Is the American form of government inherently wrong?

[RobbyS]

Are you Catholic?

Because modern Catholicism teaches that men and women are equal.
Which obviously clashes with the idea that women are physically and intellectually inferior (an idea that you appear to be promoting).

Men and women are morally equal. That doesn’t mean that women can play quarterback for the Giants.

 

[RobbyS]

What is the basis for that judgement in the first place? It seems to me that it stems not from logic but from a bias and a lack of attention to social pressures and prejudices towards women that would surely stunt the academic development of women.

Also the fact that a particular man happens to be the smartest man in the world and also smarter than any women would only be saying something true of that particular male, and would not necessarily reflect the intellectual abilities of men in general. It is evident that there are women that are more academically brilliant than most men in the world. Given negative attitudes towards women and the cultural prevalence of chauvinistic ideas it is not surprising that we don’t really hear much of women’s intellectual achievements in the area of science and philosophy. Its a man’s world and men want to keep it that way.

This reminds me of an argument made in favour of racial supremacy. This is the idea that because European white people were more technologically and scientifically advanced than their fellow aborigines, Native-Americans, and Africans who chose to stay close to nature and still lived in tribal systems, that therefore white people by nature are superior to these people and are their masters.

Does it follow that if you can find a white person that is academically superior to all African thinkers, that therefore white supremacy is a natural fact?

Think long and hard about this.

There has to be an objective basis for the superior position of men in almost every society. If we look at Greek society, for instance, the culture that Aristotle knew, or the Hebrew society that Jesus know, men are ascendent. Our Lord, therefore, chooses twelve men as his inner circle. Now, reading between the lines, we can see that women are numerous among his followers. And by the standards of his time, the conversation between Jesus and the woman at the well is astonishing. But it is a leap to suppose that Our Lord meant to suggest that the egalitarianism of our age is THE right one. What he did was to open the circle, to bring women into his church. Frank Sheed advanced the interesting speculation that Our Lady had been her son’s teacher of the Torah. After all, she was of a priestly family. The story of the visit to Elizabeth. in a town near Jerusalem, suggests she did, as legend has it lived in Jerusalem, and grew up with its precincts-- not as a peasant girl in Nazareth. His relationship with his mother determined his relationship with women. No scenes in Mel Gibson’s film are more affecting, more real than those involving him and his mother. To him women are persons of equal dignity. What roles they played in society necessarily depends on the nature of that society. How ought men to treat women? As Our Lord treated his mother and all the women the Gospels show him encountering.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Is it inherently wrong to have a representative government, since it always, always leads to immoral law?

Is the best form of government from a moral perspective to rather have a theocracy/Papal monarchy with the Church ruling the world? I know it is not likely to happen, with few chronological and geographical exceptions, but entertain the idea. I also know that even if this were to happen, the system would still not be perfect, but I am almost certain that the following would be illegal:

baby murder
euthanasia
nasty groups trying to force public money to fund immoral acts
homosexual “marriage”
etc.

It’s not, because “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. It would be perfect window for the forces of evil to harm the Church.

No, it’s best for all if the Church stays a private institution.

You could certainly make the case that there may be people in the after-life who WISHED someone was more forceful of the Catholic faith, but big government creates all kinds of problems.

The problem with things like nasty groups and so-called “gay marriage” as well as abortion is that those institutions are subsidized by some states. When you subsidize something, you always, always will get more of it. Government involvement in those things grows government under the guise of “rights, equality and tolerance”.

It is absurd and just goes to show how little people understand the Constitution.

The other problem with making some things illegal: the black market. You remember learning about Prohibition?

That was done with good moral intentions and what a mess it made. Gangsters and mobsters in power with semi-automatic weapons with lots of power in some big cities.

Scary stuff, if you ask me.

So, the best thing for anyone is freedom, but under that people need to be free to sin, so long as they do not compromise their neighbor’s Constitutional rights or private property. That means if you want to be rich, never go to Church, hoard things and smoke and get fat and die at 50, well, the government shouldn’t intervene.

That is the idea behind the Constitution and I believe the individualism that Jesus taught. Jesus taught us to be generous, and the more generous we are, the closer to God we become.

But no matter how oppressive the state is, not everyone will follow that path. See for yourself in places like Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Those places may have a solid foundation in Islam, but given the opportunity, huge swarms of their population would probably embrace Jesus because He truly frees people from real oppression.

How hypocritical would it be for a Christian state to go against that!

 

[RobbyS]

No. There is no guarantee that any government will perpetually uphold moral law.

No, because that would not be inherently good, but rather good for its theoretical effects, which can be reproduced by other systems in theory once identified.

That is incorrect. The polis is a political unit that can be ruled by any of the three systems of government Aristotle mentions. Athens did not cease to be a polis in 404-3 BC simply because it happened to be ruled by an oligarchy.

Democracy is the rule by the many; oligarchy is the rule by the few; monarchy is the rule by the one. Oligarchy can also include aristocracy, indicating some requirement for membership based on merit/achievement/wealth/etc.

No.

That is clearly not the case. Furthermore, consider the extremely violent rebellions and revolutions in a number of Eastern bloc countries. The dictators retained power in spite of an unwilling populace.

What does that even mean? How can women both be naturally inferior and not naturally inferior? What does “schoolable” mean?

That does not make them inherently “men’s games.”

Men are by and large bigger and stronger than women. If there is anything inherent, it is the connection between politics and war. That does not mean that women are natural pacifists. Pity the poor male who tries to get between two women who are having it out. But we ought not to disregard --how many-- years of development and pretend that politics is different from what is : a very rough, even brutal affair.

 

[Mar044]

no american will admit their country is evil, as all nations in the past denied it also, I wouldn’t be american and I could if I wanted to.

I respect a poor nation with nothing that has god in their heart then a superpower that loves itself.

 

[ReapReason]

no american will admit their country is evil, as all nations in the past denied it also, I wouldn’t be american and I could if I wanted to.

I respect a poor nation with nothing that has god in their heart then a superpower that loves itself.

I agree, there does appear to be a delusional form of unquestioning patriotism among America Catholics. They are American first and Catholic second.

Its very dangerous.

As a Catholic I feel encourage to question the activities of any Government. An unwavering faith in any government is poisonous to common good and damaging to the Image of the Catholic faith.

 

[Mar044]

I agree, there does appear to be a delusional form of unquestioning patriotism among America Catholics. They are American first and Catholic second.

Its very dangerous.

As a Catholic I feel encourage to question the activities of any Government. An unwavering faith in any government is poisonous to common good.

I’m tired of suppressed for speaking truth instead of being said I speak ill of american in any way, i think the forum honestly is way overboard, you cant take any criticism, a fellow catholic that is living in another part of the world is thought lesser and I have enough pms that i could start a forum group on how hugely bios it is. I like catholic forums, but america is not the centre of the world god does not shine is line JUST on america.

you are GODS PEOPLE and jesus, your not america before god…im really tired of telling people they should follow gods rules instead of saying im committing moral sin…when im teaching jesus teachings…jesus went to everyone of every nation and all people, in fact i find it funny that now romeny is running for office, a morman, whos religion says god is about america as paradise…but then your not to talk about that…or its the lesser of evils…

im trying to show charity here so Robert doesn’t smite me again witha moderation…but honestly, it the type of thinking that worries me, anyone remember sod and gemora…when they only cared for self gain… just STOP BRINGING america into god and jesus, jesus and god cares about the PEOPLE, not the country, and other then maybe the PEOPLE of isreal NOT the country he doesnt care about nations or where the border ends. in the thousands of years how many nations changed borders, and somehow you think god shines for america alone…very dangerous thinking, and as soon as you point out nazies or anyone else OH OH it doesn’t apply…it does, because like thr british, roman, nazies,whoever big group before it, they thought devine right to the world, something time and again are proven wrong.

 

[Baelor]

Men are by and large bigger and stronger than women.

Obviously.

If there is anything inherent, it is the connection between politics and war.

That is not an inherent connection. We are called to have peace, not war. War inherently involves an action against other humans in an ungodly way, even if the war is just. This makes war the realm of no segment of humanity.

I am still trying to understand what makes women less intelligent. Perhaps you could clarify?

 

[RobbyS]

Obviously.

That is not an inherent connection. We are called to have peace, not war. War inherently involves an action against other humans in an ungodly way, even if the war is just. This makes war the realm of no segment of humanity.

I am still trying to understand what makes women less intelligent. Perhaps you could clarify?

War is merely one way of doing politics. In politics, we are called to do justice. That may entail making war. You are against coersion, but all government involves coersion. Women are not less intelligent then men, but is it not a truism that men and women don’t think alike? Politics is a game devised by men over thousands of years, which they are by and large best qualified to play the leading roles. If enough women do get involved and over a long period of time, the rules will change. But until the Last days, we shall have have wars and rumors of war, because the devil keeps trying to hold onto his own kingdom. So violence will not end simply because women interject their own values into the political process.

 

[Baelor]

War is merely one way of doing politics. In politics, we are called to do justice. That may entail making war.

Your view is heterodox:

CCC:

2304 Respect for and development of human life require peace. Peace is not merely the absence of war,…

“Avoiding War”

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."105

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. the gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."109 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. the arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;110 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."111

Please read more about Catholic doctrine so you can understand God’s will on Earth more clearly.

You are against coersion, but all government involves coersion.

I never said that.

Women are not less intelligent then men, but is it not a truism that men and women don’t think alike?

I never denied that. You said that women were less “schoolable” and paradoxically both less intelligent and not less intelligent here:

RobbyS:

It was once assumed that they were naturally inferior intellectually, and there is some truth in that too. I do not think women are less intelligent, more that they are less schoolable

I want to know what that means. You have still not explained what you meant despite by frequently requests.

Let me help you by giving you the beginning of an answer: “By “schoolable,” I meant…” Or, if you like, “When I said that there was some truth to the idea that women are inferior intellectually, I meant…”

Politics is a game devised by men over thousands of years, which they are by and large best qualified to play the leading roles.

Proof?

 

[ReapReason]

Your view is heterodox:

Please read more about Catholic doctrine so you can understand God’s will on Earth more clearly.

Very Good!

 

[aragonjohn1]

I agree, there does appear to be a delusional form of unquestioning patriotism among America Catholics. They are American first and Catholic second.

Its very dangerous.

As a Catholic I feel encourage to question the activities of any Government. An unwavering faith in any government is poisonous to common good and damaging to the Image of the Catholic faith.

Yes it is sad that many people do not see what is going on even though it is obvious what could be going on.

• vimeo.com/user2695043/agenda

Shalom
God bless

 

[bmonk]

And, certainly as Christians and Catholics–or even just Christians, for those here not Catholic–we are called not only to support the government and pray for it, but also, when needed, to resist its abuses of authority, to criticize its excesses, to remind its members that there are things beyond this world that are just as important, if not more so, than its policies here on earth.

 

[RobbyS]

Your view is heterodox:

Please read more about Catholic doctrine so you can understand God’s will on Earth more clearly.

I never said that.

I never denied that. You said that women were less “schoolable” and paradoxically both less intelligent and not less intelligent here:

I want to know what that means. You have still not explained what you meant despite by frequently requests.

Let me help you by giving you the beginning of an answer: “By “schoolable,” I meant…” Or, if you like, “When I said that there was some truth to the idea that women are inferior intellectually, I meant…”

Proof?

I think we need to make clear the distinction between what “is” and what “ought to be.” Historically, empirically, politics is an institution devised by men, and lone in which warriors play a leading role, because war is historically just as aspect of politics. Men, as a rule, are better warriors than women. Yes, government ought to work for peace and avoid war, but this is true not just morally but as the preferred expedient. Definitely if you are the weaker party, it is foolish not to negotiate. Governments ought to be just, but whether they are or not, that does not mean that women are as well suited for diplomacy than men. I submit, that the rules of the game favor men as diplomats as well as warriors. We have had three women secretaries of state, so far, and their performance have been at best mediocre. You might argue that if there were more women in diplomacy that it would be a different story, but that would mean that the rules of negotiation would have to change, or that women would have to learn to play better by the existing rules. Right now Obama seems to have sent his “political wife” Jarret to negotiate with the Iranians, We will see how that works out, given the low regard Muslims have for women playing such roles.

 

[pnewton]

I think last night we saw that our form of government is inherently self-destructive. People will in the end be selfish and vote for their own wealth (unearned wealth). Politicians, in the end, will be spineless and buy votes with the money of others.

 

[CollegeStinks]

Let us review so far the tremendously awesome influence of women in politics:

-prohibition
-abortion
-access to and government funding of contraception

and now:

-re-election of Barack Obama

If women didn’t vote, Obama would not have been re-elected last night. Women’s suffrage was the absolute worse thing that has ever happened to America. Women are not called to lead men. God has said, over, and over, and over, and over again in scriptures, that men are to lead and women are to follow.

Go ahead feminists (and you are many), go ahead and defend your self righteousness and pride while pretending that since you are against abortion, you are not a culturally hip feminist. Feminism is much deeper than abortion and condoms - and it begins with the rejection of God’s appointed societal place of women in favor of a much darker, more evil value; pride.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

I didn’t use to think so, but after last night I’m beginning to wonder. What is certainly wrong is an election system in which hundreds of millions of dollars are spent and where people are forced to campaign for essentially all the time they are in office, a never-ending election season. A brief, defined election season as in a parliamentary system seems like a much better idea.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Let us review so far the tremendously awesome influence of women in politics:

-prohibition
-abortion
-access to and government funding of contraception

Prohibition was due to Protestant influence, likewise, contraception was originally approved by the male-dominated leadership of Protestant Churches in the 30’s. Abortion was approved by a male-dominated SCOTUS.

-re-election of Barack Obama If women didn’t vote, Obama would not have been re-elected last night.

If minority groups, Californians, and New Yorkers didn’t vote, Obama would not have won. So what is your point?

Women’s suffrage was the absolute worse thing that has ever happened to America.

It was the logical extension of the idea found in the Declaration of Independence, that we are all created equal, and that God gave us certain inalienable rights.

God has said, over, and over, and over, and over again in scriptures, that men are to lead and women are to follow. …and it begins with the rejection of God’s appointed societal place of women in favor of a much darker, more evil value; pride.

Prove it.

 

[Baelor]

Governments ought to be just, but whether they are or not, that does not mean that women are as well suited for diplomacy than men.

That suitability should be applied to the ideal, not the reality – we should not elect immoral leaders simply because politics involves much immorality and immoral people may be more “suited to diplomacy.”

Furthermore, diplomacy =/= fighting in a war. Therefore, there is no reason from your post to believe that women are less suited to diplomacy.

We have had three women secretaries of state, so far, and their performance have been at best mediocre.

1. By what standards?
2. Why do you feel this is an adequate sample size?
3. Why do you feel that this sample is representative?
4. Why do you feel that the many bad male secretaries of state should be ignored?

You might argue that if there were more women in diplomacy that it would be a different story, but that would mean that the rules of negotiation would have to change, or that women would have to learn to play better by the existing rules.

I see no reason to accept your conclusion as accurate.

Let us review so far the tremendously awesome influence of women in politics:

-prohibition
-abortion
-access to and government funding of contraception

Women are not inherently any of those things. So… Irrelevant.

If women didn’t vote, Obama would not have been re-elected last night.

If everyone except you didn’t vote last night, Obama would not have been re-elected. Do you support the disenfranchisement of everyone else in this country?

What a bizarre and dumb argument you are forwarding.

Women are not called to lead men. God has said, over, and over, and over, and over again in scriptures, that men are to lead and women are to follow.

The feeble-minded and ignorant appeal to out-of-context statements in scripture. I am glad that the Church incorporates reason into her consideration of the Bible and consequently disagrees with you vehemently.

 

[CollegeStinks]

Prohibition was due to Protestant influence, likewise, contraception was originally approved by the male-dominated leadership of Protestant Churches in the 30’s.

Nope. Prohibition was the influence of women. That is taught as fact in the typical secondary school. It was women who CAMPAIGNED for the legislation of prohibition, HEAVILY, EXACTLY as they campaign for their contraception and abortion “rights” today.

The introduction of contraception is one thing, but the vast societal approval of it is another. Where have you been for the last 6 months? Every single contraception advertisement - it’s about women and only women.

I agree with you though, men shouldn’t have listened, nor should they have approved. If you want to be so bold to suggest that the problem was men listening to the concerns of women, be my guest.

Abortion was approved by a male-dominated SCOTUS.

Were you around for Roe V Wade? Were you aware of the rampant feminist influence in the case? Roe herself was coerced by feminist groups to go through with the trial.

What is the primary appeal of abortion rights today? Is it not for the sake of the women? Indeed it is. Legal approval and society’s approval are two entirely different things, the latter being much more dangerous.

Whether or not men should have listened is a good point. Bad judgement of men, absolutely.

If minority groups, Californians, and New Yorkers didn’t vote, Obama would not have won. So what is your point? It was the logical extension of the idea found in the Declaration of Independence, that we are all created equal, and that God gave us certain inalienable rights.

If it was logical, why wouldn’t have anybody implemented it before the modern era? Are you really so bold to claim that you know better than the founding fathers? They were pretty smart people. Please share with me this super secret logical argument that thousands of years of human history has missed, and that I am currently missing. You cannot take an idea to an extreme end and say that it was necessarily logical. It is not logical, it is an excessive distortion of the original idea. Let us now allow 5 year old children the right to vote, since that is the logical conclusion of representation, that all are given equal say in who runs this country.

Are you also going to argue that homosexual marriage is the logical fulfilment of the founding father’s vision of America, where all are treated equally?

Prove it.

Are you actually asking this?

Genesis 3:16, much of 1 Corinthians 11, Ephesians 5:22-25, I Timothy 2:11-14

There are many, many more that you can probably find if you search, unfortunately I am not an absolute master of the scriptures, so I cannot possibly conjure up each applicable verse.