National Party Platforms - In Their Own Words

[Sojourner]

[quote name='curtins' post='1352107' date='Aug 7 2007, 01:55 PM']Also, the marriage that is being debated is not a sacrament. Its not even marriage, according to the Church.[/quote]
Which is a main reason why this troubles me. We put all our political energies behind things we [i]don't really believe in and are not the truth taught by our church[/i].

I just can't get behind supporting a party that preaches a marriage that isn't marriage, a doctrine of "life" that isn't really a doctrine of life, and that uses faith to build political capital. If marriage and family are the things we truly believe in, then support -- or form -- a party that actually preaches the truth! Because the Republican party sure as hell ain't it, and frankly neither is the Democratic party. I also can't get behind justice that isn't really justice, and tolerance that is anything but.

Phatmass should form a political party. Phatpolitics. That's what we need. Not this "compromise" that requires us to sell out on the things we really care about.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Terra Firma

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1352231' date='Aug 7 2007, 05:56 PM']Which is a main reason why this troubles me. We put all our political energies behind things we [i]don't really believe in and are not the truth taught by our church[/i].

I just can't get behind supporting a party that preaches a marriage that isn't marriage, a doctrine of "life" that isn't really a doctrine of life, and that uses faith to build political capital. If marriage and family are the things we truly believe in, then support -- or form -- a party that actually preaches the truth! Because the Republican party sure as hell ain't it, and frankly neither is the Democratic party. I also can't get behind justice that isn't really justice, and tolerance that is anything but.

Phatmass should form a political party. Phatpolitics. That's what we need. Not this "compromise" that requires us to sell out on the things we really care about.[/quote]
So.... you have no opinion, then, Terra...

[Sojourner]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1352252' date='Aug 7 2007, 05:14 PM']So.... you have no opinion, then, Terra... [/quote]
No. I like to keep my opinions to myself. You know that.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='XIX' post='1351972' date='Aug 7 2007, 12:39 PM']Yeah, because left and right mean the same things they did thousands of years ago. Do you actually mean to propose, that in American politics, the left's official stance is to lie? You might as well try to tell us that all southpaws commit mortal sin--after all, only a foolish person turns to his left.

Look--I don't like the political left at all, but this is a bit overboard.

Left and right don't mean what they did 50 years ago, let alone several thousand years ago. Neither do conservative/liberal or Democrat/republican. Words change. Conservative does not mean "status quo" anymore; if it did, then conservatives would quickly become pro-abortion, as abortion has become the status quo in American politics. Conservative does mean "right," (as in the opposite of left, not the opposite of wrong.) Liberal means "left." Words pretty much mean what people want them to mean. That is how language evolves--if there are enough people using words with a certain definition, then the words automatically adopt that definition.

Language is literally determined by a majority vote. Of course, morality is not determined by a majority vote, but etymology sure as heck is. As is such, liberal means left and conservative means right.[/quote]

it's not about american politics, it's about the meaning of right and left.
Right minded has always ment "lawful", "moral", etc.... Conservative does not mean "right".

The author didn't speak English thousands of years ago, it's been translated... it has not lost it's meaning, nor has it changed.

Leftist media coined the term "right wing extremist" in the past 15 years or so as a demonization of the right side because the right side is lawful, moral, just, and God loving/fearing. There are plenty of leftist wackos.... PETA, NAMBLA, Neo Nazi's, etc...


As for the edit... The twisting of what I had posted elsewhere on the board totally justified the statement... She twisted what I wrote to the point of lying. That is what Michael Moore does. Maybe she didn't understand what I wrote, but I find that hard to believe.

Edited August 8, 2007 by ironmonk

[Sojourner]

You said:
[quote name='ironmonk' post='1350935' date='Aug 5 2007, 11:48 PM']...I would hate to vote for rudy... I would absolutely hate it... Viva Fred!!!! But rudy is better than any dem running for president.[/quote]
I said:
[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1351616' date='Aug 6 2007, 09:08 PM']Oh and before you get on your high horse about voting for baby deaths, let's please note that you've advocated voting for Giuliani in other threads. Who is avowedly pro-choice, no matter how you slice it.[/quote]
Tell me again how I misrepresented your statement? Given the choice between Rudy and and Democrat you'd choose Rudy. Who is pro-choice. So you would vote for someone who supports killing babies -- even if there were pro-life candidates running who were third party.
[quote name='ironmonk' post='1350935' date='Aug 5 2007, 11:48 PM']If we don't vote for rep or dem, then it's pointless to vote. Roughly 120,000,000 people vote either Rep or Dem.... the others are lucky to get 5000 votes.[/quote]
The way I read this, you would support the Republican party, even when the nominated candidate [i]does not share the value you claim to hold above all others.[/i] In my mind, either respecting the value and dignity of human life takes absolute precedence, or it does not. And, as curtins noted, the Republican Party doesn't even embrace an ideal of marriage anywhere close to being in line with the way we see marriage -- just about the [i]only[/i] mark of true marriage (free, total, faithful, fruitful union between a man and a woman) left in the Republican definition is the "between a man and a woman" part. How much of the true meaning of marriage was eroded away by making politically expedient compromises??

Why should we compromise on these things we hold most dear?? When is enough enough?

Here's hoping you pony up the maturity to actually read and respond charitably to a post from someone you don't agree with and are angered by. But who am I kidding ... you've got me on ignore. Maybe it was in 5th grade that I last did that ...

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1352080' date='Aug 7 2007, 01:17 PM']That just makes an ill shiver go up and down my spine. Not because I hate Republicans, but because the whole marriage of politics and religion really troubles me. My discomfort grows not because I don't think Christians can and should have an effect on the political process and on social policies overall, but because of the effect that our current methods of involvement politically has on our faith and our society. I don't think it is good. I think the politicizing of our values in the way it's been done devalues the things for which we care most deeply. No one seems to care about or even notice this is happening, but our allowing things like marriage -- a [i]sacrament[/i] -- to become political footballs, used to further political ends ... this does deep damage. I think we will reap a sad harvest from the seeds we've sown politically.[/quote]
XIX was simply saying that the Republican party line is [i]closer[/i] than the Democratic party line to Catholic values. Like it or not, that's a pretty accurate statement, and shouldn't be the cause of undue controversy. It's not like he was saying that the Republican party platform is identical with Catholic teaching, or that the GOP is God's own divinely ordained political party, or any other such nonsense.

It would be similar to me making a statement such as, for example, that the Polish government better reflects Catholic values and morality than the Russian government. This would not be equivalent to declaring the Polish government to be God's own rule on earth.

Quite frankly, TF, you're starting to sound a bit like Budge here, treating any reflection or endorsement of morality in civil law and politics as the imposition of some horrible evil "theocracy."

The truth is that the GOP platform does in fact come closer to reflecting the positions of the Church in the areas of abortion, homosexuality, marriage, and the free expression of religion. Just follow the link Ironmonk provided. (Yes, that site may have an "agenda," but the quotes from the party platforms are accurate.)

While not all GOP politicians have fully lived up to the platform, any unbiased person would have to conclude that the platform itself is better than the Dems', which[i] explicitly and unambiguously supports abortion on demand and giving special legal benefits to homosexuals[/i].

Claiming the Republican and Democratic platforms are morally eqivalent on these issues is to be either willfully blind or profoundly ignorant.

No, I'm not claiming the Republicans are all good or saints, or that their platform is perfect. I think more GOP politicians should truly stand up for the values written in their party platform.
(And, let's face it, all their problems to the contrary, they have certainly done more to uphold the dignity of human life and morality than the Democrats, who, at the national level, have supported their immoral platform positions on abortion and the like to a t.)

All this hand-wringing about "politicizing our values" is nonsense. When the godless Left declares abortion on demand a "right" to be enforced, and seeks to make homosexual "unions" the legal equivalent of marriage, opposing these things is not the imposition of some scary fascist "theocracy," but simply trying to restore some vestige of sanity in law and government.

We should support such efforts, rather than oppose them just because we feel some politicians may be suspect in their motives, or they are not "perfect" measures. The alternative is to hand government entirely over to those whose stated principles directly violate some of our most serious and deeply held moral principles as Catholics.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Socrates

[Sojourner]

I think you misunderstand me, Socrates. My problem is not with Christians being involved in politics at all. It is with Christians throwing allegiance behind political parties that so clearly do not represent the things we purport to value most. Republicans are not any more for family values than are Democrats, make no mistake about it. Just because they don't support homosexual marriage (which is a tenuous statement at the moment at best) doesn't mean that the marriage they're talking about is something we should really be throwing our weight behind.

And if you think that the politicizing our values has not had an effect on how we see marriage and other things of importance, think again. It has an effect in two ways. One, by making these things merely a means to an end (garnering political capital rather than actually moving to make societal change) we treat it not as a good in and of itself but as a thing that gets us what we want. It is demeaning and disrespectful. Two, when these things become political playthings, [i]we lose[/i]. No fault divorce. Contraception. These are just two of the things we have "compromised on" in our pursuit for political power.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1351955' date='Aug 7 2007, 09:37 AM']That would be my take as well. None of them stand by their platforms, which is why comparing them is worthless.[/quote]
At the national level, the parties have basically stood by their platforms on the issues dealt twith here, though in the Republican case, maybe a bit weakly.
For all Bush's problems, he has done more than any other president to support the pro-life cause (though I don't think he's done enough). Even Rudy supports overturning Roe v. Wade and turning abortion laws back to the states.

The Dems, on the other hand, have solidly stood behind abortion on demand and its support and funding by the government ever since these parts of the party platform were written. (Look at the record).

Once again, your statement is not really accurate.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Socrates

[Sojourner]

I think there is plenty of dissent from the party platform on both sides of the aisle. Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1352231' date='Aug 7 2007, 04:56 PM']Which is a main reason why this troubles me. We put all our political energies behind things we [i]don't really believe in and are not the truth taught by our church[/i].

I just can't get behind supporting a party that preaches a marriage that isn't marriage, a doctrine of "life" that isn't really a doctrine of life, and that uses faith to build political capital. If marriage and family are the things we truly believe in, then support -- or form -- a party that actually preaches the truth! Because the Republican party sure as hell ain't it, and frankly neither is the Democratic party. I also can't get behind justice that isn't really justice, and tolerance that is anything but.

Phatmass should form a political party. Phatpolitics. That's what we need. Not this "compromise" that requires us to sell out on the things we really care about.[/quote]
We've been over the whole marriage issue before, and I still disagree (you can dig up that thread if you want, but I don't have time to rehash the whole thing). As shown, even the USCCB, which tends to lean left politically, wholeheartedly endorsed the marriage amendment and called on Catholics to support it.

Whether or not you trust the motivations of the pols involved, it is objectively good legislation (though sad that we've even reached the point where it's an issue.)
Not legally recognizing homosexual marriage is perfectly in tune with Catholic moral teaching, and is hardly a danger to Catholic marriage in anyway.

Are you now saying we must not support any party or politician which isn't a perfect Catholic "theocracy" which would outlaw all abortion immeditiately, as well as ban all contraception, only recognize Catholic sacramental marriages, etc.?

(Not that I'd be all against such a thing, but let's face it, such a party isn't going to come to power any time soon. In the meantime, we have to deal with what we have.)

Would it be wrong to say you have an idealist "all or nothing" philosophy, in which we must either support flawless politicians and/or parties, or not vote or be politically involved at all?

If that's your take, you might as well just throw in your support for me as Catholic King of America.

(However, I must say that for one politically apathetic, you seem to like to debate politics alot.)

[Sojourner]

[url="http://www.republicansforchoice.com/keyissues.htm"]This is an interesting note from "Republicans for Choice"[/url]:
[quote]What will this Congress look like for women’s rights after this election?

If control of Congress switches from Republican to Democrat won’t that mean a woman’s right to choose will be safe? The answer is “not necessarily.”

When Republicans For Choice was founded following the Supreme Court’s Webster decision back in 1989 (the first decision that almost overturned Roe) the majority of state legislatures were Democrat-controlled. Congress was Democrat-controlled.

[b]Some of the most active anti-choice activists in office were Democrats. And many still are. The Democrat’s Leader in the U S Senate, today, Harry Reid, for example is a strong opponent of a woman’s right to choose.[/b]

[b]So we founded Republicans For Choice (RFC) to help you look past the Party label.[/b]
...
Many of our strongest pro-choice GOP officeholders are under attack. Some may lose. But the sad irony is they will lose not because of their position on Choice….[b]but because voters will unfairly paint them as anti-choice and anti-stem cell research and pro-Bush just because they are Republican.[/b]

So our plea to the voting public is this….if you care about preserving a woman’s right to choose…take the time to find out the real position of the candidates. [b] Look past the Party label. [/b]

And also understand this…it takes a whole lot more principle and courage to be a Republican running as a pro-choice advocate than to be a Democrat. So if you are lucky enough to have two pro-choice candidates to choose from…please reward the courage of the Republican with your vote.
...
Remember as well when you vote for a pro-choice Republican you not only get a candidate who trusts women to make their own decisions and who fights to keep government out of the bedroom as well as the boardroom…but they also believe in lower taxes so you get to keep more of what you earn! Such a deal!![/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1352556' date='Aug 7 2007, 10:06 PM']I think there is plenty of dissent from the party platform on both sides of the aisle. Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.[/quote]
At the top national level, the Democratic Party is 100% pro-abort. This includes all post-Roe Dem Presidents and major presidential candidates. Not much dissent there.
And in congress, pro-life Dems are a small minority.

Do the research.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

RON PAUL '08

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1352596' date='Aug 7 2007, 10:27 PM']At the top national level, the Democratic Party is 100% pro-abort. This includes all post-Roe Dem Presidents and major presidential candidates. Not much dissent there.
And in congress, pro-life Dems are a small minority.

Do the research.[/quote]
Well heck, you should have told me we were limiting our survey to only top national level folks. Though I suppose if you keep changing the parameters of the discussion, of course you can ensure that you're right.

If my comments appear partisan it is solely because the unholy affection for the Republican party so often displayed on these boards bothers me. If there were a similar unholy affection for Democrats I would be more than happy to combat that as well. I think our pro-choice Republican friends are right on at least one thing: Look past the Party label.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1352612' date='Aug 7 2007, 10:35 PM']Well heck, you should have told me we were limiting our survey to only top national level folks. Though I suppose if you keep changing the parameters of the discussion, of course you can ensure that you're right.

If my comments appear partisan it is solely because the unholy affection for the Republican party so often displayed on these boards bothers me. If there were a similar unholy affection for Democrats I would be more than happy to combat that as well. I think our pro-choice Republican friends are right on at least one thing: Look past the Party label.[/quote]
I'm aware that there are pro-abort Republicans and pro-life Democrats, however the majority of pro-lifers are Republican.
I support individuals rather than parties, but the truth is, the higher the level of office, the more the party platform matters (especially at the Presidential level).
I'm not saying we can vote for a person on party platform alone, but this debate was about comparing platforms, and I'd disagree that looking at them is totally useless (especially as this thread was introduced when Presidential candidates were being discussed).

And it's also a fact that pro-life Dems almost never run against pro-abort Reps. (It's usually pro-life Dem vs. pro-life Rep or pro-abort Dem vs. pro-abort Rep.)

[curtins]

terra Firma, your argument about marriage is completely inane. NO party is supporting civil marriage as a sacrament. No party ever will. However, in protecting civil marriage as a man and a woman, you protect the family. It does not endanger sacramental marriage.

On the other hand, allowing gay civil marriage opens the door for the gays to petition the church for sacramental gay marriage.

The family is the basic unit of society. That is why there is civil marriage.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='curtins' post='1352629' date='Aug 7 2007, 10:52 PM']terra Firma, your argument about marriage is completely inane. NO party is supporting civil marriage as a sacrament. No party ever will. However, in protecting civil marriage as a man and a woman, you protect the family. It does not endanger sacramental marriage.

On the other hand, allowing gay civil marriage opens the door for the gays to petition the church for sacramental gay marriage.

The family is the basic unit of society. That is why there is civil marriage.[/quote]
Where did I say that marriage should be protected as a sacrament? I'm not saying everyone needs to be married Catholic. But I am saying that if we're going to have civil marriage, the elements of civil marriage should mirror those set out by the church -- the defining qualities of marriage: free, total, faithful, fruitful union of man and woman.

The primary areas in which marriage has been attacked so far are with regard to contraception (totality/fruitfulness) and divorce (faithfulness). We've lost on both those fronts. And those losses have had major consequences on the abortion front. Contraception, for example, led [i][b]directly [/b][/i]to Roe v. Wade. Even the Republicans for Choice say so: “The Supreme Court’s Decision in Roe v. Wade was based on previous decisions legalizing birth control first for married couples and then for single people, too (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 and Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972).” [url="http://www.mirrorofjustice.com/mirrorofjustice/scaperlanda/sexmarriageandprocreation.pdf"]And here's a Catholic take on this very subject[/url].

And let's just think for a moment what impact the introduction of divorce has had on abortion. Preaching the truth matters. There are dire consequences when we compromise on the essentials.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1352633' date='Aug 7 2007, 11:06 PM']Where did I say that marriage should be protected as a sacrament? I'm not saying everyone needs to be married Catholic. But I am saying that if we're going to have civil marriage, the elements of civil marriage should mirror those set out by the church -- the defining qualities of marriage: free, total, faithful, fruitful union of man and woman.

The primary areas in which marriage has been attacked so far are with regard to contraception (totality/fruitfulness) and divorce (faithfulness). We've lost on both those fronts. And those losses have had major consequences on the abortion front. Contraception, for example, led [i][b]directly [/b][/i]to Roe v. Wade. Even the Republicans for Choice say so: “The Supreme Court’s Decision in Roe v. Wade was based on previous decisions legalizing birth control first for married couples and then for single people, too (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 and Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972).” [url="http://www.mirrorofjustice.com/mirrorofjustice/scaperlanda/sexmarriageandprocreation.pdf"]And here's a Catholic take on this very subject[/url].

And let's just think for a moment what impact the introduction of divorce has had on abortion. Preaching the truth matters. There are dire consequences when we compromise on the essentials.[/quote]
This is not any kind of logical argument against not legally recognizing "gay marriage."

Are you saying that as long as we legally allow divorce and contraception, we must also legally recognize "gay marriage"??
If you're so much against the devaluing of marriage, why should we allow it to be devalued even further?

I honestly find your apparent "all or nothing" reasoning very hard to follow. You seem to be saying that unless the law is 100% perfectly in line with all of Catholic teaching, it should not reflect morality at all.
(Maybe I'm misreading something, but that's what you seem to be saying, in a nutshell.)

[Jaime]

[quote]The family is the basic unit of society. That is why there is civil marriage.[/quote]

Nope

The reason there is civil marriage is directly due to a lack of faith.

Also there is nothing within civil marriage that calls for permanence of the marriage or any call for children.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1353157' date='Aug 8 2007, 07:18 PM']This is not any kind of logical argument against not legally recognizing "gay marriage."[/quote]
Well, OK, that's kind of an obvious statement since my argument had absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. What's your point?

[quote name='Socrates' post='1353157' date='Aug 8 2007, 07:18 PM']Are you saying that as long as we legally allow divorce and contraception, we must also legally recognize "gay marriage"??

If you're so much against the devaluing of marriage, why should we allow it to be devalued even further?[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about?

I never once mentioned that gay marriage should be legalized. In fact, I said, "But I am saying that if we're going to have civil marriage, the elements of civil marriage should mirror those set out by the church -- the defining qualities of marriage: free, total, faithful, fruitful union [b]of man and woman.[/b]" That last bolded bit should clear up where I stand on legalizing gay marriage. And frankly I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

Is it that you want someone to argue against so badly that you'll twist my words -- even those plainly opposite to what you assert -- to mean something that I don't mean? Or is it really just poor reading comprehension skills?

[quote name='Socrates' post='1353157' date='Aug 8 2007, 07:18 PM']I honestly find your apparent "all or nothing" reasoning very hard to follow. You seem to be saying that unless the law is 100% perfectly in line with all of Catholic teaching, it should not reflect morality at all.
(Maybe I'm misreading something, but that's what you seem to be saying, in a nutshell.)[/quote]
Well, perhaps that is because you went into it thinking, "TF supports gay marriage" and then tried to make it fit your assumption. Since I said nothing of the sort, it was a little difficult to twist my words to get to that conclusion.

Soc, the whole point of this thread is about how great Republicans are. Curtins made the point earlier that civil marriage isn't sacramental marriage, and I agree that it's not, and I also think that in fighting for "family values" in the sense they're described in today's political arena, we are fighting for something that is not what we believe marriage to be. In fact, it's such a far cry from what marriage is supposed to be that it has directly led to more abortions. And yet we keep supporting it. That's insane. If we want to support family values, then let's support what our REAL values are. It doesn't mean we need to mandate sacramental marriage, but it does mean that we need to be preaching the truth about the things that make marriage something special -- that it is a free, total, fruitful, faithful union between a man and a woman. ALL of these characteristics are necessary. And because we deemed some of these to be unnecessary throughout the years we are paying the price with more abortions. [b]Our faulty image of marriage as promulgated through our civil laws leads directly to more abortions.
[/b]
Now I realize that you're going to twist my words here to mean that I hate puppies and butterflies, but I guess there's not much I can do about that.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Terra Firma