Political Party in Re: to Catholicism

[Amolibri]

FWIW, Neo-conservative and Neo-Con are self invented. See the Project for the New American Century. Conservative thinker Frances Fukiyama once proudly declared himself a neo conservative. Later he equated the thinking to Leninism and held Iraq up as a perfect example of the philosophy’s intrinsic defects.

“Democrat Party” is derogatory term devised by a political pollster, who found that it had stronger negative reactions in test polling. Use of the term was actively promoted among GOP politicians and has widespread use in right leaning media outlets.

So, one term was self coined and took on negative meaning because of failed policies, the other was invented to subtly disparage one’s political opponents.

Current US foreign policy is indiputably neo-conservative. This is understandable since it was devised by self described neo-conservatives. Current US domestic policy is harder to quantify. It is not ‘fiscally conservative’, nor is it ‘socially conservative’ in the traditional sense. There is a high emphasis on interests of corporations and the wealthy, and a high emphasis on expansions of executive power. The state department actually has a term to describe nations with concentrated expansive powers and close collusion with corporate interests, but I am loathe to use it here.

Ooh! Ooh! I know what it is! jumps up and down with hand in the air

Does it start with an “f”, Italian in origin and refer to the strength of sticks bound together?

Si, signore!!!

 

[SoCalRC]

Ooh! Ooh! I know what it is! jumps up and down with hand in the air

Does it start with an “f”, Italian in origin and refer to the strength of sticks bound together?

Of course, but it is counter productive to dwell on it. Since Blackwater began doing operations on US soil and the passage of the Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 we are, in fact, living under the State Departments strict definition of “dictorial authority”.

But although our current administration sets the tone, it took both major political parties to enact this huge shift in constitutional powers and our long standing system of checks and balances. We are a fearful nation and are reflecting that in fearful policies.

That is a legitimate political debate, and quite likely a legitimate Catholic obligation in voting debate, since the Church states that no form of government that does not recognize the inalienable rights of the human person (as properly defined by the Second Vatican Council) is legitimate.

But it is more than I would want to address. I’m trying to start simply, acknowledge that no political party is a perfect manifestation of Catholic teaching. And, all being sinners making moral compromises, consider following Christ’s repeated advice on not asserting relative moral superiority over others.

In other words, I know first hand that forsaking the belief in earthly pragmatism and political power and wholly voting one’s faith is a large step. So I am just encouraging people to stop professing that their own moral compromises are infallibly in keeping with the views of the Church and our Maker.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Did I say that I am voting for or support a pro-“choice” candidate? No. So stop your baseless, satanic accusations.

I am in opposition to the lies and underlying evil of the core ideology of the Republican party. That does not automatically mean that I support the Democratic party? God forbid! I am in strong opposition to much of the Democratic platform as well. The difference is that there are many people pointing out the flaws in the Democratic party right here…some truthful (the pro-"choice stance, the support of immoral lifestyles, etc.) and some sheer lies (the accusation that Democrats are socialists). Very few will point out the truth about the evil that underlies the true core beliefs of Republicanism, namely, the worship and adoration of money and power above all else.

Therefore, I demand an apology.

Again, your refusal to acknowledge the complicity of high-ranking REPUBLICAN operatives and pols in forced abortions overseas does little to help your credibility.

Were as I do not hold that the Republican party is above reproach I find is hard to say that “the worship and adoration of money and power above all else.” is strictly exclusive to Republicans. Now if you want to state items in the platform of the party that you have problem or members that you find these traits in fine. And for that matter the Democratic platform hold to many socialistic tenants.
I believe it is our responsibility to help those that are less fortunate than them it is wrong for anyone ( including the government) to mandate that they do. And redistribution of wealth ( taking what someone else has and giving it to some one else) is wrong. I would love for all the wealthy of the world to give all there money to the poor and everyone to live in this equal financial state it’s not going to happen. there are many in the Democratic party that when you die your estate goes to the government. I guess your right thats not socialistic its communistic.

Sorry I hate to get into discussions about which party is better than the other because the fact is as a whole they both fall way short. Once again I will state that you can not vote the party you have to vote the person and if that means that neither party puts forth a candidate you have to through your vote away by voting for some one that has no chance at least you have the correct choice morally.

Peace in the Lord

Scott

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ooh! Ooh! I know what it is! jumps up and down with hand in the air

Does it start with an “f”, Italian in origin and refer to the strength of sticks bound together?

Oh how silly! I thought all of that went out of fashion with Che Guevara t-shirts and bell bottoms.

 

[edwest2]

I have decided that no political party represents me as a Catholic. I have also determined that the Democrats can come up with as many bad ideas as the Republicans. My vote will go to whoever best represents my stand on the issues, as I believe most non-Catholic voters will do as well on issues relating to their concerns. However, if no one fills the bill, I will abstain from voting for President and vote for issues and whoever else I can.

God bless,
Ed

 

[estesbob]

Oh how silly! I thought all of that went out of fashion with Che Guevara t-shirts and bell bottoms.

Actually it is another example of the ignorance of History most Amaricans have. When they use terms like Fascism to deride their political opponents it trivializes the horrors suffered by the true victims of fascist regimes-the Jewish people for instance. But then maybe thats their intention.

 

[SoCalRC]

To those of us who are truly conservative, the term neo-conservative is just as derogatory as Democrat Party no matter where it came from. You are either conservative or you are not.

What precisely, is a “true conservative”?

The Church has stated that voting a single teaching at the expense of others is “incoherent” and a “detriment” to the faith. You have previously stated that not compromising is “foolish” and a “waste” of one’s vote. Are you saying that you have moral authority over the Church, or that you subscribe to a wholly different ideology?

The reason I’m confused is that a significant portion of the GOP base, one which is now widely represented in appointments and hiring throughout the executive branch, describes itself as “conservative”, and decries Catholicism as a non-Christian cult. Are they ‘true conservatives’ or not? In other words, is “true conservatism” an alternative belief system to Catholicism?

I am sorry that you find a term derogatory, but I do not understand why anyone should refrain from using a self appointed label. For example, if a Rush L. fan does not wish to be called a “ditto head”, he/she should not refer to himself as, well, a ditto head.

Similiarly, if devoted GOP supporters do not like the neoconservative label, then they should not use their political muscle to put so many self described “neo-cons” in power. Case in point, the PNAC web site:

newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Look at the signature list. It is a who’s who in our current administration.

A point I skipped before was your assertion that no one would change their mind. Perhaps not, but the odds against early Christians were much higher. Your assertion that you can identify ‘true conservatives’, seemingly implying human ownership of a moral ideology, is a good example of what I am encouraging people to forsake.

On the question of abortion, my own beliefs are far more conservative (in a Catholic context) than estesbob or Vern. For example, I accept the 1902 ruling (Tribunal of the Holy Office) and Rome’s current directives to caregivers quite literally, while Vern vehemently asserts a very broad interpretation of “double effect”. Similiarly, I feel compelled to accept and obey all the teachings in EVANGELIUM VITAE, as well as John Paul II’s extended interpretation of euthanasia with regards to end of life.

But I believe that it would be against my faith to assert that I am a ‘true conservative’ and they are not. My point is just that if you have zero tolerance for positions on either side of your own, you are quite likely granting yourself a moral authority that Catholics normally reserve for God.

Since we spend each week calling to mind our unworthiness (and even proclaiming it in unison), not labeling oneself as ‘rightous’ and others as ‘sinful’, doesn’t seem like so insurmountable step at all.

 

[rlg94086]

FWIW, Neo-conservative and Neo-Con are self invented. See the Project for the New American Century. Conservative thinker Frances Fukiyama once proudly declared himself a neo conservative. Later he equated the thinking to Leninism and held Iraq up as a perfect example of the philosophy’s intrinsic defects.

“Democrat Party” is derogatory term devised by a political pollster, who found that it had stronger negative reactions in test polling. Use of the term was actively promoted among GOP politicians and has widespread use in right leaning media outlets.

So, one term was self coined and took on negative meaning because of failed policies, the other was invented to subtly disparage one’s political opponents.

Current US foreign policy is indiputably neo-conservative. This is understandable since it was devised by self described neo-conservatives. Current US domestic policy is harder to quantify. It is not ‘fiscally conservative’, nor is it ‘socially conservative’ in the traditional sense. There is a high emphasis on interests of corporations and the wealthy, and a high emphasis on expansions of executive power. The state department actually has a term to describe nations with concentrated expansive powers and close collusion with corporate interests, but I am loathe to use it here.

Okay. Well, I guess we have to go back to calling liberals Communists. That term was not invented by political pollsters, so I’m sure people on the Left won’t mind.

Current US foreign policy does not define who I am as a conservative, yet I have been called a neo-con several times. It is obvious that the person doing so is using it as a pejoritive and not really for its defined meaning.

 

[estesbob]

Okay. Well, I guess we have to go back to calling liberals Communists. That term was not invented by political pollsters, so I’m sure people on the Left won’t mind.

Current US foreign policy does not define who I am as a conservative, yet I have been called a neo-con several times. It is obvious that the person doing so is using it as a pejoritive and not really for its defined meaning.

The left has a great foreign policy. Children are foreign and their policy is you have a 9 month window in which you can chop them into little pieces. This is acceptable because Geroge Bush is evil and it is a blessing for a child not to be born into a world where George Bush exists.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Church has stated that voting a single teaching at the expense of others is “incoherent” and a “detriment” to the faith. You have previously stated that not compromising is “foolish” and a “waste” of one’s vote. Are you saying that you have moral authority over the Church, or that you subscribe to a wholly different ideology?**Wait a minute here. If you have a quote from the Pope saying a vote against a supporter of abortion is “incoherent” or a “detriment” to the faith, produce it. I know you can’t. **

The reason I’m confused is that a significant portion of the GOP base, one which is now widely represented in appointments and hiring throughout the executive branch, describes itself as “conservative”, and decries Catholicism as a non-Christian cult. Are they ‘true conservatives’ or not? In other words, is “true conservatism” an alternative belief system to Catholicism?“A significant portion of the GOP base”? Who are you talking about; Evangelicals? Fundamentalists? I’m sorry, but I live among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Always have. Sure there are the nutcases among them, just as there are in any religion. But I know better than to say “a significant portion” of Evangelicals are as you say. And neither they nor politically conservative Catholics would consider political conservatism to be even remotely equivalent to their religion.

 

[mary_bobo]

What precisely, is a “true conservative”?

The Church has stated that voting a single teaching at the expense of others is “incoherent” and a “detriment” to the faith. You have previously stated that not compromising is “foolish” and a “waste” of one’s vote. Are you saying that you have moral authority over the Church, or that you subscribe to a wholly different ideology?

What in the world are you talking about? You must have me confused with someone else. Those are not my words.

The reason I’m confused is that a significant portion of the GOP base, one which is now widely represented in appointments and hiring throughout the executive branch, describes itself as “conservative”, and decries Catholicism as a non-Christian cult. Are they ‘true conservatives’ or not? In other words, is “true conservatism” an alternative belief system to Catholicism?

Again, one may call themselves a conservative, but that does not make one a conservative. And I know of no one in the current administration that calls the Catholic Church a cult. If there is one, he/she is wrong.

I am sorry that you find a term derogatory, but I do not understand why anyone should refrain from using a self appointed label. For example, if a Rush L. fan does not wish to be called a “ditto head”, he/she should not refer to himself as, well, a ditto head.

I don’t think many conservatives call themselves neo-cons. I have said that it is an offensive term. I don’t find calling the Dems the Democrat Party offensive, but others do, so we have been called to task by those who do dislike this term.

Similiarly, if devoted GOP supporters do not like the neoconservative label, then they should not use their political muscle to put so many self described “neo-cons” in power. Case in point, the PNAC web site:

newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Look at the signature list. It is a who’s who in our current administration.

A point I skipped before was your assertion that no one would change their mind. Perhaps not, but the odds against early Christians were much higher. Your assertion that you can identify ‘true conservatives’, seemingly implying human ownership of a moral ideology, is a good example of what I am encouraging people to forsake.

I did not say I could identify true conservatives. I merely said that the candidates in question we not, in my opinion, true conservatives.

On the question of abortion, my own beliefs are far more conservative (in a Catholic context) than estesbob or Vern. For example, I accept the 1902 ruling (Tribunal of the Holy Office) and Rome’s current directives to caregivers quite literally, while Vern vehemently asserts a very broad interpretation of “double effect”. Similiarly, I feel compelled to accept and obey all the teachings in EVANGELIUM VITAE, as well as John Paul II’s extended interpretation of euthanasia with regards to end of life.

But I believe that it would be against my faith to assert that I am a ‘true conservative’ and they are not. My point is just that if you have zero tolerance for positions on either side of your own, you are quite likely granting yourself a moral authority that Catholics normally reserve for God.

You can read my mind now? You know absolutely nothing about me and your suppositions are quite amusing? You do not know whether I have tolerance for anything.

Since we spend each week calling to mind our unworthiness (and even proclaiming it in unison), not labeling oneself as ‘rightous’ and others as ‘sinful’, doesn’t seem like so insurmountable step at all.

Nor have I done this. I am not the one who decides if something is sinful or not, nor have I proclaimed to be. Your assertions are a stretch at best and hyperbole at worst. Me thinks you like the sound of your own voice.

 

[fix]

A Cardinal’s words being portrayed as carrying great weight when it was politically expedient, a Pope’s authority being diminished when it is not.

Is this not disassembling? Are you claiming the words of then Cardinal Ratzinger were contrary to the Pope’s teaching?

The Cardinal wrote what he did as that was his job, with the authority from the Pope.

 

[ribozyme]

The left has a great foreign policy. Children are foreign and their policy is you have a 9 month window in which you can chop them into little pieces. This is acceptable because Geroge Bush is evil and it is a blessing for a child not to be born into a world where George Bush exists.

Gee… I do not support the pro-life agenda for several reasons and it is not because I like abortion. Instead, I see it as an obstruction to various transhumanist agendas that I will not openly promote here.

BTW, abortion isn’t the only politically issue. Do not monomaniacally dwell on it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Gee… I do not support the pro-life agenda for several reasons and it is not because I like abortion. Instead, I see it as an obstruction to various transhumanist agendas that I will not openly promote here.

BTW, abortion isn’t the only politically issue. Do not monomaniacally dwell on it.

Can you post that again, in English?

 

[ribozyme]

Can you post that again, in English?

There is only one word with an ambiguous definition in that post: “transhumanist.” If you do not know what “transhumanism” is or do not have any urge to find out yourself, then simply ignore that word.

I do not have any desire for this thread to go on an excursus on transhumanism.

Besides transhumanism, my main point is that abortion isn’t the only political issue.

• ライボーザイモ

 

[estesbob]

Gee… I do not support the pro-life agenda for several reasons and it is not because I like abortion. Instead, I see it as an obstruction to various** transhumanist** agendas that I will not openly promote here.

BTW, abortion isn’t the only politically issue. Do not monomaniacally dwell on it.

I see that either you did not read or ignored the post where I posted a couple essays on how foolish people look when they sprinkle their posts with unnecessary big words.

Being a acolyte of Peter Singer I doubt that any Catholic is going to take seriously anything you say about life issues.

 

[estesbob]

Can you post that again, in English?

He thinks it makes him look smart.The reality is it makes him look foolish .

 

[SoCalRC]

Actually it is another example of the ignorance of History most Amaricans have. When they use terms like Fascism to deride their political opponents it trivializes the horrors suffered by the true victims of fascist regimes-the Jewish people for instance. But then maybe thats their intention.

Let’s review, in the past you have alternately proclaimed yourself and your political party the sole source of good for a quarter century.

Now you are repeatedly asserting that everyone who disagress with you is ignorant.

In many instances in this thread alone you have stated that you are the holder of real ‘truth’.

And, posting a collection of uncharitable comments is an unpardonable offense requiring a retort in towering letters…

Seriously, with all due respect, is this the person you wish to be when you offer your prayers before Mass each Sunday?

 

[mary_bobo]

Let’s review, in the past you have alternately proclaimed yourself and your political party the sole source of good for a quarter century.

Now you are repeatedly asserting that everyone who disagress with you is ignorant.

There is a difference in being ignorant of an issue or subject. That does not make on “ignorant”.

In many instances in this thread alone you have stated that you are the holder of real ‘truth’.

And, posting a collection of uncharitable comments is an unpardonable offense requiring a retort in towering letters…

Seriously, with all due respect, is this the person you wish to be when you offer your prayers before Mass each Sunday?

Catholic charity does not call for one to examine the thoughts or soul of another. That is between the person, in this case, Bob, and God.

 

[SoCalRC]

Wait a minute here. If you have a quote from the Pope saying a vote against a supporter of abortion is “incoherent” or a “detriment” to the faith, produce it. I know you can’t.

First of all, for those of you who are confused, you can copy the quote and end-quote tags to break up things into blocks. If you put your statements inside another quote block, reply does not quote it and it is hard to respond.

Second, I have never stated that I have such a quote. I have stated that the Church has said that elevating single issues at the expense of other important Catholic teachings is incoherent, and a miss application of Limiting the Harm (the concept introduced by John Paul II).

I have actually included it, and links to the Vatican document mulitiple times in this thread alone, but, again, here is a snippet:

“The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.”

And you can read the whole document here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

Be forewarned, the Church lists many examples of “moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation”, abortion is only one.