National Party Platforms - In Their Own Words

[XIX]

I do think it is fair to say that the Republican party line is closer than the Democratic party line to Catholic values.

[curtins]

Let me explain a bit more. The Left stands for relativism (generally).

The right stands for a conservation of values and traditions and generally opposes relativism.

The church is not a liberal institution- It is not a relativistic institution. It CONSERVES values and traditions and TRUTH.


There are always individuals who deviate from the general philosophies, but in general this is true.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='XIX' post='1352069' date='Aug 7 2007, 01:09 PM']I do think it is fair to say that the Republican party line is closer than the Democratic party line to Catholic values.[/quote]
That just makes an ill shiver go up and down my spine. Not because I hate Republicans, but because the whole marriage of politics and religion really troubles me. My discomfort grows not because I don't think Christians can and should have an effect on the political process and on social policies overall, but because of the effect that our current methods of involvement politically has on our faith and our society. I don't think it is good. I think the politicizing of our values in the way it's been done devalues the things for which we care most deeply. No one seems to care about or even notice this is happening, but our allowing things like marriage -- a [i]sacrament[/i] -- to become political footballs, used to further political ends ... this does deep damage. I think we will reap a sad harvest from the seeds we've sown politically.

[curtins]

Its not a marriage of politics and religion. Its a sharing of common values and philosophies that already exist. If we want change for the unborn, the family etc we have to use political means. We can't change laws on our own.

Also, the marriage that is being debated is not a sacrament. Its not even marriage, according to the Church. Not to say that its not important to protect even civil marriage from homosexuality, as it all has a ripple effect and affects the family in general.

[dUSt]

It's threads like this that made phatmass great. I love 'em.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='curtins' post='1352107' date='Aug 7 2007, 01:55 PM']Also, the marriage that is being debated is not a sacrament. Its not even marriage, according to the Church.[/quote]
Which is a main reason why this troubles me. We put all our political energies behind things we [i]don't really believe in and are not the truth taught by our church[/i].

I just can't get behind supporting a party that preaches a marriage that isn't marriage, a doctrine of "life" that isn't really a doctrine of life, and that uses faith to build political capital. If marriage and family are the things we truly believe in, then support -- or form -- a party that actually preaches the truth! Because the Republican party sure as hell ain't it, and frankly neither is the Democratic party. I also can't get behind justice that isn't really justice, and tolerance that is anything but.

Phatmass should form a political party. Phatpolitics. That's what we need. Not this "compromise" that requires us to sell out on the things we really care about.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Terra Firma

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1352231' date='Aug 7 2007, 05:56 PM']Which is a main reason why this troubles me. We put all our political energies behind things we [i]don't really believe in and are not the truth taught by our church[/i].

I just can't get behind supporting a party that preaches a marriage that isn't marriage, a doctrine of "life" that isn't really a doctrine of life, and that uses faith to build political capital. If marriage and family are the things we truly believe in, then support -- or form -- a party that actually preaches the truth! Because the Republican party sure as hell ain't it, and frankly neither is the Democratic party. I also can't get behind justice that isn't really justice, and tolerance that is anything but.

Phatmass should form a political party. Phatpolitics. That's what we need. Not this "compromise" that requires us to sell out on the things we really care about.[/quote]
So.... you have no opinion, then, Terra...

[Sojourner]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1352252' date='Aug 7 2007, 05:14 PM']So.... you have no opinion, then, Terra... [/quote]
No. I like to keep my opinions to myself. You know that.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='XIX' post='1351972' date='Aug 7 2007, 12:39 PM']Yeah, because left and right mean the same things they did thousands of years ago. Do you actually mean to propose, that in American politics, the left's official stance is to lie? You might as well try to tell us that all southpaws commit mortal sin--after all, only a foolish person turns to his left.

Look--I don't like the political left at all, but this is a bit overboard.

Left and right don't mean what they did 50 years ago, let alone several thousand years ago. Neither do conservative/liberal or Democrat/republican. Words change. Conservative does not mean "status quo" anymore; if it did, then conservatives would quickly become pro-abortion, as abortion has become the status quo in American politics. Conservative does mean "right," (as in the opposite of left, not the opposite of wrong.) Liberal means "left." Words pretty much mean what people want them to mean. That is how language evolves--if there are enough people using words with a certain definition, then the words automatically adopt that definition.

Language is literally determined by a majority vote. Of course, morality is not determined by a majority vote, but etymology sure as heck is. As is such, liberal means left and conservative means right.[/quote]

it's not about american politics, it's about the meaning of right and left.
Right minded has always ment "lawful", "moral", etc.... Conservative does not mean "right".

The author didn't speak English thousands of years ago, it's been translated... it has not lost it's meaning, nor has it changed.

Leftist media coined the term "right wing extremist" in the past 15 years or so as a demonization of the right side because the right side is lawful, moral, just, and God loving/fearing. There are plenty of leftist wackos.... PETA, NAMBLA, Neo Nazi's, etc...


As for the edit... The twisting of what I had posted elsewhere on the board totally justified the statement... She twisted what I wrote to the point of lying. That is what Michael Moore does. Maybe she didn't understand what I wrote, but I find that hard to believe.

Edited August 8, 2007 by ironmonk

[Sojourner]

You said:
[quote name='ironmonk' post='1350935' date='Aug 5 2007, 11:48 PM']...I would hate to vote for rudy... I would absolutely hate it... Viva Fred!!!! But rudy is better than any dem running for president.[/quote]
I said:
[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1351616' date='Aug 6 2007, 09:08 PM']Oh and before you get on your high horse about voting for baby deaths, let's please note that you've advocated voting for Giuliani in other threads. Who is avowedly pro-choice, no matter how you slice it.[/quote]
Tell me again how I misrepresented your statement? Given the choice between Rudy and and Democrat you'd choose Rudy. Who is pro-choice. So you would vote for someone who supports killing babies -- even if there were pro-life candidates running who were third party.
[quote name='ironmonk' post='1350935' date='Aug 5 2007, 11:48 PM']If we don't vote for rep or dem, then it's pointless to vote. Roughly 120,000,000 people vote either Rep or Dem.... the others are lucky to get 5000 votes.[/quote]
The way I read this, you would support the Republican party, even when the nominated candidate [i]does not share the value you claim to hold above all others.[/i] In my mind, either respecting the value and dignity of human life takes absolute precedence, or it does not. And, as curtins noted, the Republican Party doesn't even embrace an ideal of marriage anywhere close to being in line with the way we see marriage -- just about the [i]only[/i] mark of true marriage (free, total, faithful, fruitful union between a man and a woman) left in the Republican definition is the "between a man and a woman" part. How much of the true meaning of marriage was eroded away by making politically expedient compromises??

Why should we compromise on these things we hold most dear?? When is enough enough?

Here's hoping you pony up the maturity to actually read and respond charitably to a post from someone you don't agree with and are angered by. But who am I kidding ... you've got me on ignore. Maybe it was in 5th grade that I last did that ...

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1352080' date='Aug 7 2007, 01:17 PM']That just makes an ill shiver go up and down my spine. Not because I hate Republicans, but because the whole marriage of politics and religion really troubles me. My discomfort grows not because I don't think Christians can and should have an effect on the political process and on social policies overall, but because of the effect that our current methods of involvement politically has on our faith and our society. I don't think it is good. I think the politicizing of our values in the way it's been done devalues the things for which we care most deeply. No one seems to care about or even notice this is happening, but our allowing things like marriage -- a [i]sacrament[/i] -- to become political footballs, used to further political ends ... this does deep damage. I think we will reap a sad harvest from the seeds we've sown politically.[/quote]
XIX was simply saying that the Republican party line is [i]closer[/i] than the Democratic party line to Catholic values. Like it or not, that's a pretty accurate statement, and shouldn't be the cause of undue controversy. It's not like he was saying that the Republican party platform is identical with Catholic teaching, or that the GOP is God's own divinely ordained political party, or any other such nonsense.

It would be similar to me making a statement such as, for example, that the Polish government better reflects Catholic values and morality than the Russian government. This would not be equivalent to declaring the Polish government to be God's own rule on earth.

Quite frankly, TF, you're starting to sound a bit like Budge here, treating any reflection or endorsement of morality in civil law and politics as the imposition of some horrible evil "theocracy."

The truth is that the GOP platform does in fact come closer to reflecting the positions of the Church in the areas of abortion, homosexuality, marriage, and the free expression of religion. Just follow the link Ironmonk provided. (Yes, that site may have an "agenda," but the quotes from the party platforms are accurate.)

While not all GOP politicians have fully lived up to the platform, any unbiased person would have to conclude that the platform itself is better than the Dems', which[i] explicitly and unambiguously supports abortion on demand and giving special legal benefits to homosexuals[/i].

Claiming the Republican and Democratic platforms are morally eqivalent on these issues is to be either willfully blind or profoundly ignorant.

No, I'm not claiming the Republicans are all good or saints, or that their platform is perfect. I think more GOP politicians should truly stand up for the values written in their party platform.
(And, let's face it, all their problems to the contrary, they have certainly done more to uphold the dignity of human life and morality than the Democrats, who, at the national level, have supported their immoral platform positions on abortion and the like to a t.)

All this hand-wringing about "politicizing our values" is nonsense. When the godless Left declares abortion on demand a "right" to be enforced, and seeks to make homosexual "unions" the legal equivalent of marriage, opposing these things is not the imposition of some scary fascist "theocracy," but simply trying to restore some vestige of sanity in law and government.

We should support such efforts, rather than oppose them just because we feel some politicians may be suspect in their motives, or they are not "perfect" measures. The alternative is to hand government entirely over to those whose stated principles directly violate some of our most serious and deeply held moral principles as Catholics.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Socrates

[Sojourner]

I think you misunderstand me, Socrates. My problem is not with Christians being involved in politics at all. It is with Christians throwing allegiance behind political parties that so clearly do not represent the things we purport to value most. Republicans are not any more for family values than are Democrats, make no mistake about it. Just because they don't support homosexual marriage (which is a tenuous statement at the moment at best) doesn't mean that the marriage they're talking about is something we should really be throwing our weight behind.

And if you think that the politicizing our values has not had an effect on how we see marriage and other things of importance, think again. It has an effect in two ways. One, by making these things merely a means to an end (garnering political capital rather than actually moving to make societal change) we treat it not as a good in and of itself but as a thing that gets us what we want. It is demeaning and disrespectful. Two, when these things become political playthings, [i]we lose[/i]. No fault divorce. Contraception. These are just two of the things we have "compromised on" in our pursuit for political power.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1351955' date='Aug 7 2007, 09:37 AM']That would be my take as well. None of them stand by their platforms, which is why comparing them is worthless.[/quote]
At the national level, the parties have basically stood by their platforms on the issues dealt twith here, though in the Republican case, maybe a bit weakly.
For all Bush's problems, he has done more than any other president to support the pro-life cause (though I don't think he's done enough). Even Rudy supports overturning Roe v. Wade and turning abortion laws back to the states.

The Dems, on the other hand, have solidly stood behind abortion on demand and its support and funding by the government ever since these parts of the party platform were written. (Look at the record).

Once again, your statement is not really accurate.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Socrates

[Sojourner]

I think there is plenty of dissent from the party platform on both sides of the aisle. Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1352231' date='Aug 7 2007, 04:56 PM']Which is a main reason why this troubles me. We put all our political energies behind things we [i]don't really believe in and are not the truth taught by our church[/i].

I just can't get behind supporting a party that preaches a marriage that isn't marriage, a doctrine of "life" that isn't really a doctrine of life, and that uses faith to build political capital. If marriage and family are the things we truly believe in, then support -- or form -- a party that actually preaches the truth! Because the Republican party sure as hell ain't it, and frankly neither is the Democratic party. I also can't get behind justice that isn't really justice, and tolerance that is anything but.

Phatmass should form a political party. Phatpolitics. That's what we need. Not this "compromise" that requires us to sell out on the things we really care about.[/quote]
We've been over the whole marriage issue before, and I still disagree (you can dig up that thread if you want, but I don't have time to rehash the whole thing). As shown, even the USCCB, which tends to lean left politically, wholeheartedly endorsed the marriage amendment and called on Catholics to support it.

Whether or not you trust the motivations of the pols involved, it is objectively good legislation (though sad that we've even reached the point where it's an issue.)
Not legally recognizing homosexual marriage is perfectly in tune with Catholic moral teaching, and is hardly a danger to Catholic marriage in anyway.

Are you now saying we must not support any party or politician which isn't a perfect Catholic "theocracy" which would outlaw all abortion immeditiately, as well as ban all contraception, only recognize Catholic sacramental marriages, etc.?

(Not that I'd be all against such a thing, but let's face it, such a party isn't going to come to power any time soon. In the meantime, we have to deal with what we have.)

Would it be wrong to say you have an idealist "all or nothing" philosophy, in which we must either support flawless politicians and/or parties, or not vote or be politically involved at all?

If that's your take, you might as well just throw in your support for me as Catholic King of America.

(However, I must say that for one politically apathetic, you seem to like to debate politics alot.)