It’s off topic, but I do agree that it is a mistake to unduly idolize the Founders, many of whom were Deists, and who were sons of the Enlightenment, which brought us the French Revolution. The U.S. was lucky to avoid the violence done in the name of “fraternity, equality, and liberty.” Jefferson remained a friend of the French Revolution even making excuses for its violent excesses.
I’ve read that per capita more refugees fled the American Revolution than the French Revolution, and the fact there was a revolution at all certainly raises questions about avoiding violence. I think one of the big reasons there weren’t mass executions or that sort of thing in the American revolution was that there simply weren’t many Catholics in the English New World colonies, as opposed to France where there were Catholics in the way of the “Enlightment” ideas.
Well, the American’s didn’t cart innocent nuns off to the guillotine, and the country itself was mostly Christian, not Deist. The American’s didn’t go to the extent of changing the names of the days of the week and making the weeks ten days each, in an attempt to obliterate every trace of religion and tradition!
Yes, most Americans then were Christians. The vast majority of the French were Catholic. In both cases a small group of Masonic/Deist/Enlightment revolutionaries were able to steer events, in a way the vast body of people wanted no part of.
Just a couple of comments.
As I recall, Henry VIII was pretty debautched as a teenager… he really did not need much to keep him on a down hill slide.I agree that money is the root of all evil if people are on the edge of starvation, like they did 2000 years ago, but we don’t have that problem here in the US due to all the safety nets.
I suggest you watch “The Tudors” on netflix. It was about all the liberal corruption in our Church and all the liberal corruption that brought down King Henry the 8th. History is just repeating itself. Now, if God does not exist, then I agree that it’s no problem. In that case, we should all be liberal hedonists who consume and consume and consume (which is where the far left is taking us) until there’s nothing left. It’s a great way to destroy a nation that cannot be defeated militarily.
This election is more about God vs godlessness than it is about the candidates. It’s too bad that many people have been fooled into believing it is about money. The far left is trying to make it about class warfare for very good reason.
I never said this.
As the Church permits both avenues, so I think all Catholics should. I see criticism of the prudent choices of others, where such choice is permitted, as contrary to Church teaching. When it results in insults, I see it as uncharitable.
Of course we would need to vote if ever there was such a referendum.
That is a personal question to only be addressed on a case by case basis. The latest action was when I helped collect and deliver 150 pounds of food to the local food pantry. I do think voting is not nearly significant as local action, based on the percentage of choice in a candidate that one vote carries out of a voting population of 150,000,000.
I totally agree with this. I think not voting from indifference is an indefensible position. I also see the danger of cynicism creeping in. This is one reason I do not like to read such things like this is the most important election ever or, as one poster put it, this may be the last free election. I have heard that almost every presidential election. Such hype can easily lead to cynicism when repeated every four years.
This argument is often made, that those who don’t vote have no right to speak later. Why? Is freedom of speech conditioned upon casting a ballot?
This webpage is apparently published by “American Right to Life,” so it’s one organization opposing the practical politics of another organization. There’s room for argument within the pro-life movement, but ARTL also opposes Fr. Frank Pavone, Rick Santorum, and Jill Stanek, among others. Here’s their list of enemies ranked in order:
Wow! Their ranking system prevents me from giving them any credence. Their definitions are not what I think are sensible. I think it does not take into account the Catholic teaching that one is able to support someone who is may be less than perfect for reasons of prudence.
It was actually Father George Rutler who made the comment about the last free election in the context of a talk he gave, wherein he mentioned religious liberty. It was a rather minor part of his talk but it certainly got some attention.
I know nothing about the organization. But they seem to have similar policies to the American Life League, an organization which argues forcefully for a position of no abortion, no exceptions, no compromise. It is a thoroughly consistent position, and perhaps they are right. Why should we save some babies while letting others die? Yet in the current political atmosphere I will take what restrictions on abortion that are obtainable. And I can’t imagine A.L.L. supporting Obama as the lesser of two evils.
Aborting a baby because of rape or incest is clearly an intrinsic evil that Romney supports. The question is whether catholics by always voting out of fear because the other guy is worse is in fact enabling intrinsically evil policies to continue or to muddle the issue.
I’m voting for Virgil Goode and my conscience is clear!
I remember someone here saying it, but he might well have gotten this from Fr. Rutler. Still, it is this sort of thing that leaves people cynical when they hear it year in and year out.
Rather than dismissing everything said because of who said it, I’d encourage folks to check their footnotes and evaluate if the specific claims made are accurate or not.
But Fr. Rutler hasn’t been saying it yearn in and year out. Just this year.