The Place Of Religion In Politics

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1099449' date='Oct 23 2006, 08:46 PM']
Well, at the risk of adding to the debate on semantics, I thought I'd just say that "moderate" is so vague a word as to be meaningless. Most people like to consider their political ideas moderate and reasonable, rather than crazy and irrational.

However, as commonly used by the "mainstream" media, "Moderate," especially when referring to Republican politicians, is usually little more than a euphemism for "pro-abortion." A "moderate Republican" almost invariably refers to someone who may have free-market or other "conservative" leanings in economics, but is pro-abortion, and often also left-leaning on other "social issues." This is opposed to anyone who strongly opposes abortion, who is invariably labeled by the media "far-right." In this way, the media dismisses the pro-life cause as the refuge of crazy "extremists," unworthy of reasonable folk.
Yes, a gratuitous and asinine comparison with Hitler! Now the liberal (oh, sorry, I mean "moderate") argument may be consdered complete.

And, in your opinion, oh "Fidei Defensor," does God support radical pro-abort militants, Islamic Jihadists, the Communist Party, or (let's be complete here) the Nazi Party, just as much as "Conservative Christians"?? (Or are these groups all more-or-less on the same level in your "moderate" view?)
[/quote]
I'll ignore the obvious hostile undertone as to address your question.

My point is that God doesn't support one group or party over any other. You seem to have it in your head that God himself established the Republican party, and shines especially bright on the faces of those who are part of the "Christian-right." I guess I will be burning in hell because I refuse to submit and conform to a silly group which tries to claim that they alone are following the will of God, and all others are terrible people who must support everything which is against God.

God judges each soul individually, and you aren't going to get any free points for considering yourself as part of the conservative Christians. You can be moderate and be a fully orthodox Catholic.

What is important is voting for people who have strong Catholic values or values that are as close as possible, and defend life. But I refuse to tie myself to one party, because neither group is perfect.

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1099466' date='Oct 23 2006, 07:56 PM']
I'll ignore the obvious hostile undertone as to address your question.

My point is that God doesn't support one group or party over any other. You seem to have it in your head that God himself established the Republican party, and shines especially bright on the faces of those who are part of the "Christian-right." I guess I will be burning in hell because I refuse to submit and conform to a silly group which tries to claim that they alone are following the will of God, and all others are terrible people who must support everything which is against God.

God judges each soul individually, and you aren't going to get any free points for considering yourself as part of the conservative Christians. You can be moderate and be a fully orthodox Catholic.

What is important is voting for people who have strong Catholic values or values that are as close as possible, and defend life. But I refuse to tie myself to one party, because neither group is perfect.
[/quote]
These few paragraphs are so full of straw-men and silly ad-hominems that I hardly know where to begin.

Where have I (or anyone else here) said that "God himself established the Republican party" or any such nonsense? In this very thread I indicated that I have little use for "moderate" pro-abort Republicans. And if you'd turn off the NPR and actually venture into the world of "Christian Conservatives," you'd see that many are less-than-pleased with much of the current Republican leadership.

The rest of your rant, about non-Republicans burning in hell and whatnot, is equally nonsensical, and has no bearing on what anyone has actually said. It's just a silly straw-man attack on people you don't like, and has absolutely no rational bearing on any actual issues.

I myself am far more conservative on most political issues than are most Republicans, but I don't claim those who disagree with me, on say, welfare spending or gun rights, are destined to burn in hell, much as I may believe them mistaken.

However, the moral issues - regarding abortion, homosexuality, and religious freedom - are indeed of moral importance for the Catholic Christian.
You claim you vote for whoever supports "strong Catholic values" on moral issues - yet those who do are usually those very same folks labeled "Christian Right" by the liberal media - and who you appear to despise.

I suggest you debate real issues here, not attack silly straw-men.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Socrates

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1099495' date='Oct 23 2006, 09:24 PM']
These few paragraphs are so full of straw-men and silly ad-hominems that I hardly know where to begin.

Where have I (or anyone else here) said that "God himself established the Republican party" or any such nonsense? In this very thread I indicated that I have little use for "moderate" pro-abort Republicans. And if you'd turn off the NPR and actually venture into the world of "Christian Conservatives," you'd see that many are less-than-pleased with much of the current Republican leadership.

The rest of your rant, about non-Republicans burning in hell and whatnot, is equally nonsensical, and has no bearing on what anyone has actually said. It's just a silly straw-man attack on people you don't like, and has absolutely no rational bearing on any actual issues.

I myself am far more conservative on most political issues than are most Republicans, but I don't claim those who disagree with me, on say, welfare spending or gun rights, are destined to burn in hell, much as I may believe them mistaken.

However, the moral issues - regarding abortion, homosexuality, and religious freedom - are indeed of moral importance for the Catholic Christian.
You claim you vote for whoever supports "strong Catholic values" on moral issues - yet those who do are usually those very same folks labeled "Christian Right" by the liberal media - and who you appear to despise.

I suggest you debate real issues here, not attack silly straw-men.
[/quote]
I think you will not find sufficient proof to claim that I despise the Christian right. What I despise is the attitude that either you're with them - aka, considered part of, or against them and because of that, against God.

Let me go on record as saying that I do not despise the group which labels themselves as conservative Christians. I simply refuse to accept that they are the only group which a Catholic can vote for.

I honestly don't care how you define a political moderate. I know my reasons for considering myself one, and so does God. I vote on the basis of issues, not along party lines.

And I apologize if you took any of what I said as an ad-hominem, they were not meant to be. But I think it would be unfair if I didn't point out that some of what you said could be considered just as equally uncharitable. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt because I know your style of arguing, and I will assume that you meant no harm by your comments.

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1099502' date='Oct 23 2006, 08:41 PM']
I think you will not find sufficient proof to claim that I despise the Christian right. What I despise is the attitude that either you're with them - aka, considered part of, or against them and because of that, against God.

Let me go on record as saying that I do not despise the group which labels themselves as conservative Christians. I simply refuse to accept that they are the only group which a Catholic can vote for.

I honestly don't care how you define a political moderate. I know my reasons for considering myself one, and so does God. I vote on the basis of issues, not along party lines.

And I apologize if you took any of what I said as an ad-hominem, they were not meant to be. But I think it would be unfair if I didn't point out that some of what you said could be considered just as equally uncharitable. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt because I know your style of arguing, and I will assume that you meant no harm by your comments.
[/quote]
The terms of this debate and what is being debated need to be clearly defined for there to be an actual debate. I attempted to do this by bringing up specific issues - which have not been responded to (they were mostly intended for track).
The problem with this debate is that it has mostly involved vague labels and charges, rather than specifics. Unless something specific is brought to the debate, I am through here.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1099506' date='Oct 23 2006, 09:46 PM']
The terms of this debate and what is being debated need to be clearly defined for there to be an actual debate. I attempted to do this by bringing up specific issues - which have not been responded to (they were mostly intended for track).
The problem with this debate is that it has mostly involved vague labels and charges, rather than specifics. Unless something specific is brought to the debate, I am through here.
[/quote]
I agree.

I would venture to put forth that when I speak of someone as a moderate, I mean to say that they are neither strongly liberal, nor strongly conservative. Not every liberal ideal is evil. Not every conservative idea is necessarily "good."

I am conservative when it comes to values, because by necessity, being an orthodox Catholic means holding fast to the Catholic Faith. But I don't consider myself conservative with some political issues, especially pretaining to social programs and such.

I don't believe you adhere to the same definition of moderate? But I just want to make sure you understand that I don't "compromise" on issues, or "moderately" support pro-death views. Because that is something directly contrary to Catholic belief, I cannot accept it. Pro-death = pro-death, and will always be against God. However, I am allowed to have differing views on how much I believe the government should help the poor, or whether I agree with the war in Iraq. These issues are not matters which directly connect to a teaching, but rather, are issues which should be carefully considered in light of teachings. Abortion will always be wrong and needs no consideration whereas we should really consider the best ways to help the poor.

Edited October 24, 2006 by fidei defensor

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1099514' date='Oct 23 2006, 08:54 PM']
I agree.

I would venture to put forth that when I speak of someone as a moderate, I mean to say that they are neither strongly liberal, nor strongly conservative. Not every liberal ideal is evil. Not every conservative idea is necessarily "good."

I am conservative when it comes to values, because by necessity, being an orthodox Catholic means holding fast to the Catholic Faith. But I don't consider myself conservative with some political issues, especially pretaining to social programs and such.

I don't believe you adhere to the same definition of moderate? But I just want to make sure you understand that I don't "compromise" on issues, or "moderately" support pro-death views. Because that is something directly contrary to Catholic belief, I cannot accept it. Pro-death = pro-death, and will always be against God. However, I am allowed to have differing views on how much I believe the government should help the poor, or whether I agree with the war in Iraq. These issues are not matters which directly connect to a teaching, but rather, are issues which should be carefully considered in light of teachings. Abortion will always be wrong and needs no consideration whereas we should really consider the best ways to help the poor.
[/quote]
Hey, it's ok. Sorry I got a bit riled up. But, based on what else she has said on these boards, I don't think Track2004's definition of "moderate" is quite the same as yours. I think she wants any religious considerations out of politics altogether. (If I'm wrong about this, she's welcome to correct me.)

[KnightofChrist]

May I point out, I never said I was talking about republicans or democrats.

I was speaking of Conservative Christians, who conserverse and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. And Liberals, who think they are morally unrestrained because truth is realitive, leave God at home, and keep Him out of the Goverment.

How can there be "moderates" between the two, you obey Christ or you do not.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1099650' date='Oct 24 2006, 12:07 AM']
May I point out, I never said I was talking about republicans or democrats.

I was speaking of Conservative Christians, who conserverse and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. And Liberals, who think they are morally unrestrained because truth is realitive, leave God at home, and keep Him out of the Goverment.

How can there be "moderates" between the two, you obey Christ or you do not.
[/quote]
Except it isn't that black and white. As I said, not everything which is liberal is evil, and not everything conservative is necessarily good.

I can agree, though, that most leftists have little morality. But those are the radical liberals.

[track2004]

Soc, I have school and tests and stuff to do. I'll respond to your comments, just give me some time to do my real work before I get caught up with PM.

[track2004]

Okay, with school work relatively in the bag, let's get back to the fun.

Soc

Moderates, both Republican and Democrat, are better for government because they tend to be more open to bipartisan work. Right now Republicans are the majority in the house and senate and control the presidency. This lends itself to laws that nearly half the general population disagree with. Democrats are not represented anywhere, and while you might disagree with the Democrats' POV, consider what you would feel like if Deomcrats were in charge like Republicans are now. Bipartisan politics works better for the general population, it is why we have a two party system.

To address the issues of abortion, gay marriage, and religious freedom. I understand your argument for it, but I don't think your argument could be made sucessfully in a court. I don't think religion should be directly involved in politics because our system of government does not accept religious arguments. To make a law that outlaws abortion or gay marriage you would need to have a better, more logically founded argument than the religious one. The only ones I've heard that come close to valid as arguments to the state are ones based on anthropology, with out religion mentioned. If you establish 1 man/1 woman marriages that way, then it could work in the courts and congress. Religious freedom is another thing. You said earlier whether God likes Nazis or Republicans or whomever better. I don't think that God would consider the groups we put ourselves in as determinates for our salvation, or I hope He doesn't.

I would also like to say that Democrats are by no means for gay marriage. They aren't exactly against it, but to say they are all for it, would be a misnomer. The only thing they actually say is that they won't pass the act floating around congress right now. They also tend to support hate crime legislation, which is good by me. Democrats and Republicans aren't mutually exclusive on issues, at least not Democrats support A and Republicans support -A. It is more that Democrats support A and Republicans support B. Or I think so anyway.

Lastly, for you Soc, give me some time to respond. I'm in school and busy as all get out. Sometimes PM isn't my highest priority.

Kosh.

What do you want to talk about with atheism? I mean I don't think the government should be completely atheistic because the people aren't. I do think that it should be somewhat aware that atheists exist, but I think they need to chill out about God being mentioned on the dollar. Focing religion on people and religion being around are different and that distinction needs to be made clear, either in an communal understanding or by the courts.

[Kosh]

oh, I already started a topic 'bout atheism.

and I agree that moderates in many ways are best.

[track2004]

Cool I'll check that one out then.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1099775' date='Oct 24 2006, 06:09 AM']
Except it isn't that black and white. As I said, not everything which is liberal is evil, and not everything conservative is necessarily good.

I can agree, though, that most leftists have little morality. But those are the radical liberals.
[/quote]

It is that black and white. We follow and obey Christ or we do not. A converative christian obeys and follows Christ and conserverses and protects Christendom. I believe you are most likey a Converative Christian. I bet the points you agree with liberals on are also the teachings of Christ, help the sick feed the poor, right? Because you agree with liberals on some things does not make you a moderate. What would make you a moderate between Christian Conservativtism and Liberalism, would be that you disagree with some of the teachings of Christ or His Chruch, and Liberalism. But I highly highly doubt that is so...

[kamiller42]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1099650' date='Oct 24 2006, 12:07 AM']
May I point out, I never said I was talking about republicans or democrats.

I was speaking of Conservative Christians, who conserverse and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. And Liberals, who think they are morally unrestrained because truth is realitive, leave God at home, and keep Him out of the Goverment.

How can there be "moderates" between the two, you obey Christ or you do not.
[/quote]
Father John Corapi said it well when he said "Satan's favorite color is gray."

I don't agree with those who say conservatives don't care for the poor and sick. Their cure is to lift them out of their conditions. The liberal cure for poverty is the culture of death.

[Kosh]

I doubt either were referring to moderates.