So we are to see potential Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton likewise as evil since she voted for the Iraq invasion?In what way did voting for Bush lessen evil? (hint: Iraq)
I honestly think that not only is what some propose here basically support of abortion but also some may support “same sex marriage”, hence, these issues, 2, are clearly opposite of what the Church is wanting and it almost makes me wonder why is this even questioned on a Catholic forum. It’s turning logic on its head.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
That is the link to the Republican Platform for 2012 election. Please point me to the portions that substantiate any of the accusations you have made.
If you want to place the condition of your immortal soul on issues like this, at least do the research first.
Libertarians are not considered liberals or leftists in general.This insistance that anarchism is a right wing philosophy is one of the most bizarre things I’ve seen on here.
Can you imagine Bakunin or Emma Goldman being considered right wing? It’s literally laughable.
One could insert “Libertarian” in for Anarchy.Anarchy is on the left because each person is their own authority.
You’re assuming I’m planning on voting Democrat. I may not vote for anybody depending on who the Republican candidate is. The point is that abortion wasn’t even slowed during Bush but we got tangled up in 2 wars that we are still seeing the fallout from. Voting strictly pro-life is myopic and hinting that someone’s soul is in danger if you vote for the wrong person is legalism in one of it’s worst manifisations (it’s using fear of hell to get someone to vote for your party).So we are to see potential Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton likewise as evil since she voted for the Iraq invasion?
I have a feeling that when it comes down to Democrat support of the war, now all of a sudden, it’s irrelevant. The way many people were killed per drone strikes in Afghanistan under the Obama administration. Now, we don’t hear that much about the drone strikes. I think they were finally told to calm it down.
It’s not bizarre at all. Just a different way of presenting the political structure. However, it’s not the model generally accepted or used.This insistance that anarchism is a right wing philosophy is one of the most bizarre things I’ve seen on here.
Can you imagine Bakunin or Emma Goldman being considered right wing? It’s literally laughable.
Can you give any back up for your opinions from any member of the Magetstrium or any Church document? I posted quotes from three popes, a Cardinal and 6 Bishops . Are they all “myopic”? Are they legalistic?You’re assuming I’m planning on voting Democrat. I may not vote for anybody depending on who the Republican candidate is. The point is that abortion wasn’t even slowed during Bush but we got tangled up in 2 wars that we are still seeing the fallout from. Voting strictly pro-life is myopic and hinting that someone’s soul is in danger if you vote for the wrong person is legalism in one of it’s worst manifisations (it’s using fear of hell to get someone to vote for your party).
Actually, zz812 implied that the Pope did support it and Ridgerunner implied it was a just war and Mirasol talked about how can we be sure that there weren’t WMD.Nobody said the Pope supported the war. he opposed it. What he did say was that a Catholic could support the war BUT NOT ABORTION OR EUTHANASIA. Those of us affirming Church teaching are good at finding quotes. It would be nice if those who dispute us would do the same. Here is the quote(again):
Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
Pope Benedict XVI
July 2004
I don’t see it as scaring someone. No one has to convince me I should not be for the needless snuffing out of life.You’re assuming I’m planning on voting Democrat. I may not vote for anybody depending on who the Republican candidate is. The point is that abortion wasn’t even slowed during Bush but we got tangled up in 2 wars that we are still seeing the fallout from. Voting strictly pro-life is myopic and hinting that someone’s soul is in danger if you vote for the wrong person is legalism in one of it’s worst manifisations (it’s using fear of hell to get someone to vote for your party).
And therein lies what has always perplexed me the most about this issue. The idea that you should have to convince someone that they shouldn’t support some who favors abortion on demand.I don’t see it as scaring someone. No one has to convince me I should not be for the needless snuffing out of life.
Libertarianism doesn’t equal anarchism. In libertarianism, the means of production would be owned and run privately with no regulation. In anarchism the means of production would be run by the people and would be regulated by the very same people (no ownership at all, private or otherwise but it most certainly would be regulated to some extent). I’m assuming there would be some sort of money in a libertarian society, who regulates it (no money at all in anarchism)? By who’s authority is a factory owned by someone if there isn’t any government? I’m thinking there would have to be some sort of governement and that libertarianism simply means no rules for the property owners.Libertarians are not considered liberals or leftists in general.
One could insert “Libertarian” in for Anarchy.
You obviously didn’t comprehend my point. I never implied or intended to state that the Pope supported the war. My point was that when the war was begun, in 2003, the decision to support it was based upon belief there were WMD’s in Iraq. Looking at the issue in 2014, and stating it was sinful because there weren’t many WMD’s found is Monday morning quarterbacking. You can’t ascribe sin to people for believing intelligence that turned out to be wrong later. They were using the best info available to them at the time.Actually, zz812 implied that the Pope did support it and Ridgerunner implied it was a just war and Mirasol talked about how can we be sure that there weren’t WMD.
Basically, all didn’t know or didn’t take heed about the Pope’s statements against the war. Certainly zz812 didn’t. Now, you provide a quote where the Pope said there can be a diversity of opinion among Catholics on the waging of war, which I think is an unfortunate statement. It basically takes away the ability of the Church to instruct on the issue. Why would anyone listen to Pope Francis on the conflicts in the Middle East after reading the above statement?
And, while I’m sure it makes some content that they get to come on this website and chastise those who don’t support the Republicans in the election booth (after all, the only issue that matters is abortion), the fact is that the Republicans lost in 2008 and 2012. In fact, they’ve lost a lot lately. Because they’ve started unjust wars they’ve lost some Catholic voters. Because they failed to support immigration reform, they lost a lot of Latino voters. The fact is that the Republicans probably will continue to lose until they fundamentally change and take their social conservative base more seriously. We are seeing that at the state level with the restrictions on abortion, but there also needs to be a foreign policy shift that makes the Republican policies more in line with the Pope’s. There needs to be the compassionate conservatism that President Bush talked about in 2000. Otherwise, we’ll be looking at another President Clinton in 2016.
Yeah, that method was created because those on the left didn’t want people to see the truth about their side. So they fashioned that political scale and were able to move fascism over the right as an offset to communism and socialism on the left. They could then pretend that fascism isn’t left, and pretend that the middle is where we want to stay.That is not the model generally used in PoliSci. It goes from government of the many on the left to government of the few on right. Anarchy is on the left because each person is their own authority.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City_PolicyThe point is that abortion wasn’t even slowed during Bush
First paragraph. You are free to think of it as an unjust war. But let’s not confuse that with Church teaching. If you look at the “Just War Doctrine” as it has been from Thomas Aquinas onward, there is no requirement that one’s own country be attacked, nor is there a requirement that there be WMD. It is enough that the evil to be opposed be of sufficient magnitude. One can argue that starting two wars, one of them a world war, putting people in acid baths, having rape rooms and killing a million people is not of sufficient magnitude as evils to. But if not that, what?The attack on Iraq in 2003 sure seemed like an unjust war to me, especially given everything we learnt afterwards. Iraq was not a credible threat to the United States; they did not have weapons of mass destruction. Yes, Saddam Hussian was a bad person, but so is Kim Jong Il.
Furthermore, why should the property of American people be taken away from them to help half-way across the world? Why should the lives of soldiers who volunteered to protect America, not some other country be put at risk? The whole things seems to violate the principle of subsidiarity. The problem should have been dealt with on a local level.
Of course you know that dead foreign babies don’t “count” in these discussions.
Many people who claim to be anarchists are nothing of the sort. They merely want to tear down the existing govt structure and institute their preferred one.This insistance that anarchism is a right wing philosophy is one of the most bizarre things I’ve seen on here.
Can you imagine Bakunin or Emma Goldman being considered right wing? It’s literally laughable.
My apologies. How could I have forgotten?Of course you know that dead foreign babies don’t “count” in these discussions.
Does this sound right wing to you?:Yeah, that method was created because those on the left didn’t want people to see the truth about their side. So they fashioned that political scale and were able to move fascism over the right as an offset to communism and socialism on the left. They could then pretend that fascism isn’t left, and pretend that the middle is where we want to stay.
It’s silly and insipid. There is NO government of the many in socialism or communism. It’s a false facade.
The true political spectrum measures govt control and power, and the further left you go, the higher it increases. Socialism, communism, fascism, and totalitarianism are on the extreme left.
Anarchism is the great liberator of man from the phantoms that have held him captive; it is the arbiter and pacifier of the two forces for individual and social harmony. To accomplish that unity, Anarchism has declared war on the pernicious influences which have so far prevented the harmonious blending of individual and social instincts, the individual and society.
Religion, the dominion of the human mind; Property, the dominion of human needs; and Government, the dominion of human conduct, represent the stronghold of man’s enslavement and all the horrors it entails. Religion! How it dominates man’s mind, how it humiliates and degrades his soul. God is everything, man is nothing, says religion. But out of that nothing God has created a kingdom so despotic, so tyrannical, so cruel, so terribly exacting that naught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled the world since gods began. Anarchism rouses man to rebellion against this black monster. Break your mental fetters, says Anarchism to man, for not until you think and judge for yourself will you get rid of the dominion of darkness, the greatest obstacle to all progress.
Property, the dominion of man’s needs, the denial of the right to satisfy his needs. Time was when property claimed a divine right, when it came to man with the same refrain, even as religion, “Sacrifice! Abnegate! Submit!” The spirit of Anarchism has lifted man from his prostrate position. He now stands erect, with his face toward the light. He has learned to see the insatiable, devouring, devastating nature of property, and he is preparing to strike the monster dead.
from ANARCHISM: WHAT IT REALLY STANDS FOR by Emma Goldman“Property is robbery,” said the great French Anarchist Proudhon. Yes, but without risk and danger to the robber. Monopolizing the accumulated efforts of man, property has robbed him of his birthright, and has turned him loose a pauper and an outcast. Property has not even the time-worn excuse that man does not create enough to satisfy all needs. The A B C student of economics knows that the productivity of labor within the last few decades far exceeds normal demand. But what are normal demands to an abnormal institution? The only demand that property recognizes is its own gluttonous appetite for greater wealth, because wealth means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade. America is particularly boastful of her great power, her enormous national wealth. Poor America, of what avail is all her wealth, if the individuals comprising the nation are wretchedly poor? If they live in squalor, in filth, in crime, with hope and joy gone, a homeless, soilless army of human prey.
But there was never a point where the Pope supported the war. So, anyone who supported the war was ignoring the Pope. But I guess that is fine, since Estesbob posted a statement where the Pope said it was ok to ignore him above.You obviously didn’t comprehend my point. I never implied or intended to state that the Pope supported the war. My point was that when the war was begun, in 2003, the decision to support it was based upon belief there were WMD’s in Iraq. Looking at the issue in 2014, and stating it was sinful because there weren’t many WMD’s found is Monday morning quarterbacking. You can’t ascribe sin to people for believing intelligence that turned out to be wrong later. They were using the best info available to them at the time.
I hope you understand my point now.