Is being Republican incongruent with humanitarian values?

[Nimzovik]

It needs to happen again.

 

[Ender]

Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party go against various teachings of the Church.

It is a mistake to believe that there could ever be such a thing as a Catholic political party because there are so few issues about which the Church has laid down specific guidelines. On issues such as immigration, health care, balancing the budget, the minimum wage etc. there is no Church position on how they are to be resolved. On those issues the Church does not endorse or condemn the positions taken by either party.

The Democratic Party goes against the teachings on abortion which has resulted in the death of over 50 million human beings. The Republican Party supports the Death Penalty

Abortion is one of literally a handful of issues on which the Church has a definite position and it is possible to claim that the party that supports abortion violates Church teaching. This is not the case with capital punishment about which the Church recognizes that:* “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” *(Cardinal Ratzinger)

I don’t want to turn this into a debate about capital punishment but I do want to make the point that it is a mistake to believe that the positions either party takes on most issues are either more or less in accord with Church teaching. The Church provides guidelines - goals - but she is silent on the steps to be taken to achieve them and opposite positions are morally equivalent.

Ender

 

[Nicko]

In the traditional sense of “Republican”? Of course not, it was a Republican President who ended slavery.

In the current sense? There’s an argument to be made that it’s incongruent with sanity.

 

[sedonaman]

Death? THen why are democrats so interested in keeping people alive with entitlement programs? (for the pro-choice, once they are born)

The point being the fascination with Death probably speaks more towards to Republicans as they are far more pro-war and pro-death penalty. THe democrats on the other hand (erroneously) believe that abortion is not death since life hasn’t begun in the first place.

A pro-abortion editorial appearing in the September 1970 issue of California Medicine contains a revealing statement on lying in the service of killing:
“Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everybody knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but the taking of a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.” [Emphasis added]

I repeat; this is from a pro-abortion editorial.

You have been a victim of this schizophrenic subterfuge.

Capital punishment in the U.S. was suspended from 1972 to 1976 - when it was resurrected by the Supreme Court. Since then, 1,264 guilty people have been executed in America. guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/sep/21/death-penalty-statistics-us

By contrast, there have been over 50 million abortions of innocent children since 1973 Roe v. Wade]. How can you say, “abortion is not death since life hasn’t begun” and call yourself Catholic?

Nobody is pro-war. If the Democrats were so anti-war, why hasn’t øbama kept his promise to end it?

 

[exnihilo]

I think it’s possible in my lifetime that if you think voting is irrelevant bc of the two party Duopoly [staying faithful to my latin roots there], and a lot of other ppl also think that. Then eventually enough people are going to actually vote 3rd party. Then, once you have that going on long enough the 3rd parties will finally be recognized.

Voting is irrelevant but that is only one reason. Sheer numbers are another e.g. 1 in 100 million is insignificant.

Third parties have existed in the recent past. The Reform Party did OK at first and even got Ventura elected governor. The Tea Party had some potential but was quickly co-opted by the neo-cons back into the Republican Party. It is my opinion that with the federalization of the law, single member pluralities, ballot restriction to third parties and universal suffrage there is no chance of change. I think those are insurmountable.

The individual’s vote may not change much. But that line of thinking would preclude taking any participation in a larger effort. And, if no-one at all voted, a representative republic could not exist and would likely be replaced by a tyranny of some kind.

I think the US is a tyranny already. That it is a nominal republic is irrelevant when the executive has practically unlimited power and can kill anyone, anywhere at his discretion as can the US president. Americans tend to ignore the tyrannical powers because despite the rhetoric we are a supremely compliant people and will suffer any indignity the state can imagine. Few people get to see the state’s terrible power because of their complete submission.

Political parties have died before in the USA, and they have been born. It could happen again, although until recently mass apathy has made that unlikely.

Yes, but it was different back then. Corporations rule the US and the two parties are themselves corporations. These political corporations have rigged the system. You have to start over to get rid of them at this point or change the constitution. If you made the senate a body that is elected by nationally political party not state then smaller political parties could have success.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

There are Republicans whose sole reason for being so is for fiscal reason, such as lower taxes and smaller government. There is no sin in that, especially being that the government and its ever expanding and inefficient bureaucracy squanders taxpayer money on wasteful spending. The government should be cutting all its wasteful spending, not demanding more money from tax payers.

I would think that being a Democrat is more incongruent with humanitarian values, being that it’s the political party that fights for abortion funding and defends the destruction of unborn human life. It also supports furthering the rotting of culture itself by being the political force behind the movement to redefine the nucleus of a healthy society----the natural human family—which is founded on the Man/Woman, Husband/Wife, Father/Mother paradigm.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

Please remember that political discussion is not allowed in the Social Justice Forum. Thank you for your cooperation.