American Government

[Aloysius]

the government has a duty to have laws in line with morality. we must work to make the government more in line with Catholic morality.

the nature of democracy does not guarentee the enforcement of Catholic Morality like a Catholic Monarchy would. The best type of government would be a Catholic King who loves his people. The worst type of government would be a monarchy (Catholic or not) with a king that does not love his people. Democracy is somewhere in the middle. it can be good (if the people are good). it can be bad (if the people are bad). the way it's headed now with legalized abortion and possible gay marriage and all that, the people are bad and are leading the government into bad. there are two fronts us Catholics have to fight this war on: ONE: we have to vote to put people in office who will change the government to be moral. TWO: we have to change the culture thus convincing more people to vote that way as well.

Democracy is a moral neutral as far as i see it. it's only as good as the citizens who vote in it. does this touch on your question?

[megamattman1]

Perhaps the American system of government started out as good, (I don't know) but it became bad. Not because it became bad per se, but because it allows for the possibility of bad.

[quote]Democracy is a moral neutral as far as i see it. it's only as good as the citizens who vote in it. does this touch on your question? [/quote]

Somewhat. I hope you're not thinking that I'm thinking that I'm saying that when people make democracy actually bad, only then the democracy is bad. I think that is a given. I'm arguing theoretically that a system that allows for a democracy to go bad, even if it is good at the time, is bad.

Again, I realize it's what we have to work with, but I'm just saying that perhaps it's bad. And although you all have somewhat touched on my inquiery, I still don't see how I could argue with the notion that I just presented.


Will you all agree that democracy that allows for that is evil, even if at the time it is good?

Will you all agree that we as Catholics are bigots and intolerant? (of other's morals ie)

[jrndveritatis]

[quote]Somewhat. I hope you're not thinking that I'm thinking that I'm saying that when people make democracy actually bad, only then the democracy is bad. I think that is a given. I'm arguing theoretically that a system that allows for a democracy to go bad, even if it is good at the time, is bad.
[/quote]

[quote]Will you all agree that democracy that allows for that is evil, even if at the time it is good?

Will you all agree that we as Catholics are bigots and intolerant? (of other's morals ie) [/quote]

I don't think you can call democracy evil because it presents the opportunity for people to allow moral evils.

If you completely accept this argument, then every form of government would be evil, even a Catholic monarchy, because monarchies can become corrupt. Any human institution or government can become corrupted and used for evil.

Democracy is just a means to protecting the common good, like any government. When it does this it is being used for good, and when it doesn't it is being used for evil. In and of itself it is neither, just like a monarchy or aristocracy.

It is true that Catholics should be intolerant of others' morals if they are evil. Obviously we can't be intolerant of people, but we can judge their actions as objectively good or evil.

I would avoid the use of the word bigoted, because of its connotations. It seems that bigoted implies ignorance of the issue and irrational hatred for or discrimination against persons.

[megamattman1]

Maybe it'd help if some terms and ideas were clarified to substantiate my argument. And it'd allow for better rebuttal cuz I'd think it can be fully refuted somehow, unless I don't understant some points. (this is just a new notion that other thread got me toyin with) With jrd on board, I think this can be accomplished if we really wanted.

[quote]I don't think you can call democracy evil because it presents the opportunity for people to allow moral evils.

If you completely accept this argument, then every form of government would be evil, even a Catholic monarchy, because monarchies can become corrupt. Any human institution or government can become corrupted and used for evil. [/quote]

My argument would call for two different types of democracies as I see it. One that theoretically allows for others the opportunity to legally do evil, and one that does not. The theoretically good and bad, can be either bad or good in practice.

The theory behind a Catholic government would be adherence to the decrees of the Church. There is no room in this theory for nonadherence, and again this is in theory. So when the Catholic government does not adhere to the decrees, it is evil in and of itself in practice, but not in theory. I don't see how you could argue that a Catholic government can become theoretically bad. I mean, it can theoretically become bad in practice, but can not become theoretically bad in theory. (if you know what I mean lol)

So, I'd still argue that a democracy that allows for those opportunities is evil.

And maybe it'd help if I tried to elaborate on how I could how as I see the confusion arose.

[quote]Perhaps the American system of government started out as good, (I don't know) but it became bad. Not because it became bad per se, but because it allows for the possibility of bad.[/quote]

What I meant was that in the beginning there might have been no opportuniites for bad, so the system was good in theory. Even if the government was bad in practice, it was good in theory. And now the government is (or always has been, this is what I don't know) bad in theory, and of course bad in practice. Maybe it was neutral, but then this neutrality allows for evil practice and theory.

I suppose you could argue that American democracy is theoretically good, and it's bad in practice. I s'pose this would depend how looking up the founding fathers ideas, though even then it might be unclear. It's probaly meant to be lenient (though I'm sure this is debatable) to allow for the government to cater to the people. Since it does not cater to the people in accordance to the Church, I'd say it's evil. Even if you were to argue that the fathers wanted it to be lenient in a general sense, neutral, that doesn't specifically condone evil, it still allows for it.

I don't think the Catholic monarchy example was best, but there's prolly a better example. I sort of see the neutrality validity opposed to my arguments, but it'd be neutrality that allows for evil as far as I can see. I know there's a better way to look at the foundation of the US constitution and this neutrality arguement that prolly refutes my notion, but I'm losing my train of thought. I need some critique.

Something like not theoretically bad or theoretically good, but theoretically neurtral. And the practices can be good or bad. But then the neutral allows for bad so I don't see how it can be good. Cuz by good I mean doesn't allow for bad in theory. I'm confusing myself, and prolly everyone else and I'm losing my thought. I can clarify later or ya'll can try to explain.

Edited August 25, 2004 by megamattman1

[MorphRC]

I believe the American Gov is devilish!

[MorphRC]

Since nobody has answered yet, i wasnt being serious. Theres discussion not debate, and my plan didnt work

[jrndveritatis]

[quote]Maybe it'd help if some terms and ideas were clarified to substantiate my argument. And it'd allow for better rebuttal cuz I'd think it can be fully refuted somehow, unless I don't understant some points. (this is just a new notion that other thread got me toyin with) With jrd on board, I think this can be accomplished if we really wanted. 


QUOTE 
I don't think you can call democracy evil because it presents the opportunity for people to allow moral evils.

If you completely accept this argument, then every form of government would be evil, even a Catholic monarchy, because monarchies can become corrupt. Any human institution or government can become corrupted and used for evil. 



My argument would call for two different types of democracies as I see it. One that theoretically allows for others the opportunity to legally do evil, and one that does not. The theoretically good and bad, can be either bad or good in practice.

The theory behind a Catholic government would be adherence to the decrees of the Church. There is no room in this theory for nonadherence, and again this is in theory. So when the Catholic government does not adhere to the decrees, it is evil in and of itself in practice, but not in theory. I don't see how you could argue that a Catholic government can become theoretically bad. I mean, it can theoretically become bad in practice, but can not become theoretically bad in theory. (if you know what I mean lol)

So, I'd still argue that a democracy that allows for those opportunities is evil.

And maybe it'd help if I tried to elaborate on how I could how as I see the confusion arose.


QUOTE 
Perhaps the American system of government started out as good, (I don't know) but it became bad. Not because it became bad per se, but because it allows for the possibility of bad.



What I meant was that in the beginning there might have been no opportuniites for bad, so the system was good in theory. Even if the government was bad in practice, it was good in theory. And now the government is (or always has been, this is what I don't know) bad in theory, and of course bad in practice. Maybe it was neutral, but then this neutrality allows for evil practice and theory.

I suppose you could argue that American democracy is theoretically good, and it's bad in practice. I s'pose this would depend how looking up the founding fathers ideas, though even then it might be unclear. It's probaly meant to be lenient (though I'm sure this is debatable) to allow for the government to cater to the people. Since it does not cater to the people in accordance to the Church, I'd say it's evil. Even if you were to argue that the fathers wanted it to be lenient in a general sense, neutral, that doesn't specifically condone evil, it still allows for it.

I don't think the Catholic monarchy example was best, but there's prolly a better example. I sort of see the neutrality validity opposed to my arguments, but it'd be neutrality that allows for evil as far as I can see. I know there's a better way to look at the foundation of the US constitution and this neutrality arguement that prolly refutes my notion, but I'm losing my train of thought. I need some critique.

Something like not theoretically bad or theoretically good, but theoretically neurtral. And the practices can be good or bad. But then the neutral allows for bad so I don't see how it can be good. Cuz by good I mean doesn't allow for bad in theory. I'm confusing myself, and prolly everyone else and I'm losing my thought. I can clarify later or ya'll can try to explain.
[/quote]

So you are proposing a democracy which would be constitutionally bound to uphold the natural moral law? In other words, it would be bound to not allow sinful/evil activities?

It seems that this would be a democracy which is good in theory. And it is also pretty clear that compared to this all other types of democracies, which either could allow for or do allow for moral evils to be legally practiced (i.e. abortion) would be in that sense evil. And this classification could be applied to every form of government: you could have a monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy which is not capable of allowing moral evils to be legally sanctioned; and likewise you could have monarchies, aristocracies, or democracies which could or do allow this.

My question then would be how do you enforce this restriction? What prevents a government from legally sanctioning evil and thus makes a government "good"?

A constitution? But they can be amended. Church control of the state? Corruption can exist in the agents of the Church (as history has demonstrated).

I guess what I am saying is I don't think that there is a form of government which can be considered good or evil in and of itself because there is no way to ensure that that government would be used to defend the moral law. Every government can be twisted: monarchy into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy, democracy into mob rule.

But if you are saying that there can be a good manifestation of a democracy, one in which the moral law is upheld, then, yes, I would agree that that is a good government.

I [i]think[/i] Aquinas (as well as Aristotle and every respectable philosopher) said that insofar as a government defends and protects the common good it is a good government.

So, in theory, is the American government good or bad? Hmmm. I think if you uphold the Constitution and interpret it correctly, it is in theory good. But the way the liberal courts interpret it now, it is not.

[Socrates]

All human government will allow for opportunities to do evil. This is due to fallen human nature. Anything has the potential to be corrupted towards evil. This is not to say that all systems of government are equal - it's just that in this world it is impossible to have a system in which no evil will be possible. You'll have to wait fro heaven. Due to original sin, we cannot have heaven on earth.

A good government should be ordered toward the common good of the citizens, and not encourage evil, but for all evil to be erradicated is impossible. If a government attempted this utopian goal (and it has been tried in the past), inevitably, since the human agents of government are themselves fallen and fallable, more problems, even attrocities, inevitably result. (You end up with purges and "witchhunts.")

The law should deal with serious threats to the common good, but a system which does not "allow for evil practice and theory" is simply utopian and impossible.

This is a bit philosophical and difficult, and I don't know if I've expressed this very clearly, but I hope this makes some sense.

Again, megamattman, it would be more helpful if you told what it is specifically in the American Constitution that you find troublesome. You have been rather vague as to what exactly you are referring to.

[jrndveritatis]

[quote]All human government will allow for opportunities to do evil. This is due to fallen human nature. Anything has the potential to be corrupted towards evil. This is not to say that all systems of government are equal - it's just that in this world it is impossible to have a system in which no evil will be possible. You'll have to wait fro heaven. Due to original sin, we cannot have heaven on earth.

A good government should be ordered toward the common good of the citizens, and not encourage evil, but for all evil to be erradicated is impossible. If a government attempted this utopian goal (and it has been tried in the past), inevitably, since the human agents of government are themselves fallen and fallable, more problems, even attrocities, inevitably result. (You end up with purges and "witchhunts.")

The law should deal with serious threats to the common good, but a system which does not "allow for evil practice and theory" is simply utopian and impossible.

This is a bit philosophical and difficult, and I don't know if I've expressed this very clearly, but I hope this makes some sense.

Again, megamattman, it would be more helpful if you told what it is specifically in the American Constitution that you find troublesome. You have been rather vague as to what exactly you are referring to. [/quote]

Well put Socrates.

[megamattman1]

[quote]So, in theory, is the American government good or bad? Hmmm. I think if you uphold the Constitution and interpret it correctly, it is in theory good. But the way the liberal courts interpret it now, it is not. [/quote]

It may actually be good in its theory, I dunno. Now that I think about it, it seems that they wanted to adhere to the natural law. Just taken at this face value, I would agree that it is good. But this may be misleading cuz it also seems they might have let it be done that the majority gets to decide natural law. If it said something like "we will follow the natural law", then it is good. If it implies somewhere that we have to vote for it, it may is not good.

[quote]it would be more helpful if you told what it is specifically in the American Constitution that you find troublesome[/quote]

The American government allows for people to judge what is natural law based on popular vote (it is also may allow for allowing for a wide range of acceptable natural laws) This is my underlying assumption. Like I said in my first post:

[quote]Given that it has been established as immoral to consider other people's morals, and given that the American system is based on allowing for that[/quote]

I don't mean the system is based on that because of bad practice, but because of bad theory. If ya'll think my premises are wrong, then that's that and the government is good if we are to follow the natural law. but this is my assumption, I am wondering if it is evil.


Saying neutral may be misleading because in theory the government can allow for evil. (flexible or somethin like that might be better) It's the theory that allows for the possibility of evil. And it's the theory that is being judged. In this set of parameters I'm basing everything.


Prolly help if I responded to this.
[quote]The law should deal with serious threats to the common good, but a system which does not "allow for evil practice and theory" is simply utopian and impossible.[/quote]

I wouldn't say does not "allow for evil practice and theory", but say does not "allow for evil theory". I dunno if this is impractical or not. People will still do wrong, but it won't be sanctioned by the government's theory.

The American democracy is not one way or the other but allows for bad in theory. in its actual theory. In other words, the theory of the american government is that evil can occur.

A catholic democracy say would not allow for evil in its theory. Evil would occur, but not because of its theory.

[quote]My question then would be how do you enforce this restriction? What prevents a government from legally sanctioning evil and thus makes a government "good"? [/quote]

It's not about what happens to the government outside the realm of its theory. (that I'm talkin about anyway) If its not carried out, if it's bad in practice, then the government is still good in theory. If people change it in its theory, then it's no long the theory it was. Again theory being the basis of the good or bad.


I can still see the neutral arguement somewhat. I really I don't know..

Edited August 27, 2004 by megamattman1

[megamattman1]

It does depned on what you think of as the real american government whtere good or bad. But this is all based on my assumption.

Edited August 27, 2004 by megamattman1

[voiciblanche]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Aug 24 2004, 11:34 AM'] Democracy is definitely the best form of government available. [/quote]
Oh?

[voiciblanche]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Aug 24 2004, 04:15 PM'] I think its one of the best nations in the world to be honest, because it gives the most freedom out of any other country that has ever existed throughout History. [/quote]
Yes, but isn't there such a thing as too much freedom? The problem with America is that if we didn't have half the freedoms we have, half the things we do as Catholics would be illegal... perhaps a good deal of us would be martyrs, then. Now, if we had good leaders, then we wouldn't need quite so many freedoms because we'd have good/better laws.

[voiciblanche]

[quote name='megamattman1' date='Aug 24 2004, 08:25 PM'] Will you all agree that democracy that allows for that is evil, even if at the time it is good? [/quote]
No. You could say that with a lot of things. I have the "possibility of going bad" even though I was created good and to be good by Him who is good and from whom all good things come. Does that mean I'm evil? No.

[quote]Will you all agree that we as Catholics are bigots and intolerant? (of other's morals ie)[/quote]

We're intolerant of sin, and therefore intolerant of the "love the sinner, let them sin - I'm not getting involved" attitude of this stupid culture of death. We're not intolerant of the people. And I don't think we're bigots.

[voiciblanche]

[quote name='megamattman1' date='Aug 25 2004, 12:45 AM'] One that theoretically allows for others the opportunity to legally do evil, and [b]one that does not.[/b] [/quote]
I don't think such a democracy - or any form of government - exists.