Political Hell

[BG45]

Thanks for the explanations cmotherofpirl and dairygirl4u2c; as politically charged as the board has been it was hard to get a clear picture. Everyone ripping each other apart and such and seeming at times to abandon all sense of being a family in Christ.

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='BG45' post='1466416' date='Feb 20 2008, 06:09 PM']Thanks for the explanations cmotherofpirl and dairygirl4u2c; as politically charged as the board has been it was hard to get a clear picture. Everyone ripping each other apart and such and seeming at times to abandon all sense of being a family in Christ.[/quote]

i think it also has something to do with that fact that it's Lent, and everyone seems a bit testy.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i only insult those who refuse to learn and won't argue their position and still act mockingly.

i know it can be complicated, espeically for those who are younger. i don't mean to insult those who are learning.
sorry the unwarranted frictions.

[BG45]

[quote name='fides quarens intellectum' post='1466419' date='Feb 20 2008, 08:12 PM']i think it also has something to do with that fact that it's Lent, and everyone seems a bit testy.[/quote]

I'd not thought of that, but it's so true probably!

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]theology says that if you are bound to make a decision, you must make the lesser of two evils.
you don't have to vote, but if you don't vote, you will be effectively voting for teh worse person.
you have no option, then, and are forced to vote for the lesser of all evils.

even those who say the ends do not justify the means are willing to say this is a necessary execption because of circumstance, the lesser of two or more evils argument.[/quote]

to clarify this further.

four and eight years ago, peple were saying you have to vote for bush... can't for for gore or kerry and can't even vote for an independant. people would say "but bush isn't as good as an independant" and those against them would say that it doens't matter because you're effectively voting for the dems cause independants weren't viable.
now, those same people are refusing to vote for mccain. it's pretty apparent to me anyway that this is only because of party politics and not prudential judgment change. he's voted 113 times on the prolife time out of 117 and is rated zero by NARAL bc he's too much prolife. the situation is practially the same as years ago.
i think it's a cop out to say you can have prudential judgment now, but not then. this is hardly debatable, as it's apparently a rationaliztion. the dem will get elected if mccain doesn't. they can vote for liberal justices and liberal laws, prochioce.

personally, if you weren't casting mortal sin on others back then and arguing requirement to vote bush, hten i have no beefs with the current not voting for mccain.
jaimie does.

Edited February 21, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[MissyP89]

[quote name='BG45' post='1466425' date='Feb 20 2008, 08:20 PM'] I'd not thought of that, but it's so true probably![/quote]

I would say most definitely. These are hard times.

Personally, these threads have sickened, confused and hurt me as a first time voter. Seeing everyone attack everyone else has made me want to run far, far away from the nearest voting booth.

I used to care about the election. I was very excited and proud to vote for the first time in my primary on Super Tuesday. Now, it just makes me very, very tired.

Christ have mercy.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='MissyP89' post='1466436' date='Feb 20 2008, 08:38 PM']I would say most definitely. These are hard times.

Personally, these threads have sickened, confused and hurt me as a first time voter. Seeing everyone attack everyone else has made me want to run far, far away from the nearest voting booth.

I used to care about the election. I was very excited and proud to vote for the first time in my primary on Super Tuesday. Now, it just makes me very, very tired.

Christ have mercy.[/quote]
Congratulations on voting for the first time and do not let the discussions get you down. Be proud and awed to have the privledge of voting. I still am and I have been doing it since before you were born. Think of all the millions of people who have no say in their governance.

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1466410' date='Feb 20 2008, 04:46 PM']nice ad hominem.
even if i called you an idiot, it wasn't an ad hominem, because i backed up my name calling with argumentation... i didn't rest on that alone.

i'm not saying you're an idiot. if you did all that stuff i described, then, yes, you are an idioit.

come back when you can either say you don't believe that stuff, or actually can form a coherent argument.[/quote]

But you did insult me, you called me an idiot. You have yet to actually back up why I am an idiot.

Or maybe you have, and I just missed it, as your lack of capitalization, punctuation, and any semblance of grammar makes your posts almost unreadable.

Come back when you can form a coherent sentence.

[adt6247]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1466397' date='Feb 20 2008, 07:34 PM']Not voting is a sin.[/quote]
What a rigid, closed-minded load of carp. Tell me, where in infallible Catholic teaching is this said?

If you're not educated about the election, it is best NOT to vote. Many people in the world have no right to vote. Many people of two particular political persuasions find it immoral to vote.

And don't give me that carp about "people died for your right to vote". People died for all kinds of causes, both good and bad. Need I mention 9/11?

And those who immorally revolted against the British crown did so for a plethora of reasons -- the justification for which is a terrible and ungodly misunderstanding of the work 'liberty', espoused in all sorts of enlightenment heresies. Thomas Paine said that "monarchy... is the [b]popery[/b] of government" -- equating the British crown with the papacy. Alexandar Hamilton smiled and said mirthful things when he heard about 'papists' in Mexico dying. Hamilton also was mostly responsible for erecting the electoral college because he (rightly) believed that the average American was too stupid to elect the president. In the founding fathers' eyes, white, land-owning males were the only one's that should vote. You're a woman. They certainly did not die for YOU to vote.

I think it is foolhardy not to inform yourself and vote -- particularly on local elections. But foolhardy does not equal sin.

Edited February 21, 2008 by adt6247

[adt6247]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1466453' date='Feb 20 2008, 08:54 PM']Be proud and awed to have the privledge of voting.[/quote]

Proud and awed? For what? Where is the cause for awe? What is supernatural or preternatural about voting? Even if some would argue (which I would contest) that voting for one's elected leader is a natural right, then it is merely a natural right, and thus deserves no awe. Do you similarly hold that you should have awe about working? Or eating? Or owning property? I am proud and awed at my ability to mushy mud pie!

Is it the fact that we have a magical or unique form of government that's never existed in the history of civilization? That's incorrect -- the republic is a very old form of government: Sparta, Athens, Rome, Venice... the list could go on. Citizens voted. Yay.

[Jaime]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1466607' date='Feb 21 2008, 09:01 AM']What a rigid, closed-minded load of carp. Tell me, where in infallible Catholic teaching is this said?[/quote]
How about this infallible Catholic teaching on rigid closed-minded load of carpiness

[quote]2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.

The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."[/quote]


Its called the catechism. Look into it. Its got lots of good stuff in it

[adt6247]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1466610' date='Feb 21 2008, 10:28 AM']How about this infallible Catholic teaching on rigid closed-minded load of carpiness

Its called the catechism. Look into it. Its got lots of good stuff in it[/quote]
The CCC isn't infallible. It's been amended even. Nor is the Baltimore Catechism. The only catechism I know of that's infallible is the one promulgated by the council of Trent.

Specific methods of participation in government are prudential by nature -- they cannot be infallible one way or the other. Also, not all governments grant their respective citizens the rights in which the CCC asks Catholics to exercise.

I've read the CCC cover to cover. It tends to be excellent (if at times overtly wordy) with the spiritual stuff, and a bit less so on social stuff.

And by nature, the Catechism is a teaching tool -- it's not the be-all, end-all in Catholic thought, and thus cannot introduce new doctrine or promulgate law.

Now, if it was so mentioned in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Catholics would be bound under penalty of sin to follow the law.

[Jaime]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1466617' date='Feb 21 2008, 09:42 AM']The CCC isn't infallible. It's been amended even. Nor is the Baltimore Catechism. The only catechism I know of that's infallible is the one promulgated by the council of Trent.

Specific methods of participation in government are prudential by nature -- they cannot be infallible one way or the other. Also, not all governments grant their respective citizens the rights in which the CCC asks Catholics to exercise.

I've read the CCC cover to cover. It tends to be excellent (if at times overtly wordy) with the spiritual stuff, and a bit less so on social stuff.

And by nature, the Catechism is a teaching tool -- it's not the be-all, end-all in Catholic thought, and thus cannot introduce new doctrine or promulgate law.

Now, if it was so mentioned in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Catholics would be bound under penalty of sin to follow the law.[/quote]

Oh so you're one of those "if it ain't infallible, I'm not following it" Catholics? Ok good for you.

Gosh if only voting was mentioned in the code of canon law. Dang you got me there. Oh wait

[quote]Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.


Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. [b]Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained;[/b] therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.[/quote]

Hmmm well that makes it pretty clear that we are required to follow what the Magisterium teaches. But surely the Catechism doesn't fall under that

[quote]The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. [b]I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.[/b] May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom![/quote]


Hmm so maybe I SHOULD be paying attention to what the Catechism teaches. You know according to Canon law and all.

[rkwright]

oh jamie your posts make me miss Cam...

[Jaime]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1466630' date='Feb 21 2008, 10:17 AM']oh jamie your posts make me miss Cam... [/quote]

who do you think taught the guy?