I Am Politically Apathetic

[N/A Gone]

You do not need to make it pretty. The best theological teacher I ever had taught concepts with stick figures.
heck, email it to me if you dont think it is pretty

[Aloysius]

well, the problem is I can't get it to look the way it did when I drew it on paper, in a way that affects its substance not only its aesthetics.

but I do fear you've made too much of a build up and will be wildly disappointed, it doesn't say much new. It's me toying around with the medieval Shield of Faith from various eastern and patristic angles.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1392919' date='Sep 25 2007, 01:29 PM']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.[/quote]

Maybe I didn't say it very well because I agree completely with you on this. I personally believe in voting for the issues, not people or parties. Which is why I said that it makes me uncomfortable to vote for someone I don't completely agree with. But as I said, I doubt there will ever be a "perfect" candidate, not as long as we aren't a Catholic nation, or even a Christian one. Which is why I think it important to do what we can to vote for the best candidate we can, even if (s)he has problematic positions on certain things. I have felt, at least at long as I have been alive, that none of the big-party candidates have been the best candidates. I think its ridiculous that the Republican and Democratic parties have taken such a monopoly on the elections that no other candidate has a shot in the dark to win. I think that seriously has to change, but that's where the money is and money has a lot of power in regards to these things. Taking this into consideration, I think even though its unsavory, voting for a candidate of a party who in each specific instance is "better" than the only other viable alternative, is the best we can do right now (at least until this trend changes), ALONGSIDE working in the private sector to change the common opinion on certain matters. I think voting AND praying outside abortion clinics go hand in hand. They are both simple and easy things we can do, certainly not outside our ability.

I didn't want to make this post out to look as a support for a specific party. I am disgusted (and I don't think it too strong a word) by both the Democrat and Republican parties. I think there are serious problems on both sides. I don't think the Republican party, as a party, is nearly as supportive of pro-life issues as they make themselves out to be. But I think, as a general rule, the candidates that come out of the Republican party are generally better in this regard than the Dems. Does this make it okay? No, I think they becoming increasingly more left every day and supporting this movement by arguing that "at least they are still better than the far left." Maybe so, but this line between left and right, in the two major parties, is becoming increasingly blurred. But I think we need to consider who are the only "viable" options, who have a realistic chance of being elected, and make our decision from there. I would like to vote for people who have no shot, as I agree better with their positions, but in reality this doesn't accomplish anything. As Fr. Jone says we need to do our part, even if its just to try and keep the worst of the options out of office. This may result in a less than desirable option obtaining the presidency, but its better than the alternative.

Now, of course, there could come a time when all of the "viable" options are so evil that none of them would be better than another. A time where none of the possible winners have any regard for life issues of any kind (and yes I do use this as the measuring stick in this regard as I believe its the most important issue). When this time comes, I think it would be okay not to vote, or to vote for someone who has no shot of being elected. I think as long as this country allows people to believe just whatever they want and to print just whatever they want, and as long as there is a monopoly on elections by only one or two parties, that we will always have the difficulties you describe, and we just have to do what we can given the situation.

Edited September 27, 2007 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1392919' date='Sep 25 2007, 01:29 PM']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.[/quote]
Very true

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1393534' date='Sep 26 2007, 03:17 PM']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.[/quote]

Libertarian and authoritarianism are like conservative and liberal. They exist on a spectrum. I am decently libertarian and moderately conservative. That doesn't mean I like prostitution, drugs and public nudity. It means I'm not huge on lots of restrictions on business and trade. Small government usually is better. The only thing that keeps me "moderate" on these things is that I'm not convinced charities are capable of doing consistent, significant good. They usually are short on money and short on people (mostly, however, the money). Government has the ability to levy taxes. Taxes can generate a HUGE amount of money. This can fund things that charoties cannot. If there wasn't a problem of money, I think private institutions, including charoties, should always be in charge of the stuff governement currently is. I think there should be government oversight to make sure that these entities stay legal, ethical, etc., but other than that no government involvement. However, until such a time as things become affordable (as with the mail), the government should levy taxes to aid those who really need help. I'm hoping an explanation on where I stand will help you understand libertarianism.

[N/A Gone]

We can hug it out saturday Fluff

[Socrates]

[quote name='zdog042' post='1393923' date='Sep 26 2007, 10:54 PM']And finally, gay marriage. This is what it comes down to - are we going to recognize marriages done by the state? As Christians, if the only marriages that matter are the ones that are sanctioned by the Church and blessed by God, then any marriage done outside of the bounds of the Church don't matter and are merely done for emotional and financial reasons. If we can discount marriages done by Justices of the Peace, then who cares about homosexual marriage, because it wouldn't matter to us anyway! However, if they do matter in our thoughts of who is married and who is not, then gay marriage becomes an issue.[/quote]
Okay, continuing the hijack . . .

The issue here isn't whether we as Catholics or Christians recognize civil marriages, but about the state recognizing homosexual sodomy as being equal to marriage.

Even before marriage became a Christian sacrament, marriage existed as a natural institution between man and woman. Anything other than that is not a marriage, period.
Yes, I believe that Christians should be married in the Church, and yes, I realize that civil marriages can easily be abused, but none of that means the state must recognize homosexual "marriages" or "unions" if it recognizes civil marriages between man and woman.
The state gives benefits to married couples (whether married in the Church or civily) because marriage between man and woman is the natural foundation of society. Homosexual "relationships" are not, and there is no reason for the state to treat them as if they were.
I realize you're not Catholic, but I'd still recommend reading over that quote from the Pope I provided im my previous post, and reflecting on it.

There is no reason for the state to give special legal recognition and benefits for homosexual sodomy.
You're logic here is a little like saying, "Who cares if our government funds abortions, because so long as we good Christians aren't getting abortions, it shouldn't matter to us anyway!"

I've argued this many times before on here, so you might want to run a search on the topic to see the argument in more depth. Anyway it saddens and disheartens me how many here are against the idea of opposing "gay marriage" and such.
This is exactly this sort of apathy on the part of Christians that allows the godless Left's agenda to keep pressing forward.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='SarahB' post='1393942' date='Sep 27 2007, 12:14 AM']Haha, no way. I'm actually the Secreatary of our Allegheny Co chapter and for the southwest region of PA. And we just had our State meeting and the Secreaary was sick so the State Chariman asked me to step in. It's pretty cool being so young and being able to be that involved.

I've never heard of being able to be registered with two parties. Will you be voting for Ron Paul in the primary?[/quote]

I usually don't vote in the Constitution Party primaries. I only vote for the Constitution Party when it looks like a clear winner between Republican and Democrat. I understand the importance of 3rd party votes, but when it's so close I usually want to be part of the deciding measure between the 2 big parties.

[SarahB]

Well, Ron Paul is still running as a Republican. It's possible he'll run on our ticket when he doesn't get the Republican nomination, but that reamins to be seen. But as of now, he's on the Republican ticket.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1394067' date='Sep 27 2007, 11:45 AM']We cant swear. So when we want to dig it deep we just make a reference to Budge. Thats great.

I do not see my argument as straw man. This discussion has helped me flesh out some things, but it still leaves me with the sick sense with politics and with people who debate the show. It is almost as if politics has become our "circus" to distract us from everything else.

So the straw-man, or the contridiction accusations are nice. But if I am still apathetic to the process and the system what does it matter? This is not something where we are seeking an absolute truth so there is no standard to judge it by. I extremly dislike politics, and even more so the process of it. Ok...what does it matter? Why should I ever get excited about it?[/quote]

Careful not to confuse "playing politics" with political governement.

There are many politicians who play politics, but few statesman.

They with say want they think the other wants to hear and sell out on some of the things they claim that they are for, so that a bigger agenda item on their list can be completed.

A statesman will stick to his guns, you'll get the same story from him no matter who he's talking to.

Playing Politics is everwhere... government, school, work, in many people's homes.

Playing Politics by nature is evil because it's intent is to deceive to get what we want... lead the other to believe you to be a friend... it's playing people.

Telling "white" lies (as if there was such a thing) is playing politics.

A man that is campaigning and says the same thing no matter where he goes or who he talks to, is a statesman and is not playing politics.

[The Joey-O]

Why not be politically apathetic? In the late '80s there was a time when Evangelicals got political. They made a little headway, then fizzled. Why'd they fizzle? Because Pat Robertson was at the helm.

Catholics need to do this. I think its possible for our generation of Catholics, once we're good and old, to do what the Evangelicals did but with more stamina. I think we're better catechized than many generations previous. Also, I think this could lead to some internal strengthening amongst our ranks. Additionally, I think this rejuvination could be utilized to create some political sway with our sheer numbers (there are a lot of Catholics). It should be used for a LOT more things than politics, but politics should be included.

I think teaming up with like-minded Christians would be really useful as well, but I'm wary of another Pat Robertson coming along.

So, that's why I'm not politically apathetic. And, that's why I think you shouldn't be either (in addition to what I've said before).

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='SarahB' post='1394558' date='Sep 27 2007, 11:09 PM']Well, Ron Paul is still running as a Republican. It's possible he'll run on our ticket when he doesn't get the Republican nomination, but that reamins to be seen. But as of now, he's on the Republican ticket.[/quote]

I get a newsletter from my state Constitution Party. They talk about him like he was a Constitution party member, so I assumed he was.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1394573' date='Sep 27 2007, 11:22 PM']Why not be politically apathetic? In the late '80s there was a time when Evangelicals got political. They made a little headway, then fizzled. Why'd they fizzle? Because Pat Robertson was at the helm.

Catholics need to do this. I think its possible for our generation of Catholics, once we're good and old, to do what the Evangelicals did but with more stamina. I think we're better catechized than many generations previous. Also, I think this could lead to some internal strengthening amongst our ranks. Additionally, I think this rejuvination could be utilized to create some political sway with our sheer numbers (there are a lot of Catholics). It should be used for a LOT more things than politics, but politics should be included.

I think teaming up with like-minded Christians would be really useful as well, but I'm wary of another Pat Robertson coming along.

So, that's why I'm not politically apathetic. And, that's why I think you shouldn't be either (in addition to what I've said before).[/quote]


According to many evangelicals it has become a cancer. There are books now about the evangelicals trying to stay out of politics.

So it hurt them.

[SarahB]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1394576' date='Sep 27 2007, 11:24 PM']I get a newsletter from my state Constitution Party. They talk about him like he was a Constitution party member, so I assumed he was.[/quote]

No, we're just supporting him because of his strong stance on the Constitution.

[XIX]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1393776' date='Sep 26 2007, 09:59 PM']You're talking Budge-talk here.[/quote]
Look...the rest of your posts have a lot of valid points, but comments like these are so uncalled for as to render the rest of your opinion impossible to take seriously. Perhaps I would be able to overlook this if it were a fluke, but I have come to expect such comments out of you when somebody disagrees with you on politics. It is completely unnecessary to sling mud at your opponents, and it's things like that that can drag the mood of the whole phorum down.