I Am Politically Apathetic

[N/A Gone]

I dear friend of mine, someone I consider a brother, is very angry with me because I am politically Apathetic.

One of his arguments was that as a christian my voice and imput was needed. The less noise Christians make the less we get done what we want. The nature of democrazy is the whiner gets the bottle.

In which I reply

I do not feel we should be looking to get a bottle from the gov't. I do not feel the gov't should be what we expect to solve the problems we have. The gov't should not be trying to cure hunger, unemployment, The gov't will only do what it wants to do. if it feels it is helping itself by helping the hunger than it will appear to do that. But the effort it would take to convince the gov't would be easier and more effective if working with another organization that was actually trying to help the hunger.

Again, Im apathetic. To me a gov't should guard the boarders, get me my mail and stay the carp out of my life. Gov't will never exist to serve God. It will appear that way to gain support of a people. Any of the "goods" to attriubte to gov't would be done better if people had incitive and did it themselves and with like minded individuals.

I dont consider my view synical or unhelpful. I just do not think a controling gov't or a people addicted to the teet of that gov't is a good thing

People should not be afraid of their gov't, their gov't should be afraid of the people..

If you have a secular seperation of religious and civic control than that which is given the civic control should not be looked on as the church. thats our problem. The gov't is more than a civic control in america. It is our temple, "abortion is bad...gov't needs to ban it" "gay marriage is bad..gov't needs to ban it" "unemployment is bad...gov't needs to fix it" thats unhelpful. Rather than the christian people influencing other people to change we look for a secular gov't to fix the problem.

So I am politically apathetic. I care about the issues, but not a jack for the system and the gov't. To me it is hard to claim an insitution is christian or has christian leanings when 20 yr olds are coming home in body bags. (we can argue the war if you want...but only if you have spilled as much blood as i have in uniform--I think it is pathetic to argue the war when you are an arm chair QB.)

ok..have your shot.

btw, anyone ever read "Theopolitical Imagination" By Dr. Cavenaugh?

Edited September 23, 2007 by Revprodeji

[dairygirl4u2c]

that' all well and good to know the real solutions lies with the people. but, when the govt is at the cause of probs, such as a christian would point out abortion, you have no choice but ot be not apathetic.
to a large degree politics won't change till people do. but, you have to be willing ot argue the politics to help change people. and when there's a fine line as to whether it'll be legal or not, you have to pursh to ensure it is illegal, even when that means that you might be in the minority but able to leverage it illegal, which means it can be more than just changing people.

Edited September 23, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[N/A Gone]

Even if the gov't makes abortion illegal it does not solve the problem. people will always find ways to go behind the scenes and do it. It is not the role of the gov't to inforce moral beliefs. Instead it should be us explaining and influencing the hearts and minds. Legislation should not be used to inforce morality. (not saying I dont promote pro-life people...just that it wont fix the problem)

[dairygirl4u2c]

first you are a catholic right? the CC teaches you have to try to change the govt.

plus, making it illegal would reduce the amounts of abortions. so that people will still do it sometimes doesn't have much relevance.

it seems like being politically apathetic is often just a cop out so that you don't have to argue politics and have a spine. but i might be mistaken in your case, that's just usually the case.

[dairygirl4u2c]

you have to pursh to ensure it is illegal, even when that means that you might be in the minority but able to leverage it illegal, which means it can be more than just changing people.
or when you're in majority but need to protect from an overreaching minority

Edited September 23, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[N/A Gone]

[quote]first you are a catholic right? the CC teaches you have to try to change the govt.[/quote]

-prove it. Changing society and changing gov't are 2 different things. "Theopolitical imagination" was written by a catholic theologian.

[quote]plus, making it illegal would reduce the amounts of abortions. so that people will still do it sometimes doesn't have much relevance.[/quote]

-prove it. It does not help the drug situation. We have more problems with the drugs that are illegal than the countries that make them legal.

[quote]it seems like being politically apathetic is often just a cop out so that you don't have to argue politics and have a spine. but i might be mistaken in your case, that's just usually the case.[/quote]

-since when do I not argue.. Like I said, I care about the issue. But a political argument for me is like arguing if the packers or vikings have a better linebacker core. We can argue, we can have passion. But in the end if means jack because we are not the coaches.

I did not follow your last quote.

The myth of a christian nation bothers me. This is a secular gov't ran by people who are secular. Even if they claim a faith they do not follow it. We can influence the hearts and minds in the private sector, but I fear that our faith is only harmed by trying to use the gov't as a tool.

[dairygirl4u2c]

so you'd go on record as saying that you think the amount of abortions would be the same? if you thought otherwise, then it'd seem you'd want to push for change.

look up as per whether catholics are obligated to not be apathetic.
[url="http://www.wf-f.org/Catholics_and_Politics.html#anchor4801814"]http://www.wf-f.org/Catholics_and_Politics...#anchor48018164[/url]
i don't think it'd be an infallible declaration, but it seems pretty clear. voting responsibility translates into political nonapathy. even if it's not infallible, catholics are still required to follow it as per the defiintinos of what infallibe statements and similar statemetns are.

plus, if the govt wants to allow gay marriage, at least as a catholic, you have to ensure that it doesn't pass if you can. maybe you don't have to ban it. but you have to ensure to have your voice.
plus gay marraige in hte law one would think would affect society. society and polictis is a lot like a chicken and the egg thing in that the govt is what it is cause that's what the perople are. but, getting it legalized is surely going to reinforce the okayness of it. so you have to fight against it. and that means no apathy. you'd have to go out on a limb to think it wouldn't encoursage gayness acts.

so basically, in my opinion of your view so far, your only answers are things that are far fetched, thinking the laws don'g affect society and outcomes.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i can related to a lot of, well ya kow i don't know if these laws will affect socieyt and outcomes, so i am apathetic. admitting you don't know is very noble. but on the other hand, if you aren't sure it'd seem you'd err on the side of change and so nonapathy

[Apathy]

[N/A Gone]

The gay marriage would be a gov't thing, not a sacrament. They are just doing it to be recognized by the gov't and for gov't benefits like insurance and such. Makes no difference to me. Even if they dont pass Gay marriage it isnt like homosexuality will end.

Lets say you have 50points of energy. Is it better to put those 50 points into trying to get the gov't to be your tool, or to put that energy into actually addressing the problem? Is it better to try and make a gov't go against gay marriage, or to teach people about the sacrament of marriage in its fullness? The gov't is not a tool of the church. Perhaps we get lazy and try to make it that way.

The amount of abortions would be hard to tract since they would be done illegally. The mentality of abortion would still exist and people would find ways around it to do what they want. Maybe the luke-warm person would not consider it an option anymore so it could help some babies live. But the mentality and the death would still happen. Blood will still spill. The same gov't that we are trying to influence to change a law it issued is the same one Martin Luther king JR wrote about citing Augustine "an unjust law is a law no more" He continued to say "I lived in a country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws." So why would we desire to change the world by using the gov't when we know it is corrupt? If we change the hearts and minds of people the gov't will follow suit.

He continues..

[quote]There was a time when the church was very powerful in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators"' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide. and gladiatorial contests.Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Par from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent and often even vocal sanction of things as they are.But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it vi lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.[/quote]

just curious. What part of this is far-fetched?

[Alabaster]

If I could add my .02 in. Ironically a good friend and I were discussing this the other day. But I digress.

With regards to getting involved in politics, in the very least, we should vote for moral and ethical people to put in public offices and oust the corrupt ones. It isn't the government’s job to legislate morality, but on issues like gay marriage and abortion the gov't should step in. Maybe not always the Federal gov't, the States need more of a say nowadays.

But what is definitely needed is a change in society and what is considered acceptable. I'm not that old, but I remember when things like respect for adults and the law was commonplace, pregnancy out of wedlock was looked down on (abortion even more so), marriage was revered and not disposable like underwear, and common sense and morals were much more common.

It is our responsibility to try to install morals and ethics back into society. The gov't can help with some of it. A lot of the burden lies with us as well. It's a two way street.

[Dismas]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1391065' date='Sep 22 2007, 10:12 PM']Even if the gov't makes abortion illegal it does not solve the problem. people will always find ways to go behind the scenes and do it. It is not the role of the gov't to inforce moral beliefs. Instead it should be us explaining and influencing the hearts and minds. Legislation should not be used to inforce morality. (not saying I dont promote pro-life people...just that it wont fix the problem)[/quote]

Y'know, you're right. People will still decapitate and dismember their babies no matter what you do with the law. Of course, the same is true for murder, rape, theft, perjury, etc. All of them grievous injustices and sins. Now it's all well and good to explain and influence the hearts and minds of murderers, rapists, thieves, perjurers, and such, but there is a need for enforcement.

Violence is still violence, and punishing and attempting to prevent such violence is the first and only legitimate purpose of domestic policy, and government as a whole.

[N/A Gone]

When has the law stopped violence? It just punished the action. Stopping violence is self-serving. Thus a function of the gov't. Keeping the people peaceful is always a goal of a gov't. Stopping abortion does not help the gov't so they wont do it.

The moral people wont run for office. The process of public media is too much for anyone to put their family in. Even if someone claims morals while being voted in. It does not change what happens in the office (there was a thread on open mic of all the catholics who voted for abortion)

Gov't wont change society. Society changes the gov't. For a christian voice to be heard we need to influence the voice in the private sector. But we dont care. We would rather try and do it with a secular gov't that will only serve the majority.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1391111' date='Sep 22 2007, 10:50 PM']The gay marriage would be a gov't thing, not a sacrament. They are just doing it to be recognized by the gov't and for gov't benefits like insurance and such. Makes no difference to me. Even if they dont pass Gay marriage it isnt like homosexuality will end.

Lets say you have 50points of energy. Is it better to put those 50 points into trying to get the gov't to be your tool, or to put that energy into actually addressing the problem? Is it better to try and make a gov't go against gay marriage, or to teach people about the sacrament of marriage in its fullness? The gov't is not a tool of the church. Perhaps we get lazy and try to make it that way.

The amount of abortions would be hard to tract since they would be done illegally. The mentality of abortion would still exist and people would find ways around it to do what they want. Maybe the luke-warm person would not consider it an option anymore so it could help some babies live. But the mentality and the death would still happen. Blood will still spill. The same gov't that we are trying to influence to change a law it issued is the same one Martin Luther king JR wrote about citing Augustine "an unjust law is a law no more" He continued to say "I lived in a country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws." So why would we desire to change the world by using the gov't when we know it is corrupt? If we change the hearts and minds of people the gov't will follow suit.

He continues..
just curious. What part of this is far-fetched?[/quote]

what's far fetched is thinking laws don't affect society and outcomes. sociey: i do realize that most of the laws is mostly because it's reflective of cosity, but as i've said, surely, i'd think, it affects society and reinforces things. if you know aortion is legal, you'r more likely to think it's okay and htus promote the culture ofdetah. outcomes: and you're more likely to be irrespobsble sexually.

just because gay marriagen and homoseuality won't end doesn't mean you shouldn't push for change. you can reduce the amount of abortions or homo acts when it's either illegal or not being promotedas okay in the law. you don't seem to have made any real reply to my points so far.
if you don't think what i said i far fetched is far fetched, then it's a value difference. but, i don't see how anyone could reasonably have that value, so i deem it far fetched.

the 50 points thing is interesting. but, i don't think that reflects reality. it's not like you have to choose to either try to change people or change laws. if you were someone who devoted all their time to politics nd not interpersoinal thing, then you might have apoint for them. but, most people can do both. you change politics of thers in your spare time etc and politics separately.
you're creating a false dichotomy.

[Alabaster]

On the flip side though, look at the Catholics in Congress who have voted against abortion and the such. If I lived in any of the politician’s districts that consider themselves Catholic and voted FOR abortion I would make it known that they would not receive any support from me or a lot of other fellow Catholics.

People with morals is hard to find in gov't, but that doesn’t mean we just give up. We should support the ones that are already in public positions and elect more.

Society does change gov't, but the gov't has it's influence on society as well.

Not trying to gang up on anybody, just saying what I think...

[dairygirl4u2c]

you might be able to argue the drug analogy about how it drugs are wrose where it's illegal. but, i'm not sure of the truth to that or whether that idea os blown out of proportion, and i'm not sure it'd be truly analogical to abortion an gay acts. (the two primary examples) i'm interested in more an that analogy that you brought up, more arguments.

[Socrates]

Rev,

A number of problems here.
First, you seem to equate being politically active with being in support of "big government." You're against big and intrusive government. So am I. But people like you being "politically apathetic" and refusing to vote is going to do absolutely nada to decrease the size or power of government in any way. If people who are for limited, constitutional government simply refuse to vote or be politically active in any way, then the government will be left entirely in the control of those who wish to increase the size and scope of government ever more. Government will get even bigger, and will do so at the expense of your tax dollars. Apathy will do nothing whatever to help the situation.
Sorry, but if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Secondly, you make the fallacious assumption that voting for moral principles (pro-life, etc.) somehow means we are looking to government to solve all our problems, and is incompatible with promoting morality in the private sphere. That is nonsense. For the law to be just, it should reflect natural law, and protect innocent human life. The law and government will never be able to stamp out all murder, but this does not mean murder should be a legally protected "right." Nor does it mean the government should award benefits to homosexual "unions," nor should it support abortion with your tax dollars. These issues are not about "big government" trying to solve our moral problems for us, but against the government actively further supporting immorality.

And the argument that voting pro-life or against "gay marriage" somehow negates doing things in the private sector to promote Christianity and morality is totally bogus. As I've pointed out, those most active privately helping fight abortion with pregnancy centers and such are also most actively pro-life politically. No one says you have to do political lobbying 24-7; all you have to do is vote for a pro-life candidate or against "gay marriage" on voting day. Hardly takes up much of your life. Good works vs. pro-life politics is a false dilemna argument.
The government should not support baby-killing. Enough said.

And no, the political arena is hardly pure. I'm as cynical about politics as anyone. However, if good people refuse to vote for anyone, all that will do is completely hand the government over to the most godless and socialistic politicians. If you say the political situation is hopeless and yet won't even lift a finger to vote, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Remember, as Edmund Burke said, "All that it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

And for one apathetic (who "could care less"), you seem to be putting a fair amount of energy into defending your "apathy."

Edited September 23, 2007 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1391079' date='Sep 22 2007, 09:23 PM']-prove it. Changing society and changing gov't are 2 different things. "Theopolitical imagination" was written by a catholic theologian.[/quote]

Here's an old thread I started which I believe is relevant which concerns the views of our current Holy Father on political action, specifically regarding abortion and homosexual "unions": [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=49982&hl="][b]Catholics Must Be Engaged in Political Debate, says Pope[/b][/url]

I'd also suggest some serious reading up on Church social teaching, as well as perhaps the works of the political thinkers Eric Voegelin, Dante Germino, and Russell Kirk.

Edited September 23, 2007 by Socrates

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1391123' date='Sep 22 2007, 10:55 PM']When has the law stopped violence? It just punished the action. Stopping violence is self-serving. Thus a function of the gov't. Keeping the people peaceful is always a goal of a gov't. Stopping abortion does not help the gov't so they wont do it.

The moral people wont run for office. The process of public media is too much for anyone to put their family in. Even if someone claims morals while being voted in. It does not change what happens in the office (there was a thread on open mic of all the catholics who voted for abortion)

Gov't wont change society. Society changes the gov't. For a christian voice to be heard we need to influence the voice in the private sector. But we dont care. We would rather try and do it with a secular gov't that will only serve the majority.[/quote]

I have to agree with Dairy Girl, Revprodeji. You're arguing for anarchy, here. Laws have a point. They deter the average person and the desperate person from committing crimes. Our justice system has also moved from simple deterance to rehabilitation. And, although it doesn't have the greatest success rate, it does have some successes.

Plus, you're not politically apathetic. You have fairly strong positions about politics and what politicians should and should not do. You are a libertarian. That means, you believe government should be minimalist and people should have the vast majority of power. When we first had this argument, I didn't realize what position you had. I, generally, agree with your position. With 1 major exception and maybe a few minor ones (will get to that later).

Also, you took the analogy I used in the wrong direction. I used the "whiney" and "bottle" analogy, because I'm not totally comfortable with the idea of lobbying the government. It seems too much like begging. Also, it places the power in the reverse of where I like it: out of the hands of the people and into the hands of the government.

But, there are a few areas that the government has control of and probably should. 1) Transportation. There are ways of making transportation private, but I don't know of any that are cost-effective. 2) Law. Law forms the backbone of government. Goverment should seek justice. I don't know how else justice could be sought in an effective matter. 3) Protection. Government should organize police, firemen and militias for the defense of the country. Government is the most efficient means to organize these three things.

Now, there are social policies that the government [i]can[/i] occassionally have the need to enforce. However, these policies should be continually re-evaluated to see if they can be removed. For example: Trust-busting. Monopolies are bad for the economy. They put too much power in too few hands. It would be fine, so long as these people didn't abuse their power. But, people usually do abuse power. Another example: welfare. I don't believe the government should pay people not to work, but should there be a means to help people find work and survive while their looking for it? Yes, I think so. I know the system gets abused, but it does a lot of good as well. And, a final example: Health care. The united states spends more money than any other nation on health care. We also don't get close to the best results for our money. So, something needs to be done to fix this. I'm not going to go as far as to say what, but something needs to be done.

On abortion: Abortion isn't just a moral issue. Abortion is an issue of law, just like murder, theft, treason and piracy. We don't enforce the morality of it any more than we enforce the morality concerning murder, theft, etc. I agree that making abortion illegal isn't going to stop abortions from occuring. However, it'll stop some (possibly most). And, the protecting of innocent lives is an ABSOLUTE GOOD. I also am in favor of alternative means to halt the number of abortions. And, many of the alternative means don't need to go through the government.

On gay-marriage: I go back and forth. On the one hand, I don't like the government officiating on marriage at all (thus gay-marriage would be left up to the clergy and and the participants). On the other hand, the church teaches and the philosophy that dominates the church (the same philosophy that I generally agree with) teaches that government is a part of society and we should work for a Christian society. However, I don't think that we should necessarily legislate others to follow Christian principles. On the other hand, people who practice "alternative lifestyles" often want to adopt. And, they're certainly going to teach they kids things that are against the Gospel of Christ. On the other hand, we would be horrified at the idea of not allowing "traditional" families to have kids or adopt even if they were sinners in some way. See? I go back and forth.

More about the "bottle" and "whiney" analogy: My point here is that activism is one of the only means we currently have to influence the government. And, I'm strongly in favor of activism for the rights of the unborn. So, putting aside your commentary on people being dependant on their government (which I agree with you about), what is your stance on activism affecting the government?

On a personal note, I saw V for Vendetta before you. I told you that V was my hero before you ever saw the movie. The line: "People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people." is exactly why I loved that movie (And, I think I told you that already, too). I equally like: "Those who sacrifice liberty for security shall lose both and deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin.

Finally, the nature of politics in the modern world is compromise. While, we cannot achieve a Christian government without converting the hearts and minds of every (or at least almost every) person in the US, we can achieve a "compromise position". There are two forms of democracy in the modern world. The first, the one that predominantly exists in Europe, supports the cult of the secular (There's a french word for this, but I can't recall it off the top of my head). That is, European governments, though they generally won't admit it, have as their religion the cult of the secular. Thus, religion is forced into private residences and out of all public areas. You can have a religion, but you must not say anything about it. Also, you must not include anything religious in public anything (especially politics). However, they end up replacing what is generally considered religious things with a new religion: secularism. It has its own dogmas, it's own practices, its own fundamentalists. This is inherently harmful. The alternative (and the one the US has generally chosen) is to support religions, in general but not to pick favorites out of the religions (this too has a French name that I cannot recall). This is an attempt to allow "mini-societies" within one's nation. Although, in the US, the cult of the secular continually attempts to rear its ugly head and become the official religion (taking prayer out of the schools, taking the 10 commandments out of courthouses, etc), it has made far less in-roads in the US than in Europe.

So, when I get political, it is, generally, to try to sway government away from the cult of the secular. Whew. I'm done typing.

[Mateo el Feo]

When I skimmed through Rev's first post, I saw Libertarianism...not apathy.

$0.02