I Am Politically Apathetic

[SarahB]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1392638' date='Sep 24 2007, 09:47 PM']Yeah, we could all be wussy Canadians with the Queen on our coins.

Liberty or Death, baby![/quote]

Amen to that.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kafka' post='1392411' date='Sep 24 2007, 01:16 PM']those who rule should be breed from a young age to rule.[/quote]
You mean like North Korean dictator [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-Il"]Kim Jong-Il[/url]?

[quote]Rev,

I've never voted in my life. I think there should be a union between Church and State[/quote].
Getting somewhat back on topic, what do you think you will accomplish by refusing to vote?

As I've said before elsewhere, I get rather tired of these Catholic wanna-be "Monarchists" who talk about their lack of any civic involvement as if it's some noble thing.
American citizens have a duty to vote, and good Catholics should vote especially.
All that it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

Those who refuse to vote have no right to complain about the government they get.

I'm sorry, but if all good Catholics simply refuse to vote, it will not somehow cause a Good Catholic Monarch to descend from the heavens.
It could, however, put Hillary Clinton (or worse) in the Oval Office.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1392665' date='Sep 24 2007, 11:22 PM']You mean like North Korean dictator [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-Il"]Kim Jong-Il[/url]?

.
Getting somewhat back on topic, what do you think you will accomplish by refusing to vote?

As I've said before elsewhere, I get rather tired of these Catholic wanna-be "Monarchists" who talk about their lack of any civic involvement as if it's some noble thing.
American citizens have a duty to vote, and good Catholics should vote especially.
All that it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

Those who refuse to vote have no right to complain about the government they get.

I'm sorry, but if all good Catholics simply refuse to vote, it will not somehow cause a Good Catholic Monarch to descend from the heavens.
It could, however, put Hillary Clinton (or worse) in the Oval Office.[/quote]Amen, Brother Ben!

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1392636' date='Sep 24 2007, 09:42 PM']I basically agree with you here. There's no perfect form of government on earth. All have their problems, though some forms are better than others, and some (such as Communism) are plain evil.
There's some things I could say about this Monarchism vs. Democracy nonsense on here, but I'll respect your wish to not further hijack this thread, which has already been hijacked beyond all recognition.
At the risk of futher hijack though, I thought I'd point out that the USSR (and especially under Stalin) was in reality anything but a Democratic Republican state, despite what it may have called itself. (And this is true of all the Communist "People's Democratic Republics" - such titles being nothing but blatantly false Commie propaganda.) Stalin was arguably the most ruthless, brutal and murderous dictator in history, and ruled completely autocratically, ruthlessly killing off any who opposed him, including many of his fellow Communists.[/quote]

Yes, the institutions I listed only feign democracy. However, there was a point where many of these leaders (and other horrible "democratic" presidents) were legitimately elected. Take Hitler for example, he was legitimately elected spouting some pretty scary sttuff. To be fair, one could say that a monarchy seases to be a monarchy when the king becomes down-right evil. Monarchs are supposed to be vicars of Christ (don't want to argue the theology, but that's what they were supposed to be). When one goes nuts and committs serious attrocities against mankind, he is not fulfilling his roll and duties. One could argue that at that point he becomes more of a dictator and less of a monarch.

[ironmonk]

I have to say that I read an article once put out by North Korean State news... Kim Jong-Il was reported to have played his first game of golf and hit 11 holes in one... seriously, that was the report... it's the stereotypical communist lies that they use to make fun of in old movies. The guy is like 4'10"... he stands on a box when he gives speaches... how did this 20th century Napoleon come to power? LOL

seriously: [url="http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/16/kim.birthday.reut/"]http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/....birthday.reut/[/url]

[quote]North Korean publications describe Kim Jong Il as a renaissance man who has flown fighter aircraft, written operas and shot 11 holes-in-one in his first try at golf.[/quote]


That's like some kind of lie someone back in the 1600's would tell.


BAH HAHAHAHAHA

[Socrates]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1392713' date='Sep 24 2007, 10:45 PM']I have to say that I read an article once put out by North Korean State news... Kim Jong-Il was reported to have played his first game of golf and hit 11 holes in one... seriously, that was the report... it's the stereotypical communist lies that they use to make fun of in old movies. The guy is like 4'10"... he stands on a box when he gives speaches... how did this 20th century Napoleon come to power? LOL

seriously: [url="http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/16/kim.birthday.reut/"]http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/....birthday.reut/[/url]
That's like some kind of lie someone back in the 1600's would tell.
BAH HAHAHAHAHA[/quote]
If you want some good laughs, go on YouTube and search for "Kim Jong Il" or look for stuff by "Songunblog." Literally hours of that nonsense - hilariously cheesy propaganda videos about the amazing exploits of the "Dear Leader"! I especially dig "[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dC2aDHtEqk"]Dear Leader Kim Jong Il Is The People's Inspiration[/url]," which demonstrates the immense inspirational power of a portrait of Dear Leader's grinning face.

Making fun of the Dear Leader Kim Jong-Il is an unofficial hobby of mine.

Edited September 25, 2007 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1392713' date='Sep 24 2007, 10:45 PM']... how did this 20th century Napoleon come to power? LOL[/quote]
Because his Daddy was the "Great Leader" Kim Il-Sung.

[N/A Gone]

-You can fight issues, and be active with those issues in the private sector. Many people get distracted with the media based political process that they do not fight the issues in other ways. Our system is corrupt when this happens.

Martin Luther king JR wrote (citing Augustine on parts)

[quote]"an unjust law is a law no more" He continued to say "I lived in a country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws." So why would we desire to change the world by using the gov't when we know it is corrupt? If we change the hearts and minds of people the gov't will follow suit. There was a time when the church was very powerful in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators"' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide. and gladiatorial contests.Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Par from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent and often even vocal sanction of things as they are.But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it vi lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.[/quote]

just curious. What part of this is wrong?

I do vote, and I vote based on life-issues, typically the abortion issue. But I do not pretend that picking between John Jameson and James Johnson and their fake media fixed life does much to change the issues.

-gay marriage issue and abortion issue are very different. Making abortion illegal will make some not consider the option, but remember that one of the main reasons it became legal was because of how many women were doing it illegally and harming themselves. Gay marriage debate will not make less people gay. That is a silly argument. All the debate is at its core is people wanting to be recognized by the gov’t for gov’t benefits for married couples. Health insurance, life insurance, etc. It is a civic thing so I could really give a flip about that. It isn’t like they are forcing a sacramental marriage. Whether they can be civically married or not will not change their actions.

-I am very passionate about the abortion issue, I have spent a lot of time arguing and discussing this issue with people. Influencing people in the private sector. But I wont endorse a candidate on the sole idea that they might be pro-choice. It wont change the process unless enough people are of the same train of thought. If the majority was against abortion they would change the law. Not if the minority somehow vote in the right person. The gov’t will always seek to appease itself by appeasing the dumb majority. The uneducated who don’t know enough about the issue itself and get wrapped into a celebrity, um, I mean candidate.

-Agree with alabaster that the issue of promoting ethics and values belongs to us, in the private sector. It is not the job of the gov’t

-my “50 point” argument is because people do spend so much time wrapped up in discussing a candidate and debating a party. That is energy spent. I have no problem with them doing it in the same way that I debate football. But spending all that time debating candidates will not do anything to fix the issues. The media entertained political process is what I am apathetic to. I care about the issues, I could just give a jack about the popularity contest that is ran for the office. So it is not a false-dichotomy I am creating. But I appreciate the slander. Statistically the drug example is very strong. We have more of a drug problem and an under aged drinking problem then the rest of the world, and supposedly our gov’t has done the most against it with its “war on drugs.” A good example of parents and churches trusting the gov’t to teach and enforce morality rather than handling the issue themselves. Or how about learning about sex in schools? Let the gov’t jump right in and teach their own ethics and morality because the majority of people will not teach the kids themselves. We do not promote our ethics in the private sector, rather trusting it to the gov’t.

[N/A Gone]

Socrates,
I do not consider being politically active with “big government” as strong government that can do its job is a good thing. Strong army, strong economic, transportation, etc, etc. I am not an anarchist. Many of the people who know jack about the issues are the ones who are dependent on the tit of the government for everything. If we are willing to do less, then it is the natural function of the government to step in and assume control in arenas that we are not willing to maintain control.
I never said I refuse to vote. I care about the issues. I don’t care about the nine million political blogs and hours and hours of dialogue about if Hiliary will reform X because even if she was voted it isn’t just her in the power to do it. But instead of people trying to fix X themselves they look to the gov’t to do it for them. The economy is ready to have some serious problems. Issues like unemployment, jobs being overseas, and social security. But instead of people looking to themselves and the fact that this is the first time since the great depression that our country has had a negative savings rate, and we need to take care of ourselves with retirement and stop using credit cards, instead we look to mother Russia, I mean, the US government to fix the problem for us. We look to a celebrity to smile and make it all better like in the movies.
In promoting morality it is our duty to vote for a pro-life person. But I will not spend all my efforts in promoting that person, or even pretending that person will do jack about it. I thought Bush was supposed to be a Christian? All that got is us 20 year olds coming home in body bags.

Joey,
You continue to try and put me in a box. First it is anarchy, and then it is libertarian. I do not understand your need to do this, and to do it in a condescending way. This is most shocking to me because you used to know me outside of this forum. You even went with me when we voted. We have discussed issues, and we have discussed gov’t. You know I care about issues, and could give a flip if you vote for Sally Thompson or Tom Salverson. Or spend hours, and hours, and hours peeking into their personal lives.
I am not a libertarian anymore than you are a lumberjack because you wear flannel and have a hairy chest. (If the duck has feathers you said) Ironically, you said you agree with my position. Interesting, considering your infatuation with the political process is something I have been apathetical with for the last 5 years. Transportation/laws/protection all make sense for the civic government to run. I agree with you. (remembering that the right to bare arms is to protect ourselves against the gov’t and not for rednecks to shoot small animals) Issues like trust-busting, welfare, and health care are civic functions also. The problem with them is intent. Someone will use welfare and sometimes even health care as the tit to suckle on. Abuse of these systems is part of the problem with people using Gov’t to fix our problems, thus giving gov’t the control. Health care is a mess. I completely agree. Abortion issue I have made myself clear on. Here and in person with you. Gay marriage issue. The idea of the gov’t controlling morality scares me because they are not moral. The only end that can have is secular morality, or an ineffective pluralism where you cant say anything to anyone else. You cite that if we stop gay marriage then it should stop them from adopting. 1) not true, right now they still adopt. Singles can adopt. 2.) The gov’t is just as likely to tell us to not adopt because they don’t want kids being brainwashed with Christian principles. I was very active on this issue until Weedman and I spoke. It is an issue of the gov’t and civic rights with people. Those people will continue their lifestyle regardless. It isn’t like there is a group of people waiting in the closet to be married. Divorce rate is 50% anyway. Who cares if they get to use each others medical benefits.(chuck and larry is a great movie btw) Define activism for me. I think I am a activist on the abortion issue, but not in the political sense. I will vote, but I feel the energy should be spent in explaining the issue. I know you love V. That’s why I put the quote in. Being counter-cultural and exercising power in that arena is something strongly lacking in the mind set of our political system.



Golden child
You had me until you started talking about parties. I agree that we should strive to influence in the private sector. We should take the responsibility on ourselves for these issues. “Why is abortion bad” we should be talking about this, expressing our concern. Not just voting and leaving it up to the gov’t to do. But standing outside the abortion clinic praying.
The party system could be one of the chief reasons I am apathetic to the political process. It is nothing more than rival frat parties. Someone debating their love for Brett Favre because they live in Wisc. Not because they like gun-slingging qb’s. People get wrapped up in the party process that it is scary. People crying at conventions. The pure mindless manipulation that happens is pathetic and feeds right into the concept of idiots voting for a celebrity to fix their problems so they do not have to. So I do not support a party, or a candidate. Because they are fake. Voting for an issue, and supporting a candidate are two different things for me. Your message about the relationship between church/state make a lot of sense.

Anomaly,
You are wrong. In analogy we can accept an analogy without accepting the issue you are addressing. I think your analogy is flawed in that way. Even more so your idea about the Church being flawed and not being able to be changed by the people is wrong. You assume that the people in place are put there by the power of the people, and not by Divine rite. Church politics and your problem with the church is not helpful in this discussion. Of course everyone has addressed your idea of human goverments getting better. I think you are mistaken and secular government will always seek blood and control. Of course, your bias is seen here more than any valid point. The book “Theopolitical imagination” addresses this myth also.

Ironmonk
Apathy and anarchy are very different things. In my sense of understanding they are even more farther apart. I have never been an anarchist. I was a soldier, I spilled blood. I am not an anarchist. But I do have an issue with people treating the government as a religion. Your post is promotion of a party. The idea that either party is a representive of Christian values is a joke. It is nothing more than a marketing scheme. The party system makes the representive nothing more than a figure head for a club, or a pro team to cheer for. You bring up good values and points in your post, but you promote one of the main reasons I could really give a carp about the political process.

ADT6247
Your post does get picked on, but the underlining point is valid. Who gives authority? To address Anomaly’s post the idea of the Church getting authority from Christ makes their authority valid. The gov’t is supposed to get power from us. Rather it is a separate entity living and acting as an authority over us. You are right that the uneducated voting is a serious problem, and your view would have more strength but God has not made a political king for us since the time of the Old Testament. So it is a mute issue. It is funny how people try and assume that the US is God’s country almost trying to declare a sort-of divine right to rule.
JoeyO
In your post at 3:01 you cite all the problems with the system. Why are you so obsessed with it if you see how flawed it is? Why do you trust them to do jack if you can see that they will not?

SarahB
In being a joke, we become apathetic. No matter how much energy Joey puts into understanding and exploring and becoming myspace buddies with candidate X all it takes is a high school kid who thinks blue ties are cool to make Joey’s vote worthless. All it takes is uneducated people who can be moved to tears by an emotional speech to make the voting process worthless.

[N/A Gone]

[quote]A Montana cowboy was overseeing his herd in a remote mountainous pasture when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced out of a dust cloud towards him.

The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Ban sunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the window and asks the cowboy, "If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, will you give me a calf?"

The cowboy looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, "Sure, Why not?"

The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his Cingular RAZR V3 cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite navigation system to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.

The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany.

Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored.

He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response.

Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns to the cowboy and says, "You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves."

"That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves," says the cowboy.

He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.

Then the cowboy says to the young man, "Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?"

The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, "Okay, why not?"

"You're a Congressman for the U. S. Government", says the cowboy.

"Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but how did you guess that?"

"No guessing required." answered the cowboy. "You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked. You tried to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you don't know a thing about cows... this is a herd of sheep."

"Now give me back my dog."[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

i agree you did a good job clearing up people's misrepresentations of you.

as a point though, you haven't shown why people can't be both political and private. in theory anyway they can.

but, with that said, you make a good point that people can preoccupy themselves with politics. i'd venture to say many here do that and do not address the private lives stuff. it's definitely something to consider, and needs highlighted from the rest of your replies. it's a practical reality, not jus theoritcal and so a good point.

i guess the only response is to get people to not preoccupy themselves is important. but, i don't think that translates into apathy so much as noticing people's flawed approach to devoting their time.

so, i don't think you should be arguing apathy, but arguing that you are not apathetic. and that you have your priorities right, and others should too. perhaps you're only apathetic to too much politiking, which i could see as reasonable.

i think you need to clarify or everyone will be talking past each other.

[adt6247]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1392562' date='Sep 24 2007, 08:05 PM']Dude, put down the King Arthur and Prince Valiant comic books. If the world was so great in the Middle Ages with the Church ruling everything, then what happened?

That looks pretty much like a democracy to me. The only reason why you want a monarchy is to force a Religion on the rest of the 'sinful masses'. The idea that humanity is fundamentally evil (not flawed) is hardly a Catholic one. If you could get beyond forcing the Roman Catholic Religion down everyone's throat and admitted the reality that society needs to move toward Christian Principles, not be forced to Catholic Obedience, you'd get somewhere.[/quote]
You, sir, erect a straw man.

I'd rather live in a protestant monarchy, so long as Catholicism was legal, than a secular democracy. Second, that entry says nothing about specific political systems -- I never said democracy was invalid. I believe monarchy is the greater good. Monarchy failed because the people got wrapped up in the enlightenment. Neither the French nor American revolutions were justified, and it was those that paved the way for the liberalization of the west.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1392562' date='Sep 24 2007, 08:05 PM']We aren't living in Eden or Heaven or other form of Utopia. Humanity isn't about to produce and 'breed' a 'noble caste' that will rule us with benign benovolence. Human society has developed and evolved. We communicate much better, can educate, can share ideas and experiences with others accross the globe. Calling for a de-evolution to an archaic form of rule is pointless and dismissive of human dignity and growth. Bringing this back to the original topic of questioning Political Apathy, and reading what the Catechism says about citizen participation in Govenment along with personal responsibility for Christian Charity, etc., the answer is Political Apathy and shirking our responsibilities for Christian participation in society with Christian morals, is working against making positive changes in society.[/quote]
Again, never made many of these arguments. We still have men of noble blood: the houses of Hapsburg, Bourbon, Windsor, Savoy, etc. The members of these families aren't perfect, and niether are we. No man is perfect, save Christ. But God appointed Kings in the old testament, and man had grand kings in the new. Democracy is not a new form of government; the Republic is quite old as well. Socialism/communism is really the newest form of government, and we've seen where that's brought us.

Do you hold that a monarchy is not a valid form of government? Or just an inherently bad one? If so, do you consider >90% of all governments in history inferior to ours? If this is the case, that would be sheer modernist arrogance.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1392562' date='Sep 24 2007, 08:05 PM']It was Judas that wanted 'Revolution' to overthrow the pagan Roman Government and establish Jesus as King to rule and force the conversion of Judea and the world. Instead, Jesus took the longer view and wants us to convert ourselves, and eventually the people converted the Government. Sadly, the Roman Catholic Church forgot that it's clergy needed to live by the same Christian Principles and allowed itself to be corrupted to the purposes of political power in order to 'control' the masses and keep them more 'Catholic' than Christian. One day, probably, the Church will remeber it's 'grass roots' role, and stop playing politics and work at being spiritually nurishing.[/quote]
Your interpretation of the biblical count is a bit inaccurately; Christ had other plans to begin with, and Revelation tells us that Christ will rule one day as King and High Priest.

And the Church never forgot this; her clergy may have from time to time. Now, it's swung too far in the other direction, with the clergy believing they should live no differently from other men, and do not interpret their vocation as a higher calling.

[adt6247]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1392665' date='Sep 24 2007, 11:22 PM']As I've said before elsewhere, I get rather tired of these Catholic wanna-be "Monarchists" who talk about their lack of any civic involvement as if it's some noble thing.
American citizens have a duty to vote, and good Catholics should vote especially.
All that it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

Those who refuse to vote have no right to complain about the government they get.

I'm sorry, but if all good Catholics simply refuse to vote, it will not somehow cause a Good Catholic Monarch to descend from the heavens.[/quote]
All men have a civic duty. I think we get it mixed up as to what the priority is. After God and our family, our duties are first to our neighbor, our community, then to our nation, then to the world. I don't know when this happened in American culture (or if it were always this way), but we seem to put more emphasis on presidential elections than state elections, and more emphasis on state than municipal. It should be the other way around. With some exceptions (like abortion, etc.) it's better to work on the local level than national for most people. That's where we can work best within our scope, and do the greatest good.

A Catholic, in a democracy or hybridized government with a democratic element, a Catholic is usually obliged to vote, if one feel competent. I don't vote in elections that I did not research first; sometimes when I vote in state elections, there are certain offices I don't vote for, because I don't know anything about the duty of the office or the candidates involved.

Very few monarchists actually believe what you make us out to, particularly thinking Catholic monarchists. Since revolution is by nature wrong, we know we must work within the system to bring about change. That means prayer, activism, voting, etc. In all honesty, however, I think prayer is the only efficacious way most of us can affect national politics; it's still the choice between two terrible candidates for every seat.

[adt6247]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1392919' date='Sep 25 2007, 03:29 PM']ADT6247
Your post does get picked on, but the underlining point is valid. Who gives authority? To address Anomaly’s post the idea of the Church getting authority from Christ makes their authority valid. The gov’t is supposed to get power from us. Rather it is a separate entity living and acting as an authority over us. You are right that the uneducated voting is a serious problem, and your view would have more strength but God has not made a political king for us since the time of the Old Testament. So it is a mute issue. It is funny how people try and assume that the US is God’s country almost trying to declare a sort-of divine right to rule.[/quote]
Of course it gets picked on... most Americans grew up idolizing the founding of our nation. It took me 29 years of my life before I was able to shake that. I don't hold it against others; it's part of our culture at its very core.

God appointed a few kings, but the rest inherited the kingdom from David. Christ argued in the NT that Caeser, a monarch, was a legitimate authority ("render unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." basically stated that Caesar had the right to collect taxes.) Pius IX called monarchy the best of all possible forms of government. It also more correctly images heaven -- heaven is a kingdom, ruled by God. It's hierarchical, and we are due to inherit the kingdom by birthright as men, if only we accept Christ and follow Him and His holy church.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1392919' date='Sep 25 2007, 01:29 PM']Socrates,
I do not consider being politically active with “big government” as strong government that can do its job is a good thing. Strong army, strong economic, transportation, etc, etc. I am not an anarchist. Many of the people who know jack about the issues are the ones who are dependent on the tit of the government for everything. If we are willing to do less, then it is the natural function of the government to step in and assume control in arenas that we are not willing to maintain control.
I never said I refuse to vote. I care about the issues. I don’t care about the nine million political blogs and hours and hours of dialogue about if Hiliary will reform X because even if she was voted it isn’t just her in the power to do it. But instead of people trying to fix X themselves they look to the gov’t to do it for them. The economy is ready to have some serious problems. Issues like unemployment, jobs being overseas, and social security. But instead of people looking to themselves and the fact that this is the first time since the great depression that our country has had a negative savings rate, and we need to take care of ourselves with retirement and stop using credit cards, instead we look to mother Russia, I mean, the US government to fix the problem for us. We look to a celebrity to smile and make it all better like in the movies.[/quote]
I basically agree with you. You'll make a good conservative.

It wasn't totally clear what you were talking about in the first post. When I think "politically apathetic," I think of someone who doesn't vote and who could care less about who's in office or government policies.

I don't think everyone has to be heavily into politics or lobbying, but it's good to have some people heavily pressing for good causes. I think there's different callings.

[quote]In promoting morality it is our duty to vote for a pro-life person. But I will not spend all my efforts in promoting that person, or even pretending that person will do jack about it. I thought Bush was supposed to be a Christian? All that got is us 20 year olds coming home in body bags.[/quote]
I'm not going to get into the whole war issue here, but I still think better Bush than Kerry (or Al Gore). Often politics means averting the greater evil. Fighting abortion will be a slow, incremental process, but if pro-lifers just abandon the political arena altogether, that will ensure their defeat.
I agree that fighting abortion outside the political arena and changing hearts and minds is ultimately more important, and should take higher priority, but the legal/political aspects of the fight should not be abandoned.

[quote]Gay marriage issue. The idea of the gov’t controlling morality scares me because they are not moral. The only end that can have is secular morality, or an ineffective pluralism where you cant say anything to anyone else. You cite that if we stop gay marriage then it should stop them from adopting. 1) not true, right now they still adopt. Singles can adopt. 2.) The gov’t is just as likely to tell us to not adopt because they don’t want kids being brainwashed with Christian principles. I was very active on this issue until Weedman and I spoke. It is an issue of the gov’t and civic rights with people. Those people will continue their lifestyle regardless. It isn’t like there is a group of people waiting in the closet to be married. Divorce rate is 50% anyway. Who cares if they get to use each others medical benefits.(chuck and larry is a great movie btw) is uneducated people who can be moved to tears by an emotional speech to make the voting process worthless.[/quote]
I know this is adressed to Joey but I strongly disagree.

It puzzles and saddens me how many "good Catholics" on phatmass seem opposed to any sort of efforts to restrict homosexual "marriages" or "civil unions."
People seem to buy into the whole left-wing fear tactic that the state not awarding legal benefits to homosexuals somehow means granting the state scary new powers, or threatens imposing a tyrannical "theocracy."
That is complete and total b.s. This is actually simply preventing the state from rewarding and sanctioning an immoral behavior with privileges which have never previously been awarded to it.

I don't think outlawing homosexual "marriage" will make people "stop being gay" or any such nonsense, but I do not think the state should officially give legal recognition and benefits to sexual perversion. The state should not officially sanction immorality. I don't buy the absurd liberal notion that law and morality must be totally divorced from one another. Unfortunately, it seems even a lot of people considering themselves "Catholic" have bought into that carp.
Government and law can't "force people to be moral", but they need not publicly legitimize and reward immorality.
And it is my right (and yours) as a citizen to have a say in this. When I voted last, I voted for the marriage protection amendment to the state constitution. I will not vote for political candidates in favor of "gay marriage." It's really that simple.