How will a devout Catholic handle the job as President of the US?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zynxensar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
America has raped and pillaged smaller countries and then wonders why we should assist in bringing them into the 21st century. From oil to diamonds to the exploitation of actual LABOR. Own the corruption and get your head out of the sand
 
DENNYINMI said:
America has raped and pillaged smaller countries and then wonders why we should assist in bringing them into the 21st century. From oil to diamonds to the exploitation of actual LABOR. Own the corruption and get your head out of the sand
Click to expand...
You say America, like it was a monolith, some governments did bad things, and groups within those same government opposed them. History is a bit more complex. Every country has its sins, and has exploited or taken advantage of other countries, it is the fallen nature of man.
 
Sure. The Pew Religious Landscape survey.

In America, Catholicism is shrinking, even accounting for immigration. 2007 just under 24% Catholic. 2014 just under 21%.

Now world-wide it’s growing at about the same rate as population. But in America religion on-the-whole is shrinking; doubly so for organized high-church religions like Catholicism.
 
Last edited:
Catholic kids and young adults are leaving faster than the Hispanics are replacing them.

It looks like if you’re actively Catholic in your 50s, you will be until you die. Younger than that it’s more of a toss up.

Number of Catholic millennials of all ethnicities in the US is 11%.
Millennials are now 38 and younger, using 1980 as the generational divide.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
Sure. The Pew Religious Landscape survey.

In America, Catholicism is shrinking, even accounting for immigration. 2007 just under 24% Catholic. 2014 just under 21%.

Now world-wide it’s growing at about the same rate as population. But in America religion on-the-whole is shrinking; doubly so for organized high-church religions like Catholicism.
Click to expand...
Do you have anything else but the Pew Forum? Is that your only source?
 
Gallup also posted an article in April about declining Catholic population in America.

But hey, we hear what we want, right?
If you want to think Catholicism in the US is growing, fine with me. I guess.
 
Vonsalza said:
Gallup also posted an article in April about declining Catholic population in America.

But hey, we hear what we want, right?
If you want to think Catholicism in the US is growing, fine with me. I guess.
Click to expand...
Okay, Gallup and Pew, just checking. Self-reported polls can be accurate, but I’m not so sure about those after looking into their methods, their sample populations, in order to find the truth.

After all, it’s not what we see that matters, its the truth.
 
anon65111186 said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Gallup also posted an article in April about declining Catholic population in America.

But hey, we hear what we want, right?
If you want to think Catholicism in the US is growing, fine with me. I guess.
Click to expand...
Okay, Gallup and Pew, just checking. Self-reported polls can be accurate, but I’m not so sure about those after looking into their methods, their sample populations, in order to find the truth.

After all, it’s not what we see that matters, its the truth.
Click to expand...
Truth is seldom knowable in a way that transcends objection. More often that not, “THE TRUTH” is associated with a probability coefficient that is less than 1. The variability of certainty is what separates belief from fact and those things aren’t discrete - they’re a continuum.

But with that said, if anyone places themselves at odds with Gallop or Pew, I’m going to bet against them. Not saying those orgs are always right. Just usually. It’s kind of their job.

And on that last part -
“After all, it’s not what we see that matters, its the truth.”

To use something my old philo professor used (shout-out to Dr. H, wherever you are, if still living), truth is often like an obelisk that’s painted a different color on each side. If you’re used to looking at it a specific way, then it can only be that color to you. However, your opponents are equally sure that the obelisk is the other color. Their color.
Only by actually considering the views of your opposition - considering them enough that you endanger yourself to converting to their view - do you you really understand more fully the answer to the question “What color is the obelisk?”.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
But with that said, if anyone places themselves at odds with Gallop or Pew, I’m going to bet against them. Not saying those orgs are always right. Just usually . It’s kind of their job.
Click to expand...
Usually, but not always.

I hope you didn’t bet too much on the last election, because Gallop or Pew got their side of the “truth obelisk” wrong.

Being open to the truth might mean conversion to someone else’s view, but you can take someone else’s view on even if you know its wrong or untrue, to understand their thought process.

Anyhow, I think with the influx of immigrants from Latin America, (hopefully all legal) there will be an increase of Catholics in the US in the coming years.
 
Last edited:
anon65111186 said:
I hope you didn’t bet too much on the last election, because Gallop or Pew got their side of the “truth obelisk” wrong.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about Pew, but Gallup actually nailed theirs within margin of error. They had Clinton winning overall, but Trumps victories in the toss-ups were within that margin.
As your stats professor would have (hopefully) taught you, the error term exists for a reason.

That said, I think the last election provides a decent example of why a two party system (i.e. one that requires 50% to elect a president) is a poor system. For representing democracies, a parliament is substantially better. You don’t have to shoe-horn into one of two groups.
Being open to the truth might mean conversion to someone else’s view, but you can take someone else’s view on even if you know its wrong or untrue, to understand their thought process.
Click to expand...
If you’re still constrained by their “obvious” wrongness, then you haven’t actually taken their view. Their view is necessarily free of such constraint.
Anyhow, I think with the influx of immigrants from Latin America, (hopefully all legal) there will be an increase of Catholics in the US in the coming years.
Click to expand...
Pew was careful to consider for that. I’m not going to dig it up, but it specifically states that Catholicism is shrinking even including the influx of immigrants.

A lot of our “brown brothers” are also electing Charismatic Christianity - usually some form of Pentecostalism. They probably brought Catholicism with them, but they landed in the US - the land of the evangelical protestant as the largest group.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
For representing democracies, a parliament is substantially better. You don’t have to shoe-horn into one of two groups
Click to expand...
Okay, margins of error, fine.

But anyhow what country are you from? Are you American?

Okay, parliaments have supreme power, but we have checks and balances in the US, so that wouldn’t happen I would imagine.

I think a lot of Latinos do lose their faith and convert, nonetheless a great many of them keep their faith and attend mass.
 
anon65111186 said:
But anyhow what country are you from? Are you American?

Okay, parliaments have supreme power, but we have checks and balances in the US, so that wouldn’t happen I would imagine.
Click to expand...
America.

And parliaments have “supreme power” in that the head of government is the same as the majority party since it’s that party that picks who they are (in parliaments you vote for a party first then you (maybe indirectly) vote fore the leadership of that party second - for those unaware).

But they still have this requirement where new laws still require majority approval. So if the Christian Democrats hold power, but with only 35% of representation, then guess what?

They have to work with other parties in order to get something passed as a matter of routine.
For us, it’s not routine. We describe presidencies of a different party than majority congress as “lame duck” because “supreme power” is our intended norm.
 
Okay, but that’s just one way of organizing the government. Our founding fathers were very familiar with parliaments, they saw how they worked in England, and decidedly didn’t institute it here for a reason.

Besides, you would have to change the constitution (by a majority) to change the system, good luck with that.
 
anon65111186 said:
Okay, but that’s just one way of organizing the government. Our founding fathers were very familiar with parliaments, they saw how they worked in England, and decidedly didn’t institute it here for a reason.

Besides, you would have to change the constitution (by a majority) to change the system, good luck with that.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Wouldn’t happen without the assembly of another government. But it wouldn’t be the first time. Our first governing document was The Articles of Confederation. We saw how that went…

But the primary reason the founding fathers didn’t want a parliament was because it was a British institution and we didn’t want to be “British”. There wasn’t much more rationale to it than that from what I’ve seen.
 
Too many posters put way to much thought (and unnecessary discussion into this question). We need to use our Catholic intellect to come up with good solid solutions to help create a better country and world. A country and world that God would give his blessing to. And we may make mistakes but we should always strive for perfection like our Father in Heaven. Now I’m not the smartest person in the world so add improvements to the list but here’s a list I feel a devout Catholic president should follow:
  1. Phase out abortion for everything except rape, incest, or health of the mother
  2. Help the women of rape and incest along their path of pain (whether if they keep the child in their womb or not). Either way they will be helped spiritually, mentally, and physically.
  3. Everybody will be asked to work. We will come up with a economic system that WILL pay people enough to have the basics (food, shelter, medical coverage, safety, transportation, education, and help of any kind). We will become a nation of service not profit. And we will come up with solutions to the economy where people don’t have to gamble their lifesavings to profit.
  4. We will help our poor out so they can live with dignity and feel like they are needed in society
  5. We will rebuild our worn out infrastructures all over the country.
  6. We will educate until the student gets it. Math, Science, English, a foreign language, Health…(this list can be discussed) will be taught to the student. If the student doesn’t pass the class just hold them back for that class not the whole year. Repeat the class till the student masters it then move on to the next level class. Oh by the way, females and males will attend separate classes. They can have interaction at lunch and breaktimes.
  7. We will put God’s creation first by taking better care of it. If something created by a company is damaging the environment, it will be stopped. New products will not be released to the public until these products and their reaction with the environment is fully understood. Science puts these latest products and doesn’t understand the impact they will cause.
I have more but lets throw these out there for discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top