Political Systems/society And The Church

[SJP]

I found some interesting quotes that might be food for thought:

Pope Pius XI. "Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a great evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater or higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do."

St. Augustine on the advantage of small states over large ones:

What reason, what prudence is there in wishing to glory and greatness and extent of the empire? ... Let us suppose the case of two men ... one is poor, or rather of middling circumstances; the other very rich. But the rich man is anxious with fears, always pining with discontent, burning with covetousness, never secure, always uneasy.... But the other man of moderate wealth is content with small and compact estate, most dear to his own family, enjoying the sweetest peace with his kindred neighbors and friends, in piety religious, benignant in mind, healthy in body, in life frugal, in manners chaste, in conscience secure. I know not whether anyone can be such a fool, that he dare hesitate which to prefer. As therefore in the case of these two men, so in two families, in two nations, in two kingdoms, this test of tranquility holds good.
St. Augustine, City of God, Book 4, sec. 3.

Aristotle: "A great state is not the same thing as a state with a large population. But certainly experience also shows that it is difficult and perhaps impossible for a state with too large a population to have a good legal government. . . . The activities of the state are those of the rulers and those of the persons ruled, and the work of the ruler is to direct the administration and to judge law-suits; but in order to decide questions of justice and in order to distribute the offices of merit, it is necessary for the citizens to know each other's personal characters, since where this does not happen to be the case the business of electing officials and trying law-suits is bound to go badly; haphazard decision is unjust in both matters, and this must obviously prevail in an excessively numerous community." Politics, book vii.

Lord Acton: Of all the checks on democracy, federation has been the most efficatious and the most congenial. . . . The federal system limits and restrains the sovereign power by dividing it and by assigning to Government only certain rights. It is the only method of curbing not only the majority but the power of the whole people

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."[7]

2209 The family must be helped and defended by appropriate social measures. Where families cannot fulfill their responsibilities, other social bodies have the duty of helping them and of supporting the institution of the family. Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family's prerogatives or interfere in its life.

[Budge]

This one is interesting...

[quote]so also it is an injustice and at the same time [b]a great evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater or higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do."[/b]

IRONY ALERT.....[/quote]
[quote]Pope Calls for a New World Order
UN's failure to halt US war on Iraq leads to new initiative
by John Hooper in Rome


Pope John Paul II launched one of the most important diplomatic initiatives of his long papacy yesterday when he called for a new international order to replace the one that emerged from the second world war.

Though he did not offer a detailed plan, his words appeared to show he wanted the UN replaced in light of its failure to block the use of force by America in Iraq.

The Pope called last month for the reform of world institutions and deplored any failure to respect international law. But in a sermon during a mass at St Peter's in Rome yesterday, he went much further, referring to the UN as if it were already a part of the past.

"More than ever, we need a new international order that draws on the experience and results achieved in these years by the United Nations," he declared during a service to mark the Roman Catholic Church's World Day of Peace, celebrated on January 1.

He was flanked at the altar by two of his most senior international representatives: the secretary of state, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, and the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Cardinal Renato Martino, who outraged many Americans last month by expressing "pity" and "compassion" for the captured Saddam Hussein.

The congregation included the heads of all the diplomatic missions accredited to the Holy See.

In his homily, the Pope said the new world order he wanted "would be able to provide solutions to the problems of today ... based on the dignity of human beings, an integrated development of society, solidarity between rich and poor nations, and on the sharing of resources and the extraordinary results of scientific and technological progress."

The Pope believes that not enough of these goals are being achieved with the present system of international organizations that emerged in the late 40s, including the UN, the IMF and the World Bank.

But the central issue, seen from the Vatican's point of view, is the growing irrelevance of a painstakingly constructed body of international law which is being ignored by the US administration during its "war on terror".

Cardinal Martino first signaled the Pope's disquiet last month when he presented a document written by the pontiff to mark the World Day of Peace. Without naming the US, the Pope warned: "Peace and international law are closely linked to each other: law favors peace". He also pointedly observed that "democratic governments know well that the use of force against terrorists cannot justify a renunciation of the principles of the rule of law".

The Pope acknowledged that current international law was ill-suited to dealing with rebels or terrorists and called for new treaties and reform of the UN. But yesterday's appeal was for an altogether more sweeping change.

With observer status at the UN and a network of diplomats covering 174 countries, the Holy See is in a strong position to lobby for its goals.

Its concerns over US attitudes are unlikely to be assuaged by the latest statement of policy from President George Bush's secretary of state, Colin Powell. In an article for the New York Times yesterday, Mr Powell said: "President Bush's vision is clear and right: America's formidable power must continue to be deployed on behalf of principles that are simultaneously American, but that are also beyond and greater than ourselves."

Senior members of the Catholic Church of England and Wales endorsed the Pope's comments. "We welcome the words of the Vatican and fully support what the Holy See says in this," said Ollie Wilson, a spokesman for the Catholic media office.

They cast doubt however on whether he had meant to imply that the UN had had its day and should be replaced.

Peter Jennings, press secretary to the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Birmingham, said: "The Pope is a great advocate of the UN."[/quote]

[SJP]

[quote name='Budge' post='1300504' date='Jun 24 2007, 11:54 AM']This one is interesting...[/quote]


Hey Budge, we're trying to have a discussion about the ideal political system. Please don't hi-jack the thread.

If you want to discuss another topic, please start another thread.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1299938' date='Jun 22 2007, 04:23 PM']Also most gays are not interested in marriage or even hetero notions of "monogamy" The few cases where they have fought for marriage has had more to do with financial matters. If you think that a theocracy or more RULES and regulations is going to STOP homosexual people from having sex, youre dreaming.
Civil law that is accountable not run by a church to independent and free Christian people actually is far more moral.

Some here almost seem to dream of a theocratic Fascist state to take sin out of the world.
Actually they are far less likely to convert to Jesus CHrist when they see all these fascist theocratic supporters running around who want to FORCE them to be good via sending them to jail. I am not talking about matters of violent crime or protecting the weak from strong, but those who want to change the world to be Christian not through the gospel and change of hearts but via force of law. They think Christians are more about power and control rather then about Jesus Christ. Another way that the Catholic Church has led more people to reject the true gospel of Jesus Christ.
So did those laws STOP abortions or homosexuality? Was Prohibition a success? I think there is a place for laws like that, but when a Christian thinks law is going to solve all the worlds problems and that the govt and courts can remake the world for God, there is a BIG TIME PROBLEM.

Your imagined Theocracy, would cancel free speech, would bring back inquisitions, would bring back torture {oops thats already happened}[/quote]
Actually, Budge, that's [i]your[/i] imagined theocracy, which has nothing to do with anything being promoted by anyone here.
(But we all know it's much more fun and easy to make up ridiculous strawmen then attack them, than it is to address actual arguments. But then, addressing actual arguments has never been your modus operandi on here.)

So are you implying that the good "Bible Christian" should always vote in favor of "gay rights" or other legislation favoring immorality (lest we risk bringing back "theocracy," torture, and inquisitions by the state not granting sodomy legal benefits)?
I'd like to see where in the Bible you get [i]that[/i] one from!

Granting legal benefits to sodomistic "unions" and using government institutions to promote homosexuality and other immorality is neither Biblical nor Christian, but simply following modern p.c. secular liberalism.
Talk about "fornication with kings" - sounds like you're advocating fornication with Hillary Clinton! (A thought which never particularly appealed to me personally.)

And no one is claiming that laws will stop all abortion, sodomy, etc.
That does not mean that the law should support immorality, rather than morality.

Have laws against murder, rape, and theft STOPPED murder, rape, and theft?
Does this mean we should get rid of all laws against those things? (Lest we force morality on others, and thus follow the slippery slope to theocracy?)

Unless you are prepared to argue for total and absolute anarchism, your argument is nonsensical.

[quote]Im with you there.

Im glad to have someone agree with me for once.
Abortion should be illegal in that it is protecting weak from the strong and could save a few lives, but to think that govt is going to do away with abortion totally considering where abortion technology is now, where you can just take a pill [and there are other methods]youre being hopeless naive to think the force of law could end abortion.
Churches are to remain seperate from the state, when they intertwine they become totally compriomised, and I say this of all the Protestant and evangelicals who signed up.

I will have nothing to do with a chuch that takes state money for its charities or services for instance, because of all the rules, I posted on this a long time ago, faith based intiatives was going to make even prolestyzation of those being served illegal. That is the sort of stuff I am talking about.
well when most of America was protestant Christian it did and it reflected Christian values.

Considering YOUR church is the one that promotes multicultualism, and the values of other religions and cultures, it is interesting how you see their being intertwined with govt as a good thing.

As for you being "conservative" Socrates, I dont think so...

conservative used to mean smaller government.[/quote]
Well, its good you agree that abortion should be illegal.
So what's the issue? (Other than your silly straw-man nonsense about "theocratic fascism")

Or do you just feel compelled to always be the adversary?

This isn't about bigger vs. smaller government -it's about the government not promoting immoral activity, and simply restoring what most Americans took for granted prior to the 1970s.

The government promoting immoral behavior and godlessness has nothing to do with conservatism, nor Christianity.

Edited June 24, 2007 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='SJP' post='1300099' date='Jun 23 2007, 12:06 AM']I found some interesting quotes that might be food for thought:

Pope Pius XI. "Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a great evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater or higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do."

St. Augustine on the advantage of small states over large ones:

What reason, what prudence is there in wishing to glory and greatness and extent of the empire? ... Let us suppose the case of two men ... one is poor, or rather of middling circumstances; the other very rich. But the rich man is anxious with fears, always pining with discontent, burning with covetousness, never secure, always uneasy.... But the other man of moderate wealth is content with small and compact estate, most dear to his own family, enjoying the sweetest peace with his kindred neighbors and friends, in piety religious, benignant in mind, healthy in body, in life frugal, in manners chaste, in conscience secure. I know not whether anyone can be such a fool, that he dare hesitate which to prefer. As therefore in the case of these two men, so in two families, in two nations, in two kingdoms, this test of tranquility holds good.
St. Augustine, City of God, Book 4, sec. 3.

Aristotle: "A great state is not the same thing as a state with a large population. But certainly experience also shows that it is difficult and perhaps impossible for a state with too large a population to have a good legal government. . . . The activities of the state are those of the rulers and those of the persons ruled, and the work of the ruler is to direct the administration and to judge law-suits; but in order to decide questions of justice and in order to distribute the offices of merit, it is necessary for the citizens to know each other's personal characters, since where this does not happen to be the case the business of electing officials and trying law-suits is bound to go badly; haphazard decision is unjust in both matters, and this must obviously prevail in an excessively numerous community." Politics, book vii.

Lord Acton: Of all the checks on democracy, federation has been the most efficatious and the most congenial. . . . The federal system limits and restrains the sovereign power by dividing it and by assigning to Government only certain rights. It is the only method of curbing not only the majority but the power of the whole people

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."[7]

2209 The family must be helped and defended by appropriate social measures. Where families cannot fulfill their responsibilities, other social bodies have the duty of helping them and of supporting the institution of the family. Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family's prerogatives or interfere in its life.[/quote]
Some very good quotes. Things the bleeding hearts on here might do well to read.

[Budge]

[quote]Talk about "fornication with kings" - sounds like you're advocating fornication with Hillary Clinton! (A thought which never particularly appealed to me personally.)[/quote]

Socrates, if my arguments are going WOOSH right over your head THAT bad that you think Im a Democrat just because I dont support your Dominionist visions, I probably shouldnt even bother with a response.

I dont support EITHER of the TWO parties, how many times have I written that.

Your attempt to shove me in the liberal Democrat box is LAME.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1300965' date='Jun 24 2007, 10:14 PM']Socrates, if my arguments are going WOOSH right over your head THAT bad that you think Im a Democrat just because I dont support your Dominionist visions, I probably shouldnt even bother with a response.

I dont support EITHER of the TWO parties, how many times have I written that.

Your attempt to shove me in the liberal Democrat box is LAME.[/quote]
As is your labeling me a "Dominionist" and a "theocratic fascist" because I'm pro-life and against the "gay" political agenda, and the radical secularist agenda which seeks to forcibly remove any acknowlegment of God from American public life.

As someone else said, this is a discussion about the ideal political system. Kindly take your name-calling and anti-Catholic Jack Chick conspiracy nonsense elsewhere.

Edited June 26, 2007 by Socrates

[Budge]

Socrates, trying to insuinate I am pro-abortion and pro gay isnt going to work here.

You missed my point, you think you use the govt to MAKE PEOPLE BE GOOD. I know from my UU days that abortion will continue without a hitch, even if they make it illegal tommorow. The gays are going to continue with what they are doing as well.

Heres a quote for you:

[quote]We are not here to “Christianize” our culture or to “culturalize our Christianity,” but “to seek and to save that which was lost.” True Christianity can have a great impact on societies and cultures, but we must steer clear of the heresy that misleads us into believing that we can have “heaven on earth.”[/quote]

[url="http://oursovereignjoy.blogspot.com/2007/04/dsouza-islam-and-american-culture.html"]http://oursovereignjoy.blogspot.com/2007/0...an-culture.html[/url]

Youre a smart guy, think this out....

[Anthony]

[quote name='Budge' post='1302025' date='Jun 26 2007, 10:00 AM']Socrates, trying to insuinate I am pro-abortion and pro gay isnt going to work here.

You missed my point, you think you use the govt to MAKE PEOPLE BE GOOD. I know from my UU days that abortion will continue without a hitch, even if they make it illegal tommorow. The gays are going to continue with what they are doing as well.

Heres a quote for you:



[url="http://oursovereignjoy.blogspot.com/2007/04/dsouza-islam-and-american-culture.html"]http://oursovereignjoy.blogspot.com/2007/0...an-culture.html[/url]

Youre a smart guy, think this out....[/quote]


Why do you keep bringing up the UU carp? If you are no longer affiliated with it then leave it where you left it. Don't bring it here. Your arguments are pointless and kind of rediculous. You are wasting your time. Just because you believe that homosexuality and abortion are so prevalent these days that we shouldn't do anything to rid the world of these evils. Ye of little faith. You are definitely taking a relativists view on the issue. You are ignorant of the truth, but yet you act like you have the fullness of the truth. Sorry to say, but you gave that up. We'll keep praying for you though. Good try Budgey. Your arguments don't stand up here. Try doing research. Maybe you should actually read the Bible. Heaven forbid you should ever try that.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1302025' date='Jun 26 2007, 09:00 AM']Socrates, trying to insuinate I am pro-abortion and pro gay isnt going to work here.

You missed my point, you think you use the govt to MAKE PEOPLE BE GOOD. I know from my UU days that abortion will continue without a hitch, even if they make it illegal tommorow. The gays are going to continue with what they are doing as well.

Heres a quote for you:



[url="http://oursovereignjoy.blogspot.com/2007/04/dsouza-islam-and-american-culture.html"]http://oursovereignjoy.blogspot.com/2007/0...an-culture.html[/url]

Youre a smart guy, think this out....[/quote]
Truth be told, I'm getting rather sick of you telling me what "I think."

It was you who insinuated that I am a "Dominionist" and a "fascist" because I believe the law should protect innocent human life and should not give support to homosexual immorality.

If you are saying that I am wrong to support pro-life measures, or to oppose "gay-rights" legislation, then your position on this matter is no different than that of the liberal Dems, whether you identify yourself as such or not.

As for legislation being able to "force everybody to be good" or bring about "heaven on earth," those are your words, not mine.

Until you can address what I've actually said, rather than just attacking straw-man positions which I have not advocated, then it is pointless to continue responding.

[Budge]

Politically you are unable to think outside the right/left box. Everyone a liberal Dem who doesnt agree with you.

Actually I consider you the liberal if you are still voting for the Jacobean, sell our nation out, open borders Republicans.

You have not "understood" anything I have brought up.

I have told you I am against abortion but because of things I know even if they make it illegal it is not going to be stopped. They have the pills, tech and more to make the laws meaningless, they do not have to go back to then hangers and backalley anymore even RU-486 has changed that.

I am against gay marriage but I have always found that to be a non-issue because a) Most gays are not monogomous nor do they wish to emulate hetero forms of marriage, and b) they can go get a lawyer if they want the inheritance of assets and power of attorney to continue.

Really I expected better of you Socrates. It seems mentally you would have been capable of exploring more nuance political viewpoints and actions beyond the nightly TV news.

[123]

First things first, the harassment of the signature on your post is starting to get old. You lost that debate along time ago, I know I was there. Secondly, political debate does not settle well when you try to attach religion connotation's to it. The "duh" part of this debate is that the title Republican and Democrat are, in reality, foolish. We are labeling group of human beings who won't stop their petty debating on how they think American should be run. Modern Christians are totally and completely oblivious to the fact that they're faith and belief is being used in the political race, for votes. For years modern Christians have prided themselves on one thing, Republicanism, not faith, hope, or love, but the Republican party. This is a stereotype, but modern Evangelical Christians are willing to embrace that.

Jesus Camp one of the newer religious movies out that shows how much Modern Christians have their hands in Political mud. Ted Haggard one of the leaders of the, mostly Pentecostal, summer camp these children stay at during the film has this to say about politics:


Ted Haggard: If the evangelicals vote, they determine the election.

Not only are blending the political and religious ideologies but, they are feeding this blended concoctions to children as young as 5 years old.

Not only didn't this movie rave in offensive accusations against other people of other faiths, cultures, and lifestyles. It just separated them into 2 categories. People who love Jesus and people who don't. They missed one, people who don't about the help that Christianity can give them.

Personally, I stay away from political threads and debates, its been a long time since I have been on one here. Reason being is that we all have normal political views, and ones that others consider crackpot and stupid. To me politics are a waste of precious time, when we could furthering the truth and helping people that need our help, not George W. Bush, I could care less about him.

[Budge]

When I talk about thinking outside the box, your post is an example.

1. I am not a Republican. {not every fundamentalist or evangelical out there is a sychopant to the supposed "God" party.

2. I am not a Democrat either.

3. I do not support Ted Haggard, who when he held his ministry was one of the worse offenders considering Dominionism and church and state marriage out there.

Edited June 27, 2007 by Budge

[kujo]

So what does all of this stuff have to do with the original question?

Budge, what, in your opinion, would be the ideal political system in a country trying to attain eternal life?

[Budge]

America had the ideal political system until recently, when free people including Christians kept the govt accountable, we are sinking into totalitarianism now with the constitution almost mostly gone.

No one attains eternal life via politics, it is an individual matter.

The reason things are going so bad in our country is fewer and fewer individual Christians following God's commandments and holding biblical values to keep the govt accountable.

[kujo]

[quote name='Budge' post='1303334' date='Jun 27 2007, 03:31 PM']America had the ideal political system until recently, when free people including Christians kept the govt accountable, we are sinking into totalitarianism now with the constitution almost mostly gone.

No one attains eternal life via politics, it is an individual matter.

The reason things are going so bad in our country is fewer and fewer individual Christians following God's commandments and holding biblical values to keep the govt accountable.[/quote]

Agreed. The deterioration of our civil liberties is troublesome; however, in some cases, I think it's warranted due to our need for security.

And I think you might've misunderstood my comment about working towards eternal life. I was just using that as a euphemism for Christians. [i]Mia culpa[/i].

Finally, in regards to your comment about Christians not following God's commandments, I ask you what your views are on how much we, the Christian electorate, can work towards having the government pass legislation that is in line with our Christian values. Basically, what is the line between Christian-voting and what you have frequently-referred to as "dominionism?"

[Budge]

[quote]in some cases, I think it's warranted due to our need for security.[/quote]

Sure by now youve heard the sayingt...those who give up liberty for security, deserve neither...

I agree with that saying.

The war on terror is really about global elites grabbing power, didnt you all learn anything from those two NWO-warners who were here during one of my breaks, they got some things right even if I disagreed with them on others.

When one is a Christian voting, they do not compromise, they do not believe in church and state joining together with each other in ones back pocket nor in ministers sold out to political interests. I dont vote anymore for any election above dog catcher and town mayor the rest are all sold out, and Id be compromising principles to vote for any of the corrupt ones on top. Many Christians have sold out, pure and simple, and all the evangelicals who defend torture via "God's party" and who treated presidents and politicians like they were a wannabe Messiah, even deeply flawed individuals needed to get a clue.

so it isnt just you folks-the Catholics who have the church of Dominionsim---the Popes all doing speeches at the UN and all those Cardinals advancing the UNs socialist Millennium Directives but those like Rick Warren hooked up with the UN and all the sold out Christians who threw away everything in the Bible to follow after these piped pipers of politics. By the way they use abortion and being again gay rights as a screen and to fog the issues. Its both left and Right, Wallis to Robertson and its disgusting.

Robertson I read even the other day is now shilling for Guilani---who supports abortion.

Politics always corrupts the church and any church joined with the state becomes rotten.

[kujo]

[quote name='Budge' post='1303360' date='Jun 27 2007, 03:49 PM']Sure by now youve heard the sayingt...those who give up liberty for security, deserve neither...

I agree with that saying.

The war on terror is really about global elites grabbing power, didnt you all learn anything from those two NWO-warners who were here during one of my breaks, they got some things right even if I disagreed with them on others.

When one is a Christian voting, they do not compromise, they do not believe in church and state joining together with each other in ones back pocket nor in ministers sold out to political interests. I dont vote anymore for any election above dog catcher and town mayor the rest are all sold out, and Id be compromising principles to vote for any of the corrupt ones on top. Many Christians have sold out, pure and simple, and all the evangelicals who defend torture via "God's party" and who treated presidents and politicians like they were a wannabe Messiah, even deeply flawed individuals needed to get a clue.

so it isnt just you folks-the Catholics who have the church of Dominionsim---the Popes all doing speeches at the UN and all those Cardinals advancing the UNs socialist Millennium Directives but those like Rick Warren hooked up with the UN and all the sold out Christians who threw away everything in the Bible to follow after these piped pipers of politics. By the way they use abortion and being again gay rights as a screen and to fog the issues. Its both left and Right, Wallis to Robertson and its disgusting.

Robertson I read even the other day is now shilling for Guilani---who supports abortion.

Politics always corrupts the church and any church joined with the state becomes rotten.[/quote]

Thank you for sharing. Can't say I agree with what you say, based on my religious beliefs as well as the fact that I am a political science major, but I do appreciate your candor.

Edited June 27, 2007 by kujo