said many times before, a vote for a candidate for public office is not a vote for every single thing that candidate believes.

Of course it isn’t.

If it were, then you couldn’t vote for anyone…

 

[SuperLuigi]

But, generally, racists are republican. At least these days.

They why do Democrats call me racial names?

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

SuperLuigi:

Racism started declining.

I’m glad you think so. But as someone who lives in rural Appalachia, that doesn’t seem to be the case in my neck of the woods. And that’s Kentucky. Northernmost of the “southern states”.

From 1992 to 2008 I lived in a town 10 miles away(Where Big Fish was filmed), there is a sub-town located within it called “Sandtown” the racists called it either “Monkey Town” or “N****r Town”.

They also refer to the Capital City Montgomery the same 2 things.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

But, generally, racists are republican. At least these days.

They why do Democrats call me racial names?

Beats me, fella.

I’m sure there are plenty of racist dems out there. Never said there weren’t. But the majority tend to be republican these days, as many would probably agree.

The majority of the readership of The Daily Stormer aren’t very progressive. Of course, we all knew that.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

Fr. Frank Pavone said years ago that if he voted for a pro-abortion Democrat, it would be a mortal sin.

He does not speak for the USCCB much less the Vatican.

On the day the Pope makes a dogmatic proclamation that voting for a pro-abortion Candidate is a Mortal Sin, then I will gladly switch parties in a New York second.

It only requires a One-Liner from the Pope.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Beats me, fella.

Really? Then maybe you don’t know as much about this as you think.

You should probably look into what people have said about Michelle Malkin, Tommy Sotomayor, Ariana Rowlands and Ben Shapiro.

But the majority tend to be republican these days, as many would probably agree.

Argumentum ad populum

If that’s even true…

The majority of the readership of The Daily Stormer aren’t very progressive. Of course, we all knew that.

The Daily Stormer was boycotting Breitbart. I don’t think very many people in general don’t like the Stormer.

And your race card has just expired, Vonsalza.

Tschus!