American Government

[megamattman1]

In the "American and Catholic" poll ya'll started talkin about pride, humility, and sin and stuff. So I thought I'd start a discussion on this here.

Given that it has been established as immoral to consider other people's morals, and given that the American system is based on allowing for that, I don't see how we can say that the American Government is good. It seems that we must only deal with what we have.

[quote]A. Yes. There is no contradiction between being a good Catholic and a patriotic American! [ 31 ]  [75.61%]
B. No. The American system is intrinsically opposed to Catholicism, and a true Catholic should not participate in it in any way. [ 1 ]  [2.44%]
C. I'm no fan of American democracy, but voting for good people is the only way to improve the political culture. [ 8 ]  [19.51%]
D. I refuse to vote in this poll. Voting is intrinsically evil. [/quote]

I see that 75% of you said you can be both. I suppose it depends on what you mean by patriotic, but I'd assume you mean by the context that it is the American system is good. I would be willing to bet that if the question was "Is it moral to consider other's people's morals?" you would vote no. Actually, I bet you'd vote yes, then realize what you are saying, then vote no.

But anyway. It could be argued that IF the American government is evil, then it would be wrong to use it as a means to an end. Sort of like the argument that it is wrong to take the means to your end by voting for the lesser of two evils when there's someone who is better who has no chance of winning in an election.

It'd seem like C should be the vote here at phatmass after ya'll take a closer look. But then if it were pressed, it'd seem like maybe theoretically at least B should be the vote. (D is just funny. Actually if the voting has to do with morals, then you might say that the system that allows that is evil, but D is a blanket statement for ALL voting)

Here is something from ultraconservative or whatever you want to call him just to think about too.

[quote]He [Aarkich] has repeatedly said things like it doesn't matter who one votes for because the American gov't is illegitimate, the Church is opposed to the American system of gov't, it is a mortal sin to make the pledge of allegiance, etc. Also, some other people (not on this site) had written an article claiming that it is wrong for Catholics to vote (for anybody!) because this supports an intrincally evil system of government (democracy). I have never been able to debate such people, but their position seems to me absurd (I realize they are a tiny minority).[/quote]

gotta get to work. no time for proof read, sorry!

Edited August 24, 2004 by megamattman1

[p0lar_bear]

I think you have a long way to go to prove that the American government (much less democracy) is inherently evil or even contrary to Church teaching.

[Socrates]

[quote]Given that it has been established as immoral to consider other people's morals, and given that the American system is based on allowing for that, I don't see how we can say that the American Government is good.[/quote]

Please show me specifically where in the American Constitution it states this? (I'm talking about the orginal document, not twentieth-century ammendments/interpretations.)

You need to be more specific in order for your argument to have any meaning.

And option D. on my poll was intended as a joke, by the way!

[MorphRC]

Id say democracy has the potential to be great and moral, but in mans-hand it wont be.

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 24 2004, 01:21 PM'] Id say democracy has the potential to be great and moral, but in mans-hand it wont be. [/quote]
Couldn't the same be said of all forms of government?

[MorphRC]

Hmm Not Dictatorship

Yeh True.

[JP2Iloveyou]

Democracy is definitely the best form of government available. Also, it is most definitely NOT immoral to participate in American politics. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is immoral to NOT participate.

[MorphRC]

Id say thats trying to strain water from a dry towel.

[Theoketos]

Here is a great quote from George Weigel

[qoute]Freedom untethered from truth is freedom’s worst enemy. For if there is only your truth and my truth, and neither one of us recognizes a transcendent moral standard (call it "the truth") by which to adjudicate our differences, then the only way to settle the argument is for you to impose your power on me, or for me to impose my power on you. Freedom untethered from truth leads to chaos; chaos leads to anarchy; and since human beings cannot tolerate anarchy, tyranny as the answer to the human imperative of order is just around the corner. The false humanism of the freedom of indifference leads first to freedom’s decay, and then to freedom’s demise.[/quote]

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 24 2004, 01:47 PM'] Id say thats trying to strain water from a dry towel. [/quote]
I'm not so sure about that...


[quote name='Gaudiem et Spes' date=' no. 75, emphasis added, citation omitted']75. It is in full conformity with human nature that there should be juridico-political structures providing all citizens in an ever better fashion and without and discrimination the practical possibility of freely and actively taking part in the establishment of the juridical foundations of the political community and in the direction of public affairs, in fixing the terms of reference of the various public bodies and in the election of political leaders. [i]All citizens, therefore, should be mindful of the right and also the duty to use their free vote to further the common good.[/i] The Church praises and esteems the work of those who for the good of men devote themselves to the service of the state and take on the burdens of this office.[/quote]

[jrndveritatis]

[quote]Given that it has been established as immoral to consider other people's morals, and given that the American system is based on allowing for that, I don't see how we can say that the American Government is good. It seems that we must only deal with what we have. [/quote]

What do you mean by "immoral to consider other people's morals"?

We can judge others' actions, but not the state of their soul. Of course, before we judge others' actions, we must examine ourselves first, like Christ said, get the beam out of your own eye before correcting your brother.

But as for considering other people's morals, it seems like we are supposed to. Isn't it one of the seven spiritual works of mercy to admonish the sinner?

Also, how exactly is the American system based on allowing for considering others' morals?

[White Knight]

Under the right authority, America can be a Godly Nation, under the hands of the wrong people, it can become an evil government yes.


It depends whos in power, how they view God, and how they view the Church, etc etc. America could go ethier Hardcore Liberial or Hardcore Conservative. But its hard to say what America is now.


I think its one of the best nations in the world to be honest, because it gives the most freedom out of any other country that has ever existed throughout History.

Right now, I dont think the American Government is Evil, sure we have our problems, and Faithful Believers all across the country are trying their best to fix this countries ways, but where still alot better than acually communism.

[Aloysius]

i think the comment about it being immoral to consider other peoples morals touches on [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=17532&view=findpost&p=303161"]Religious Freedom[/url]

that's where i explained the agreement between the syllabus of errors and Vatican II on Religious Freedom, and i think it might be relevent to see the context of Catholic thought on government's roll in enforcing morality

[megamattman1]

Sorry for the unclarity.


I don't mean the American government is evil in allowing for things that can be disagreed upon by Catholics, such as taxes or whatever. (on a side note, can those things that can be disagreed on be considered "morals"? If so then Catholics can have differing morals at least some of the time! But I'm just playin with words )

What I mean by immoral to consider other's morals is this. We are not suppose to vote to allow for other's morals when they are againt Catholic teaching, such as not allowing for polygamy or whatever in the law books (or maybe making it illegal to engage in at all but that's another thread). But the democracy of the AMERICAN governement/democracy (not democracy in general) allows for that. (I apologize if that quote from whoever it was in reference to what's his name in my first post made you think I agreed that all democracy was bad)

I'm reminded about a quote from Sheen that I think I remember getting from jrndveritatis actually:

“America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance—it is not. It is suffering from tolerance. Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded."

Actually, in retrospect to how I first read that, Sheen could mean tolerance on a personal level is evil, but wasn't necessarily refering to allowing for other's morals. But I'd almost have to insist that he's talkin about considering other's morals since he uses the word "bigoted". Aren't we as Catholics s'pose to take pride in being "intolerant"/"bigots", not just for personal morals, but towards others who don't share the same moral code? (in fact, the word use of bigot to Old English was equivalent o us using the phrase "by God.", though I admit I maybe taking the use in those days out of context)

Anyway, aside from the quote, we are not suppose to allow for sinful morals.

So it might seem that American government that allows for all that (polygamy, euthanasia etc) is just the best that we have to work with, and not "good". (though I might say some democracies are good)

Edited August 24, 2004 by megamattman1

[Socrates]

America existed for hundreds of years before the legality of euthanasia was even considered. Abortion was not legalized until 1973 (almost 200 years after its founding).
It is bad that this country has gone in this direction (as has much of the western world), but I think it is wrong to assert that America was based or founded on such acceptance of immorality. It is a shame that many Americans today seem to identify this with what America is about . The public acceptance of immorality is actually historically a very recent development in America (beginning in earnest in the late 60s)

The virtue of a nation such America depends on a moral people. America was a fairly decent country (though, of course, not without its problems) for almost 200 years. If the people become immoral and godless, the country's governemnt and laws will be corrupted. Democracy gives us the government we deserve.

[Aloysius]

the government has a duty to have laws in line with morality. we must work to make the government more in line with Catholic morality.

the nature of democracy does not guarentee the enforcement of Catholic Morality like a Catholic Monarchy would. The best type of government would be a Catholic King who loves his people. The worst type of government would be a monarchy (Catholic or not) with a king that does not love his people. Democracy is somewhere in the middle. it can be good (if the people are good). it can be bad (if the people are bad). the way it's headed now with legalized abortion and possible gay marriage and all that, the people are bad and are leading the government into bad. there are two fronts us Catholics have to fight this war on: ONE: we have to vote to put people in office who will change the government to be moral. TWO: we have to change the culture thus convincing more people to vote that way as well.

Democracy is a moral neutral as far as i see it. it's only as good as the citizens who vote in it. does this touch on your question?

[megamattman1]

Perhaps the American system of government started out as good, (I don't know) but it became bad. Not because it became bad per se, but because it allows for the possibility of bad.

[quote]Democracy is a moral neutral as far as i see it. it's only as good as the citizens who vote in it. does this touch on your question? [/quote]

Somewhat. I hope you're not thinking that I'm thinking that I'm saying that when people make democracy actually bad, only then the democracy is bad. I think that is a given. I'm arguing theoretically that a system that allows for a democracy to go bad, even if it is good at the time, is bad.

Again, I realize it's what we have to work with, but I'm just saying that perhaps it's bad. And although you all have somewhat touched on my inquiery, I still don't see how I could argue with the notion that I just presented.


Will you all agree that democracy that allows for that is evil, even if at the time it is good?

Will you all agree that we as Catholics are bigots and intolerant? (of other's morals ie)

[jrndveritatis]

[quote]Somewhat. I hope you're not thinking that I'm thinking that I'm saying that when people make democracy actually bad, only then the democracy is bad. I think that is a given. I'm arguing theoretically that a system that allows for a democracy to go bad, even if it is good at the time, is bad.
[/quote]

[quote]Will you all agree that democracy that allows for that is evil, even if at the time it is good?

Will you all agree that we as Catholics are bigots and intolerant? (of other's morals ie) [/quote]

I don't think you can call democracy evil because it presents the opportunity for people to allow moral evils.

If you completely accept this argument, then every form of government would be evil, even a Catholic monarchy, because monarchies can become corrupt. Any human institution or government can become corrupted and used for evil.

Democracy is just a means to protecting the common good, like any government. When it does this it is being used for good, and when it doesn't it is being used for evil. In and of itself it is neither, just like a monarchy or aristocracy.

It is true that Catholics should be intolerant of others' morals if they are evil. Obviously we can't be intolerant of people, but we can judge their actions as objectively good or evil.

I would avoid the use of the word bigoted, because of its connotations. It seems that bigoted implies ignorance of the issue and irrational hatred for or discrimination against persons.

[megamattman1]

Maybe it'd help if some terms and ideas were clarified to substantiate my argument. And it'd allow for better rebuttal cuz I'd think it can be fully refuted somehow, unless I don't understant some points. (this is just a new notion that other thread got me toyin with) With jrd on board, I think this can be accomplished if we really wanted.

[quote]I don't think you can call democracy evil because it presents the opportunity for people to allow moral evils.

If you completely accept this argument, then every form of government would be evil, even a Catholic monarchy, because monarchies can become corrupt. Any human institution or government can become corrupted and used for evil. [/quote]

My argument would call for two different types of democracies as I see it. One that theoretically allows for others the opportunity to legally do evil, and one that does not. The theoretically good and bad, can be either bad or good in practice.

The theory behind a Catholic government would be adherence to the decrees of the Church. There is no room in this theory for nonadherence, and again this is in theory. So when the Catholic government does not adhere to the decrees, it is evil in and of itself in practice, but not in theory. I don't see how you could argue that a Catholic government can become theoretically bad. I mean, it can theoretically become bad in practice, but can not become theoretically bad in theory. (if you know what I mean lol)

So, I'd still argue that a democracy that allows for those opportunities is evil.

And maybe it'd help if I tried to elaborate on how I could how as I see the confusion arose.

[quote]Perhaps the American system of government started out as good, (I don't know) but it became bad. Not because it became bad per se, but because it allows for the possibility of bad.[/quote]

What I meant was that in the beginning there might have been no opportuniites for bad, so the system was good in theory. Even if the government was bad in practice, it was good in theory. And now the government is (or always has been, this is what I don't know) bad in theory, and of course bad in practice. Maybe it was neutral, but then this neutrality allows for evil practice and theory.

I suppose you could argue that American democracy is theoretically good, and it's bad in practice. I s'pose this would depend how looking up the founding fathers ideas, though even then it might be unclear. It's probaly meant to be lenient (though I'm sure this is debatable) to allow for the government to cater to the people. Since it does not cater to the people in accordance to the Church, I'd say it's evil. Even if you were to argue that the fathers wanted it to be lenient in a general sense, neutral, that doesn't specifically condone evil, it still allows for it.

I don't think the Catholic monarchy example was best, but there's prolly a better example. I sort of see the neutrality validity opposed to my arguments, but it'd be neutrality that allows for evil as far as I can see. I know there's a better way to look at the foundation of the US constitution and this neutrality arguement that prolly refutes my notion, but I'm losing my train of thought. I need some critique.

Something like not theoretically bad or theoretically good, but theoretically neurtral. And the practices can be good or bad. But then the neutral allows for bad so I don't see how it can be good. Cuz by good I mean doesn't allow for bad in theory. I'm confusing myself, and prolly everyone else and I'm losing my thought. I can clarify later or ya'll can try to explain.

Edited August 25, 2004 by megamattman1

[MorphRC]

I believe the American Gov is devilish!