Is the American form of government inherently wrong?

[CollegeStinks]

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

Entirely relevant, as this is their track record in advocating policy.

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.

I don’t support the disenfranchisement of EVERYONE else in this country, just of many people. I don’t support the idea of all people having an equal say in government, nor do you if you thought about it thoroughly. I simply take it a step further (and in the right direction in my opinion) in saying that those people most qualified for leadership should be the leaders. Societies that implemented such systems have lasted much longer than the America will.

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.

Nope. She agrees. That is precisely why She does not allow women to be in the clergy. She supports a woman’s right to work and equal pay, as do I, but She also advocates the obligation of women first and foremost to commit herself to her role as wife and mother, and if appropriate, to her God given roles in the Church. Leadership is not among them, other than her authority over her children.

 

[Baelor]

Entirely relevant, as this is their track record in advocating policy.

Again, it is not inherent in a women to support abortion. And therefore their track record is irrelevant to their enfranchisement.

I don’t support the disenfranchisement of EVERYONE else in this country, just of many people.

I don’t support the idea of all people having an equal say in government, nor do you if you thought about it thoroughly.

Please tell me more about what I think. Do you mind laying out my entire political philosophy for me?

I simply take it a step further (and in the right direction in my opinion) in saying that those people most qualified for leadership should be the leaders. Societies that implemented such systems have lasted much longer than the America will.

I agree entirely. Fortunately, the Church does not consider gender crucial to political leadership.

Nope. She agrees. That is precisely why She does not allow women to be in the clergy.

I suggest that you familiarize yourself more with Catholic theology so that you understand your own faith and the Truth better.

CCC:

“Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.” The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. the Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.

Number of references to the natural place of women as followers? 0

Read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Number of references to the natural place of women as followers? 0

She also advocates the obligation of women first and foremost to commit herself to her role as wife and mother, and if appropriate, to her God given roles in the Church.

No, she does not. The Church does not require women to be only mothers or religious. Furthermore, please pull up the specific references so we can take a look at how these are articulated. You will find that none of them involve subjugation to man with no reciprocity.

Leadership is not among them, other than her authority over her children.

The Church does not state that this is the case.

Again, you may adhere to your heterodoxy however much you wish, but it is sad that you reject the Church’s teachings and the Truth.

 

[RobbyS]

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.

Until after Kennedy’s time, candidates did not announce until after January i of the election year. Ike didn’t declare until February. But the way to nominate changed. The primaries became all important, so that the Convention now exists only to ratify the results of the primaries. So a candidate must campaign for the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary and all the rest by the first of the year. This means he has to start no later than a year before Iowa to get his name out.

 

[RobbyS]

Entirely relevant, as this is their track record in advocating policy.

I don’t support the disenfranchisement of EVERYONE else in this country, just of many people. I don’t support the idea of all people having an equal say in government, nor do you if you thought about it thoroughly. I simply take it a step further (and in the right direction in my opinion) in saying that those people most qualified for leadership should be the leaders. Societies that implemented such systems have lasted much longer than the America will.

Nope. She agrees. That is precisely why She does not allow women to be in the clergy. She supports a woman’s right to work and equal pay, as do I, but She also advocates the obligation of women first and foremost to commit herself to her role as wife and mother, and if appropriate, to her God given roles in the Church. Leadership is not among them, other than her authority over her children.

Well, the religious life provided an opportunity for women to lead. That and special charisms. Look at the medieval abbess and such seers as Catherine of Sienna, and of course Theresa of Avila, a doctor of the Church.

 

[NovusAugustus]

Here’s a question: if God gave man free will, who are we to take it away?

 

[benjammin]

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.

I’ve long felt parliamentary systems are better. Also, what helps is that the Head of Government is a legislator. So for example, in Canada, the PM is actually a representative of somewhere. Anyone can run and win for president, even if they don’t know how to govern. I also think a constitutional monarchy would be a good system, but America will never have a king until Christ returns as King of Heaven and Earth

 

[benjammin]

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.

Yep and we probably should also go back to letting white male property owners vote while were at it

Are you serious? You really think women shouldn’t vote. Sadly you are probably like a lot of conservatives who wish we could go back to the old days when we were majority white (still are btw for another 40 years) just so you could win elections. Instead I think that the GOP needs to stop being a bunch of rich old boys who pretend to love evangelicals and middle lower class social conservatives and start actually courting women and minorities. I know many Pro Life women who if they would just speak up would get the vote out. I know many minorities who are very pro life and conservative, who unfortunately feel that they are being discriminated against and thus vote against their interest. We need to reach these people. The same thing must happen with the church. Rather than try to go back to the 50’s, we need to keep our values that work (opposition to abortion, euthanasia, etc) and adapt that message to a new and diverse audience.

Or we can just blame women and minorities for this. Yep, blame them rather than try to inform them. I bet yur a troll

 

[starshiptrooper]

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.

Women were not the only group involved, many Protestant denominations, progressives, and people who made non-alcoholic beverages all lobbied on behalf of probition.

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.

If the clergy hadn’t caved in, society would not have approved.

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.

This does not affect my point.

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.

Many polls show that most Americans want some restrictions on abortion. Planned Parenthood may have legal approval, but it does not necessarily have society’s approval.

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.

Your lack of knowledge on this subject is made more clear by your arrogant and sarcastic tone. The founding fathers said nothing on this issue but left it to the states, and several of those states allowed women to vote in the 19th century, New Jersey and Wyoming, are the two examples that come to mind.

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.

The original idea is that we are all created equal and endowed with certain rights, are you saying that this does not apply to women? I am genuinely curious.

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.

A 5 year old child as not acquired maturity, thus he cannot vote.

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?

No, if homsexuals want the legal benefits of marriage, they have to prove that they make a contribution to society proportionate to the benefits they would recieve.

Are you actually asking this?

I am not asking you, I am challenging you. :nunchuk:

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

Genesis 3:16 and Ephesians 5:22-25 are talking about married life. 1 Corinthians 11, is talking about proper behaviour during Mass. 1 Timothy 2:11-14 is talking about deacons! None of these verses talk about politics.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

Please remember that discussions of political parties and figures are not allowed in the Social Justice forum. Thank you for your cooperation.