I Am Politically Apathetic

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1391032' date='Sep 22 2007, 08:42 PM']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?[/quote]


It looks like others already got to this first, but I'll just post this anyways . I think you have very good reasons for believing as you do, and I agree to a point with a lot of it.

I was listening to cardinal Arinze speak in town on Wednesday and even though I definitely take serious issue with a lot of the things that he and the Vatican have said in recent decades, I enjoyed, and agreed with, a lot of what he had to say here.

He was speaking in regard to our duty as laypeople that our responsibilities don't lie so much in the Church itself, at Mass itself; more so in the public eye, so to speak. Not that we shouldn't help the priests as we are needed, but that's more of an extra chore, not necessarily our calling. He talked about our duties to evangelize and change things from within our positions in public institutions. He went over a number of examples, but one of the things he referred to was in politics and government in general and that we have a duty to do what we can in these settings because this is where God has put us in life. We have priests for the sacraments. Without priests we would be nowhere. But it is us who are placed in everyday life and is where we are to make our mark on the Church.

I recently have felt much the same as you. I have struggled with the thought of supporting a party and/or individual that doesn't fully support my views. I still don't like the idea very much, but have accepted the fact that this is most likely due to the fact that, at least I see it as a fact, that America is not in actuality a Christian nation, and most certainly not a Catholic one. There are principles that our country is founded upon that I find quite at odds with Catholicism. This being the case, I'm not confident that I will come across a candidate that will fully support Catholic ideals.

I don't know how much you are familiar with, or have any regard for, pre-Vatican II theologians. But Fr. Heribert Jone teaches as in line with Catholicism (and this is somewhat new to me as well) that we are to vote for the most worthy candidate always. And also that, if we don't do so, and in not doing so a far worse candidate is elected, we could be held morally cupable and it could even be sinful. If this be the case, I think it definitely a duty of a layperson to be as involved as one is able and support the candidate who is most worthy, even if there are certain problems with such a candidate.

I don't believe that Church and State should be separate. I think everything the government does should be solidly founded on Catholic principles. However, since America does separate Church and state, I think it is the duty of the layperson to sway government to enact Catholic principles in its lawmaking. In America the Church has no real say over what the government does, so I believe it must be our place to take on a position of messenger from the Church to the government and do what we need to in order to make Catholicism more prevalent in the government's decision-making. As I believe this country is founded on very free-masonic principles, I don't see this being particularly easy, but because of it, all the more necessary.

Certain moral principles are already legislated against, such as theft and violence. There's no need for it to stop there if we just fulfill our duties as Catholic lay people living in this world.

I would be inclined to agree with you that crimes will not be lessened simply because they are not allowed. Sin is not allowed by God, but it still happens all the time. Evil will always exist until the end of time. That's just the way things are. No amount of persuasion, or government, or punishment, or allowance of it, will lessen the evil. That's no excuse to sit back and let it happen without a fight.

Edited September 23, 2007 by goldenchild17

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1391032' date='Sep 22 2007, 09:42 PM']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?[/quote]
ANARCHY FOREVER!

[Anomaly]

Rev,
In your posts, you show that Government is not ALL the answer, so you don't want to utilize it.

An analogy. Let's say you're camping, and after staying and cooking two days, it's time to put out your fire. You decide Stomping on the fire will put it out (Government). You stomp, and stomp, it seems to go out mostly, but a day latter a smoldering coal ignites a wild fire. You have now concluded that stomping (Government) is pointless.

Societal Change (clearing a wide area of all compustibles) could be akin to moral values (sustained and promulgated by the Church via the family unit raising a family as "Christians") would be basic core values that are such that the conditions of society do not contribute to something going wrong with the campfire and things going terribly wrong.

Unless both things are working in society, you only have the 1/2 of the potential solution, and none of the solution.

I agree that both Church and Government are not working together or properly. At least in Government, we can vote and have some influence. Who votes for changes in the Catholic Church and how it operates to influence society? We see corruption in the Church and in Government. Eventually the Government becomes so corrupt, people revolt and change it. It doesn't happen instantly, it's like the movement of the tides. Now the Church being corrupt is another thing. That institution is built to ignore and resist the influence of the people.

Looking over the longer course of history, I'd say human Government is slowly getting better. Wars between the larger, more developed countries are less frequent and less destructive to the populace, though we now have the potential to do far more. Nations are more democratically controlled and their armies and less frequently controlled by dictators or monarchs who justify their whims with 'divine athority'. It's Religion that has degraded over the centuries with internal corruption and is headed to become meaningless and inconsequential in human affairs.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1391378' date='Sep 23 2007, 09:03 AM']Looking over the longer course of history, I'd say human Government is slowly getting better. Wars between the larger, more developed countries are less frequent and less destructive to the populace, though we now have the potential to do far more. Nations are more democratically controlled and their armies and less frequently controlled by dictators or monarchs who justify their whims with 'divine athority'. It's Religion that has degraded over the centuries with internal corruption and is headed to become meaningless and inconsequential in human affairs.[/quote]

I don't want to jack the thread, but...I have to come down and disagree with you on this point. It was the secular government that developed and used the Atom Bomb. It was the secular Stallin government that killed more people than any other single ruler (50 million). It was the secular Nazi government that utilized the internment camps to harm and slaughter Jews, Gypsies and every other type of person. It's the secular Chinese government that oppresses its people, killing those that the ruling party perceives as dissidents. It's the secular American government that has killed over 30 million unborn children since legalizing abortion. It is RIDICULOUS to assume the new secular governments of the world are better than the religious one that preceded them and that even exist today.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1391566' date='Sep 23 2007, 03:13 PM']I don't want to jack the thread, but...I have to come down and disagree with you on this point. It was the secular government that developed and used the Atom Bomb. It was the secular Stallin government that killed more people than any other single ruler (50 million). It was the secular Nazi government that utilized the internment camps to harm and slaughter Jews, Gypsies and every other type of person. It's the secular Chinese government that oppresses its people, killing those that the ruling party perceives as dissidents. It's the secular American government that has killed over 30 million unborn children since legalizing abortion. It is RIDICULOUS to assume the new secular governments of the world are better than the religious one that preceded them and that even exist today.[/quote]We just have more people to kill now. And the Wars between Christians have been for fantastic purposes and were less devestating for the general populace? Hmmmm. How about the Norman invasion of England? Is it just sheer numbers or different motivation as opposed to Empire building?

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1391832' date='Sep 23 2007, 06:41 PM']We just have more people to kill now. And the Wars between Christians have been for fantastic purposes and were less devestating for the general populace? Hmmmm. How about the Norman invasion of England? Is it just sheer numbers or different motivation as opposed to Empire building?[/quote]

World Population around WWII was 2.5 Billion. 72 million were killed durring WWII. That's 2.88% of the world's population. The world population around the time of the crusades was about 275 million. 9 million were killed during the crusades, which lasted about 75 years (verses 20 years for WWII). That's 3.27% of the world's population. The percentages are fairly close even with considerable more time given to add casualties to the crusades.

So you believe killing in the name of Marxist, Fascist or Libertarian ideology is superior to killing in the name of religious ideology?

Frankly, I think the powers behind the various ideologies care more for the pursuit of their own power, wealth and fame and less for the advancement of their respective ideologies.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1391032' date='Sep 22 2007, 10:42 PM']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?[/quote]


I too use to be politically apathetic... to the point of having anarchy symbols all over my notebooks. I hated the attacks on God. I hated the abortion and evil. I hated the lies.

Then someone convinced me to start paying attention to who said what. So I did.

I found that I didn't hate the government, I hated the democrat party agenda, and 99% of the dems in office.

What I witnessed over the past 17 years:[list]
[*]8 of 10 dems had to lie about Republicans and their plans
[*]2 of 10 Republicans lied about dems
[*]The dem party want to kill babies
[*]The dem party wants a godless nation
[*]The dem party repeatedly calls things what they are not... i.e. they call something a "cut" when it's actually "no increase"
[*]dems avoid telling their plans
[*]dems want to tax the poor extensively
[*]dems want to tax the businesses, when this happens, businesses cut jobs because they have to make a profit - God forbid a business wants to make a profit
[*]dems are illogical and lack basic reason
[*]dems want to use class warfare to get votes and lie about issues
[*]dems use churches as a stepping stone and have no faith in God
[*]dems want to keep the poor, poor, so they can keep their power
[*]Republican national agenda matches closest to Church teachings
[*]Republican plans do not keep from the poor, they want to help the poor, help themselves by getting them training and education, not endless handouts that keep people dependent on walfare
[*]Republican plans give tax breaks to companies who expand and hire more people
[*]Republican party is pro-family
[*]dem party is anti-family
[/list]
Great website: [url="http://www.DemocratsNoMore.com"]http://www.DemocratsNoMore.com[/url]

As Catholics, it is our responsibility to vote for Catholic values.

Great page:
Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility
[url="http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html"]http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/b...pStatement.html[/url]


I am Catholic, therefore I vote Catholic teachings. According to the Church, our priorities are (in order):
1) Life. We must vote against abortionists
2) Family. We must vote against the destruction of the family... i.e. cohabitation, same sex unions, etc...
3) Social Justice
4) Global Solidarity


God Bless,
ironmonk

[adt6247]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1391032' date='Sep 22 2007, 10:42 PM']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[/quote]
In a more ideal world, we [i]should[/i] be mostly apathetic to government, except local government. Let's face it: we're commoners, not nobles. Those of noble blood should rule, under God, and deal with the greater matters of state while we, the people, give tribute (taxes, but not nearly as much as we have today) to the king, and go about our business, trusting that the rulers God gave us will protect us from force or fraud.

Instead, we have democratic republic, that posits that every man, no matter how little education or qualification, should make important decisions as to who should rule us, and by extension, what our rulers do.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1392404' date='Sep 24 2007, 03:03 PM']In a more ideal world, we [i]should[/i] be mostly apathetic to government, except local government. Let's face it: we're commoners, not nobles. Those of noble blood should rule, under God, and deal with the greater matters of state while we, the people, give tribute (taxes, but not nearly as much as we have today) to the king, and go about our business, trusting that the rulers God gave us will protect us from force or fraud.

Instead, we have democratic republic, that posits that every man, no matter how little education or qualification, should make important decisions as to who should rule us, and by extension, what our rulers do.[/quote]We have a representative democracy that tends to dillute the power of the most unintelligent voters.

How do 'nobles' come to power? One day they awake with a 'message from God' and use whatever means are available to gain and hold power? Hello, wake up! God isn't running around picking out 'noble' families to rule the rest of us. It's a nice dream, but it isn't ever going to happen in real life with real humans.

[kafka]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1392407' date='Sep 24 2007, 02:09 PM']We have a representative democracy that tends to dillute the power of the most unintelligent voters.

How do 'nobles' come to power? One day they awake with a 'message from God' and use whatever means are available to gain and hold power? Hello, wake up! God isn't running around picking out 'noble' families to rule the rest of us. It's a nice dream, but it isn't ever going to happen in real life with real humans.[/quote]

those who rule should be breed from a young age to rule.

Rev,

I've never voted in my life. I think there should be a union between Church and State.

[N/A Gone]

I am not ignoring this thread. Just working on my paper right now (see filioque thread) but then I will address this.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1392404' date='Sep 24 2007, 02:03 PM']In a more ideal world, we [i]should[/i] be mostly apathetic to government, except local government. Let's face it: we're commoners, not nobles. Those of noble blood should rule, under God, and deal with the greater matters of state while we, the people, give tribute (taxes, but not nearly as much as we have today) to the king, and go about our business, trusting that the rulers God gave us will protect us from force or fraud.

Instead, we have democratic republic, that posits that every man, no matter how little education or qualification, should make important decisions as to who should rule us, and by extension, what our rulers do.[/quote]


[quote name='Anomaly' post='1392407' date='Sep 24 2007, 02:09 PM']We have a representative democracy that tends to dillute the power of the most unintelligent voters.

How do 'nobles' come to power? One day they awake with a 'message from God' and use whatever means are available to gain and hold power? Hello, wake up! God isn't running around picking out 'noble' families to rule the rest of us. It's a nice dream, but it isn't ever going to happen in real life with real humans.[/quote]


[quote name='kafka' post='1392411' date='Sep 24 2007, 02:16 PM']those who rule should be breed from a young age to rule.

Rev,

I've never voted in my life. I think there should be a union between Church and State.[/quote]

One response to everybody: If you think that one form of government has performed superior to others you are dramatically mistaken. I will remind every reactionary Fuedalist here that kings, lords and princes often waged horrible and bloody war against one another. Breeding sovereigns usually resulted in spoiled, royal brats. And, they frequently tried to take power and authority that belongs to the Pope and bishops into their own hands. Representative Democracy can be a decent compromise to allow the people, the peasants, the commoners to have some power. One might argue that a Representative Democracy could be balanced with a king or at least a group of people that are hold their position for life (Like Supreme Court Justices). Additionally, Representative Democracies have their own failings. What started out as a means to safeguard against corruption rapidly became corrupt. What began as a movement to ensure the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happines has become liberty at the expense of the other two rights, death to the unwanted and happiness for the elite. Also, modern Democratic Republican states fought against each other in WWII. It was the Republic of Russia that killed 50 million during the Stallin regime. It was the US that dropped to nuclear bombs on populated areas. Sovereign authority has always been imperfect and frequently has committed attrocities. But, it's a necessary authority.

[SarahB]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1392404' date='Sep 24 2007, 02:03 PM']Instead, we have democratic republic, that posits that every man, no matter how little education or qualification, should make important decisions as to who should rule us, and by extension, what our rulers do.[/quote]

That's not the way it's supposed to be, it's the way it has become. We're supposed to have a knowledge of the government and especially the Constutition in order to make our decisions but most of us have become dumbed down. Elections have become a joke.

[adt6247]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1392407' date='Sep 24 2007, 03:09 PM']We have a representative democracy that tends to dillute the power of the most unintelligent voters.[/quote]
I'd say that less than 1% of the country is educated enough, myself included, to make decisions on the finer points of foreign policy. Heck, most people in this country think some elements of socialism (such as welfare, farm subsidies, etc.) are a good thing. That alone should prove that they aren't qualified even for national policy making.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1392407' date='Sep 24 2007, 03:09 PM']How do 'nobles' come to power? One day they awake with a 'message from God' and use whatever means are available to gain and hold power? Hello, wake up! God isn't running around picking out 'noble' families to rule the rest of us. It's a nice dream, but it isn't ever going to happen in real life with real humans.[/quote]
All authority figures are given to us by God -- parents, teachers, bosses, presidents, etc. Nobles come to power in many different ways, whether succession, victory in battle, appointment by the pope, arising as the leader that the members of a viliage accept as their ruler, etc. They generally, through the generations, are bred and raised to be heads of state. As an apostate, I know this means nothing to you, but Pope Pius IX called monarchy the best of all forms of government. God is the King of kings, not the president of presidents.

Democracy -- as well as communism -- is founded on the principal that the right to rule comes from a mandate from the masses. This is untrue, even in democracy -- the right to rule comes from God alone.

[adt6247]

[quote name='SarahB' post='1392441' date='Sep 24 2007, 04:19 PM']That's not the way it's supposed to be, it's the way it has become. We're supposed to have a knowledge of the government and especially the Constutition in order to make our decisions but most of us have become dumbed down. Elections have become a joke.[/quote]
Actually, that's wrong. That's why we have the electoral college -- it was assumed that the average person would not be able to make such decisions, because when the constitution was framed, most Americans couldn't read. There has never been a period of American history where the populous was more educated politically than now.

[adt6247]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1392431' date='Sep 24 2007, 04:01 PM']One response to everybody: If you think that one form of government has performed superior to others you are dramatically mistaken. I will remind every reactionary Fuedalist here that kings, lords and princes often waged horrible and bloody war against one another. Breeding sovereigns usually resulted in spoiled, royal brats. And, they frequently tried to take power and authority that belongs to the Pope and bishops into their own hands.[/quote]
What of these statements can't be applied to politicians in our representative democracy? Why did the colonists in this country revolt from the HRH George III? Primarily because of taxes -- of around 7% of a person's income. We now pay over 30%, or more if you count capital gains, sales tax, property tax, etc. The wars were on MUCH smaller scales than they are now. As far as spoiled brats -- what about GW Bush's kids? Reagan's kids? Chelsea Clinton? The Kennedy's? What about all the fantastic monarchs, like the current pretender to the throne of Austria and Hungary, Otto von Hapsberg?

If you learned about the middle ages in a secular institution (or most Catholic ones nowadays), changes are you know more lies than truth. The enlightenment era elite wished to cast a dark shadow on the middle ages -- which was a golden age for the Church -- to make their ideas look like the salvation of humanity.

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1392431' date='Sep 24 2007, 04:01 PM']Representative Democracy can be a decent compromise to allow the people, the peasants, the commoners to have some power.[/quote]
Why would us commoners want any political power vs. our peers? Why shouldn't we just mind our own business and go about our lives?

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1392431' date='Sep 24 2007, 04:01 PM']One might argue that a Representative Democracy could be balanced with a king or at least a group of people that are hold their position for life (Like Supreme Court Justices).[/quote]
Such a government (with a king and an elected body) would still be a form of monarchy -- Great Britain is a monarchy, holding a tricameral government -- the Monarch, the house of Lords, and the House of Commons. Prior to the Blair administration, the House of Lords was still hereditary, and was divided into the Lord's Temporal and Lords Spiritual -- which included a seat for each of the highest ranking Anglican bishops. Only the commons was elected, but the house of commons grew more and more powerful as the Lords and the Queen became more obsessed with public opinion, and ceded power to the commons. Amazingly, as the commons grew in power, the welfare state also grew, and now they're practically a socialist nation.

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1392431' date='Sep 24 2007, 04:01 PM']Additionally, Representative Democracies have their own failings. What started out as a means to safeguard against corruption rapidly became corrupt. What began as a movement to ensure the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happines has become liberty at the expense of the other two rights, death to the unwanted and happiness for the elite. Also, modern Democratic Republican states fought against each other in WWII. It was the Republic of Russia that killed 50 million during the Stallin regime. It was the US that dropped to nuclear bombs on populated areas. Sovereign authority has always been imperfect and frequently has committed attrocities. But, it's a necessary authority.[/quote]
The greatest atrocities in history were caused by communism, in terms of loss of life. Monarchies tend to be more stable, and they tend to leave their subjects alone more. Nobles and commoners know their place in society.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1392456' date='Sep 24 2007, 03:58 PM']What of these statements can't be applied to politicians in our representative democracy? Why did the colonists in this country revolt from the HRH George III? Primarily because of taxes -- of around 7% of a person's income. We now pay over 30%, or more if you count capital gains, sales tax, property tax, etc. The wars were on MUCH smaller scales than they are now. As far as spoiled brats -- what about GW Bush's kids? Reagan's kids? Chelsea Clinton? The Kennedy's? What about all the fantastic monarchs, like the current pretender to the throne of Austria and Hungary, Otto von Hapsberg?[/quote]

Wow. You're actually going to say that violent rebellion over taxes is legitimate? That's ridiculous. King George III was a tyranical, crazy dictator and the governemnt levied more than unreasonable taxes. The colonists were also required to fight if England mandated that they should. Regardless, how can you say on the one hand it's totally fine to rebell because you disagree with the form of government and taxes but it's not okay to rebell if you have a king?

[quote name='adt6247' post='1392456' date='Sep 24 2007, 03:58 PM']If you learned about the middle ages in a secular institution (or most Catholic ones nowadays), changes are you know more lies than truth. The enlightenment era elite wished to cast a dark shadow on the middle ages -- which was a golden age for the Church -- to make their ideas look like the salvation of humanity.[/quote]

I learned almost all of my medieval history from priests who had doctorates in history. I'm aware of the Black Legend and other Anglican/Enlightenment propaganda to paint the "dark ages" as a time of barbarous terror. However, there were still wars. If you look at the percentages of those killed in the Crusades compared to the world population verses those that died in WWII compared to the world population, the percentages are roughly the same (see a couple posts ago). The fact is: the level of corruption, the horror of war, etc. has been about the same from the beginning of the medieval era through the present. The diference: wars are faster now with all the amazing technology we have.

[quote name='adt6247' post='1392456' date='Sep 24 2007, 03:58 PM']Why would us commoners want any political power vs. our peers? Why shouldn't we just mind our own business and go about our lives?[/quote]

It's a form of protection against corruption: redundancy and checks and balances. The demagogue can be an excellent check in the political system. I agree that the average person shouldn't be making foreign policy decisions, so don't allow foreign policy to be something to be voted on.

[quote name='adt6247' post='1392456' date='Sep 24 2007, 03:58 PM']Such a government (with a king and an elected body) would still be a form of monarchy -- Great Britain is a monarchy, holding a tricameral government -- the Monarch, the house of Lords, and the House of Commons. Prior to the Blair administration, the House of Lords was still hereditary, and was divided into the Lord's Temporal and Lords Spiritual -- which included a seat for each of the highest ranking Anglican bishops. Only the commons was elected, but the house of commons grew more and more powerful as the Lords and the Queen became more obsessed with public opinion, and ceded power to the commons. Amazingly, as the commons grew in power, the welfare state also grew, and now they're practically a socialist nation.[/quote]

If you read what I wrote, I'm not really defending Representative Democracy against monarchy. I'm saying that all forms of government have essentially the same problems (with a few exceptions of extraordinarily evil people in power).

[quote name='adt6247' post='1392456' date='Sep 24 2007, 03:58 PM']The greatest atrocities in history were caused by communism, in terms of loss of life. Monarchies tend to be more stable, and they tend to leave their subjects alone more. Nobles and commoners know their place in society.[/quote]

I couldn't agree more. Communist Russia, China, North Korea, etc. are all evil. However, these are all examples of fairly stable governments. It's the philosophy of Communism that's evil. Stability under malevolent tyrany isn't good at all.

[b]Can I ask that we not hijack this thread with this discussion. If we want to debate Monarchy vs. Democracy, can we do it in another thread?[/b]

Edited September 24, 2007 by The Joey-O

[SarahB]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1392449' date='Sep 24 2007, 03:35 PM']Actually, that's wrong. That's why we have the electoral college -- it was assumed that the average person would not be able to make such decisions, because when the constitution was framed, most Americans couldn't read. There has never been a period of American history where the populous was more educated politically than now.[/quote]


Hehe, quite true. It's nice to see there are people out there who understand the process. But that is true for the Electors. They're supposed to understand the government and the Constitution and I very much doubt that most of them today do. Most of our politicians don't, either. That's why I support Ron Paul. But I digress. Today, the electors are basically "normal" or "average" citizens. Things have changed since the days when we were founded, and more people are able to vote/become Electors(Women, minorities, etc) Unfortunately, as time has gone on, more people are able to vote and less people are qualified to vote. Or maybe it's just the people I know, who vote solely based on party lines, or because someone told them they should vote for Canidate X, etc.

Ok, sorry....that's probably totally scattered. My ony defense is that I'm heavily medicated with Nightquil right now.

[adt6247]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1392488' date='Sep 24 2007, 05:52 PM']Wow. You're actually going to say that violent rebellion over taxes is legitimate? That's ridiculous. King George III was a tyranical, crazy dictator and the governemnt levied more than unreasonable taxes. The colonists were also required to fight if England mandated that they should. Regardless, how can you say on the one hand it's totally fine to rebell because you disagree with the form of government and taxes but it's not okay to rebell if you have a king?[/quote]
Never made that claim. I don't think the colonists had the right to rebel. Violent rebellion is almost always wrong, and objectively sinful from a Catholic perspective. Many nations had mandatory conscription -- that doesn't justify revolution either.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1392513' date='Sep 24 2007, 05:51 PM']Never made that claim. I don't think the colonists had the right to rebel. Violent rebellion is almost always wrong, and objectively sinful from a Catholic perspective. Many nations had mandatory conscription -- that doesn't justify revolution either.[/quote]

For once, I agree.