O
- Status
K
Kindnessmatters
Guest
Not the language, the form of mass. One example, the priest faces the cross with the congregation…with the people, ordered toward Christ. Purely symbolic but it seems to impact generally how people act.
D
Dolphin
Guest
The Republican Party is in-line with very few Catholic teachings, mainly abortion. Other than abortion there is no redeemable value in voting for the RP in my opinion. It’s rather sad the amount of Catholics that think you are a terrible Catholic if you don’t vote republican
O
on_the_hill
Guest
It’s because they don’t understand how politics and policy work. Hey, more power to 'em for sticking to principles, but they’ll never overturn RvW with that way of thinking.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Great observation.
In the past, if a young man had homosexual inclinations and he was emotionally and psychologically beaten into submission by being constantly taught that he was a bad person, the best place of all would be the priesthood.
A life of sacrifice, or prayer, of utter devotion to God would surely SURELY cleanse him of his disordered self.
And guess what? It doesn’t.
J
JSRG
Guest
I’m sure people said that about the Republican Party back in the day. But as to the ASP, its stances are (generally) fiscally liberal, socially conservative. There’s actually a fairly large percentage of the population that holds those views, and said part of the population is served by neither Republicans nor Democrats. Lack of appeal to such a large voter base is a major reason why I feel third parties in the past have generally failed. The reason the Libertarian Party is the most successful of the national third parties by a fair margin is exactly because of their ability to tap into people the primary parties aren’t serving. Their problem, however, is that not that many people actually fall into the socially liberal, fiscally conservative mold they embody. Take a look here:JSRG:
Unfortunately, the American Solidarity Party will never be a viable political party in the United States.
https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond
If you scroll down to “Figure 2” it shows a map of the 2016 electorate. You’ll notice there’s a lot of people who fall into the socially conservative, fiscally liberal camp (ASP)–but relatively few who fall into the socially liberal, fiscally conservative group (LP).
This is akin to saying “you can’t win unless the other team loses!” Part of the point is to break the duopoly and the two-party system (as to the question of “why can they do it while previous attempts haven’t?” see the above explanation). Granted, that process would be a whole lot easier if we had Ranked Choice Voting, which I do hope is implemented at some point (Maine put it into place to a limited extent), but it’s hardly impossible. Obviously it isn’t going to happen overnight but the potential is very much there.
In fact, a party does not even necessarily need much representation to exude a grand effect. If you were to swap out two Republicans and two Democrats for third party candidates in the Senate, that party would suddenly have considerable power as they would have enough candidates to make a majority with either party they wanted to on any given issue. It’s what happened in the last New Zealand election: A party that had only 7% of the seats in the parliament ended up being the decider as to who ended up in power, as their 7% was enough to give either of the two major parties a majority.
Oh, I know they’re still a good ways away from that; the party is relatively new, after all. But I think the potential is very much there.
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
The problem is that every time there was a party change in our Two Party system, the exodist was started by popular/powerful leaders of one of the existing two parties in power. A grassroots movement isn’t going to cut it without powerful Catholic politicians leaving their current party for the ASP.
Also, without a Parliamentary System, the United States will never have a multi-party system. Our form of government doesn’t lend itself to a multiparty system. We will never have 3 or more viable parties.
Last edited:
K
Kindnessmatters
Guest
You should be aware small businesses are shielded from most employment laws. Further, these things are difficult to prove and attorneys only take the cases if the employer has very deep pockets.
Most of us have close to zero protection in the workplace from such abuse.
Most of us have close to zero protection in the workplace from such abuse.
P
phil19034
Guest
And the Democratic Party is in line with none. They are moving towards Socialism, which is completely against the Catholic Church.
Here is the difference between the two parties:
- I don’t know of a single Catholic Republican who has a political position that goes causes them to be in a state of mortal sin.
- But there are PLENTY of Catholic Democrats who’s political positions places them in a state of grave sin.
Last edited:
D
Dolphin
Guest
I wasn’t aware social justice wasn’t a Catholic teaching… but perhaps we are derailing this thread
Last edited:
P
ProVobis
Guest
Only Alabama prohibits abortions in all cases AFAIK. Allowing abortions in some cases is not Catholic teaching. But you know that.
K
Kindnessmatters
Guest
Thank you for actually responding to the question. Love the side debates, bit really am looking informally at whether going back to “orthodoxy” in the church is where the growth potential exists. I get that people are bothered that I conflated orthodoxy and conservatism but I truly do also mean conservatism…anti-abortion, marriage between one man and one woman, no intercourse outside of marriage, no assisted suicide, no to socialism and communism…the ideas of personal responsibility and more.
P
phil19034
Guest
My last comment on this…
Not all “social justice” is in line with Catholic teaching.
And not all social justice issues need to be preformed directly by the federal govt. The Catholic teaching of subsidiarity requires services to be handled as close to the people as possible.
Social programs should be offered first by local community volunteers, then organized charities, then city/town govts, then county govts, then state govts, and LASTLY by the federal govtb- only if all the lower levels are unable to handle.
Dems go straight to the federal level for everything, while Republicans (esp Catholic Republicans) like to use the concept of subsidiarity. In other words, Dems have a top down approach, while Republicans have a bottom up approach.
Not all “social justice” is in line with Catholic teaching.
And not all social justice issues need to be preformed directly by the federal govt. The Catholic teaching of subsidiarity requires services to be handled as close to the people as possible.
Social programs should be offered first by local community volunteers, then organized charities, then city/town govts, then county govts, then state govts, and LASTLY by the federal govtb- only if all the lower levels are unable to handle.
Dems go straight to the federal level for everything, while Republicans (esp Catholic Republicans) like to use the concept of subsidiarity. In other words, Dems have a top down approach, while Republicans have a bottom up approach.
Last edited:
J
JSRG
Guest
Huh? Whether a country is parliamentary has nothing to do with whether it is multi-party or not. The difference between a parliament and a congress, as I understand it, is whether the Executive (president, prime minister, etc.) is elected by the legislature or not. If they are, as in the case of a prime minister, it is a parliament. If they are not, as is the case in the US (where the president is elected by the populace), it is a congress. That has almost nothing to do with what how many political parties there are.
What you seem to be thinking of is what is called “first past the post” voting, which is a voting system in which each person votes for one candidate of their choice and whoever gets the most votes wins. That, is is true, heavily favors a two-party system–most countries that are multiparty use different voting systems, such as Ranked Choice Voting, proportional representation, or MMP. Personally I would strongly favor Ranked Choice Voting in the US for this reason. But while first past the post favors a two party system, it does not guarantee it; there are a few countries with first-past-the-post voting that are not two party systems, and even many that would qualify as a “two-party system” (such as the UK) are not nearly as extreme in that regard as the United States is.
D
Dolphin
Guest
Multi-party is based on having single member districts or not. US has SMD
P
phil19034
Guest
The danger of typing on an iPhone…
I mean to say that parliamentary forms of govt are more likely to have multiple parties because they often have to “form a government” while presidential systems often have two party systems because typically they don’t have to form a govt.
First paragraph of wiki- Multi-party system - Wikipedia
I mean to say that parliamentary forms of govt are more likely to have multiple parties because they often have to “form a government” while presidential systems often have two party systems because typically they don’t have to form a govt.
First paragraph of wiki- Multi-party system - Wikipedia
- Status