I Am Politically Apathetic

[Socrates]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1392952' date='Sep 25 2007, 02:31 PM']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.[/quote]
If you'd read my post, you'd notice it was addressed to Kafka, not to you, and was in answer to his statement that he had never voted.
I didn't say that you or that all monarchists refuse to vote, but I have seen some both on phatmass and elsewhere take this stance, claiming that they refuse to participate in any way with the evil democratic process.

I agree with you about putting the local first (though I myself fail miserably at keeping up with local politics/issues). But unfortunately, the federal government being big as its gotten, national politics effects us all, so who is President is not unimportant.

Anyway, if you want to debate Monarchy vs. Democracy, please continue in another thread. It's not that no one wants to discuss it, but highjacking a thread to discuss one's own pet issues is bad form, especially after you were specifically asked not to.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1392919' date='Sep 25 2007, 02:29 PM']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.

...

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?[/quote]

First, I'm not trying to "pigeon hole" you. I'm registered with the Republican Party, because I sympathize with more Republican ideals than I do Democratic ones. Just because I'm a Republican, doesn't mean I agree 100% with the things Republicans say. I called you libertarian (and others did, too), because what you were saying is the mantra of libertarians. The second reason why I called you a libertarian was because your self-proclaimed title of "apathetic" was misleading. I was trying to come up with a better descriptor. You said it yourself that you want think the secular powers should be in charge of wars, militias, foreign policy, roads, economics, health care, etc. (You had a caviat about people relying on the government too much because of these things, which is a noteworthy point.) If one cares about the roads we drive on, the taxes we pay, etc., etc., then one should know the candidates they elect who make decisions about this. And, I absolutely agree that the best way to influence politics in a democracy is by influencing the people. But, I would ask you to what end? If you don't know who would be the best candidate to have them vote for, how can you influence them properly? This requires a person becoming a little bit of an expert on politics, on issues and how our government works. You ask me why I would work so hard at learning our system of government and the politicians that exist in when it is so flawed. I learn and will attempt to act according, because it is so flawed. Because, it is so complicated and deluded and controlled that I want to know the real issues. The real reasons why people do what they do. Our politics is about compromise. I want to know who is making the right compromises and who is throwing away the principles they supposedly support for more political favor. I want to know who is capable of leading. I want to know who follows through on promises. And, if I know these things, I'll have the best odds of voting for someone who will make changes in the direction I want them to go. I will know what to say to people in order to influence them. Does that make any sense?

[adt6247]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1393111' date='Sep 25 2007, 11:41 PM']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.[/quote]
I'll have to agree wholeheartedly with you hear. In a way, making something legal is an endorsement of that behavior. I read a year or so ago about a woman in Germany who had her unemployment insurance cut off from her because she refused to accept a job at a brothel. The judge ruled that she had no right to turn down such a job based on morality, because prostitution was legal in Germany, and thus, the government deemed it moral. More people think of abortion as a moral option today. If you allow something under law, in a way, you endorse it, and remove social stigmas against it.

It's true that we cannot outlaw every vice -- nor should we try. However, some things, like gay "marriage" aren't outlawed, they just aren't legally allowed, because the law doesn't recognize that they exist. In my more libertarian days, I would have argued that marriage shouldn't be recognized by the government, and should be implemented through contract law. I don't know how I feel about that any more.

[N/A Gone]

'Socrates'


[quote]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.[/quote]

apathy can come from a lack of faith in the process. I have an extreme lack of faith for the process of deciding who runs, the way they "promote" and "attack" the other person, the celebrity the people have and then the way that not only does your vote not matter because political ads are focused on idiots, but also the person voted often times does not have the power you would imagine they have to do what you voted them to do in the first place.


[quote]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]

No, I agree. My issue is when the focus is on the political aspect rather than the private arena. Which is strongly the case in the evangelical world.


[quote]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."[/quote]

Since when am I a "good catholic"?


[quote]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.[/quote]

I have made the argument that if the issue is adoption being restricted towards one world view, it would be restricted towards others. ala christians. But I have never made the argument you are making above.

[quote]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.[/quote]

My issue is whether or not the state allows benefits will not change the people and their lifestyle. The issue isnt if homosexuality is legal, it is whether they are able to partake in the civic benefits of marriage. If the civic party wants to grant civic paperwork I could really give a jack. The state represents the needs of the people, it is not its duty as a secular thing to regulate our morality. A sacramental marriage is not something the state has the power to grant, so the issue is mute to me.



Joey

Why would you align yourself with a party? The party system is one of the biggest if not the biggest problem with our political process.

Also, you cite it is important to "know" the candidates. But I would argue that we can not really know the person based on what is available in the media. We know the created persona that they have to appeal to people. Politics is nothing more than a popularity contest most of the time.

[SarahB]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1393424' date='Sep 26 2007, 12:30 PM']Why would you align yourself with a party? The party system is one of the biggest if not the biggest problem with our political process.

Also, you cite it is important to "know" the candidates. But I would argue that we can not really know the person based on what is available in the media. We know the created persona that they have to appeal to people. Politics is nothing more than a popularity contest most of the time.[/quote]

I know you were talking to Joey, but I thought I'd chime in. I was a registered Republican for a long time because they were the lesser of the two evils. As a Christian, I realized that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, and I couldn't do that. And then I started to get disgusted with them and I was set to register as an Independant and try to find someone decent to vote for. And then a friend of mine introducted me to the Constitution Party. They have a platform that I could get behind and canidates I can believe in. At least on the state level, I personally know the candidates that we've put up in the last few elections, and I feel comfortable voting for them because I know their character, etc.

And you're right, the [b]TWO[/b] Party system is the biggest problem in our political system. It's darn near impossible for anyone with any actualy ideas to get on the ballot, especially on the nation level.

And it is hard to get through the media persona of the major candidates. But there is also their record to look at, which can give us a lot of insight into the things they actually believe. Most people don't look at the record though. They just go on what the person is saying and measure it up against what the others are saying.

[dairygirl4u2c]

rev's arguments appear to evolve. his latest argument, as his earlier ones are shot down (or appear to be as he's not clear), now he says it's a popularity contest, and i assume a difference as he says between dwiddle dee and dum. but, this is not the case. if bush were elected he'd allow for restricting social security, whereas gore would veto it. just for example.

most things, the bottomline, will reflect public sentiment in due time. so it's almost a matter of waiting and not getting caught up as it's pointless. almost. the sooner hte laws change to the right though, the better. you can't ignore that.


it'd be nice if rev would make a statement of exactly what's he apathetic to and why, cause he's all over the place. if hes formulating his argument, he can just say it's the best he can do right now

Edited September 26, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[N/A Gone]

i do not think I am all over the board. You are just having problems putting me in a box.

least you are not calling me coptic this time.

[dairygirl4u2c]

sure you can go ahead and tell yourself that

i notice you didn't state your position with the reasons....

[quote]My issue is when the focus is on the political aspect rather than the private arena. Which is strongly the case in the evangelical world.[/quote]

you did say that. which appears to be different than you said before. most people agree with this for the most part.
it's hard to tell if what the debate is about. if you'd define yourself better we could know.

you can tell me to go back and read what you wrote and cop out, or you can actually do it. if it's so hard that only means you don't know your position very well. and are probably just deluding yourself. everyone here can see it but you.


i have a feeling you don't even disagree with the general sentiment being put out about apathy. you're just blowig hot air, cause you started a thread taking on more than you should have, and now you have to back down a bit, ony to realize you're on the same plane as everyone else.

Edited September 26, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[N/A Gone]

No,

but the personal attacks are always appreciated. Having a bad day and thought you would take it out on a message board?

[dairygirl4u2c]

yeah a little


[quote]I care about the issues, but not a jack for the system and the gov't.[/quote]
you said that, but now you say it's about the level of focus between private and political pursuits.

it seems like right now you're not arguing your initial points but getting sidetracked on specific points, like you don't care if there's civil unions. etc but if the government is doing something you do care about, then it's about focus and priorities.
instead of arguing about the quote i just quoted.

basically, you agree with others about apathy. you disagree with many speicfic arguments. you're no different than anyone else even though you made yourself out to be.

[N/A Gone]

Oh, sorry. I get it now. I thought you were just being a jerk. I was gonna google bomb you or something.

Personally, I think the system is corrupt. It will always aim for its own secular good and power. That being said, I still vote because to not vote is to feed into the problem of the system. Being that my one positive vote will make one idiot's vote worthless.

The problem with private/political is often times we spend so much energy in the political when that tool isnt what we should be using, rather the private arena and ability as a counter culture to influence other cultures. Many people view the gov't as the tool to do anything and that is wrong.

It isnt that I use the gov't when I want and ignore it when I dont want. I think that a secular civic body should take care of secular civic things. ala speed limits. That is where they should be. Now, in the perfect situation we would be able to have legit dialogue and morality would be taught from that. Instead of needing a secular body to inforce morals. Perhaps it is how dependant on that civic body we have become that we can not recognize abortion as wrong because it is allowed by that civic body?

To not vote pro-life hurts the issue. So I do vote in the hope that all the pro-abortion people forget how to read or something. Or that maybe a vote count can influence the minds of those making the choices. But I do not consider that vote as a tool to directly get done what we need to get done. I have no faith in the elected people to get done what we need in terms of morality. I have faith in them to do what they need to do to stay in office and if we influence enough in the private arena perhaps we can influence that person to act in order to stay in office. But, if the system worked we wouldnt be seeing 20 year olds in body bags and infants in the dumpster.

So political candidtate argument is nothing more than debating entertainment or sports teams I feel. The process is just too flawed.

Did I make a lil more sense dairygirl? If not ask specifics please.

[N/A Gone]

About the libertarian thing. Because I do strongly disagree with that.

If a libertarian is someone who simply believes in free will, limited govt control and utilizing individual rights than most people would be libertarian. But Libertarians often consider a person free to do whatever they want with persons or property. Often times libertarians are just anarchists. That is even its historical context. I do believe in the idea of self-ownership. Isn't Ron Paul seen as a libertarian? Even running for the party in 88? Libertarians are very self-focused, they do not seem to have a social context. Just an individual almost autonomy. They do not want the gov't to prevent drugs, prostitution. Even if most view it as wrong, they don't want the gov't to legislate that. Even among libertarians you still have a left/and right. It is still a political party, and it still does not express what I want. It is still playing the system, focused against the "machine" and they never talk about moral issues. Rather leave me in my bubble and leave me alone. I do not agree with that by any means.

The focus of a christian should be on the good of the body of Christ. That seems to be the opposite of what a libertarian would do. The closest thing I could see to a christian libertarian would be the same christians that believe that christ was anti-authority and it would be hard to be catholic and hold that worldview.

[thessalonian]

I don't really care if your apathetic.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1393580' date='Sep 26 2007, 03:58 PM']I don't really care if [b]you're[/b][u][/u] apathetic. [/quote]

Not that I care about your grammer, but there could be kids reading.











*sex*----hehe, ok, now the kids reading will need to go ask their parents about it and that will be fun.

[thessalonian]

who cares.