R.C Archbishop warns of totalitarian system

this thread is about Governments that will throw you into prison or tax you into poverty or just shoot you in the head if you do not do what they say
making comparisons to a voluntary organization (like a Church) is just kind of odd

brewmama said:

They HAVE the "freedom to do what they want"! Just not do it and remain Catholic, as it has been since apostolic times.

Click to expand...

Uh, no. I suspect that what she was referring to was more along the lines of currently-illegal drugs, same-sex unions, keeping property you own even if the Feds really want it, etc. This is a discussion about a totalitarian state, not the rules of the Catholic Church.

MikeK said:

Uh, no. I suspect that what she was referring to was more along the lines of currently-illegal drugs, same-sex unions, keeping property you own even if the Feds really want it, etc. This is a discussion about a totalitarian state, not the rules of the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

Maybe it started out that way...Have you even read the thread?

MikeK said:

Uh, no. I suspect that what she was referring to was more along the lines of currently-illegal drugs, same-sex unions, keeping property you own even if the Feds really want it, etc. This is a discussion about a totalitarian state, not the rules of the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

Fantine brought up the topics of collegiality and the proper place of the voice of the faithful in the Church

so the topics are kind of blurring

I agree with you, we should talk about totalitarian states, topics about the structure of the Church can be in other threads

I think the Archbishop was right on, that's the way it has progressed in other places.

brewmama said:

I think the Archbishop was right on, that's the way it has progressed in other places.

Click to expand...

Yes, like the Tea Party movement.

MikeK said:

Yes, like the Tea Party movement.

Click to expand...

you are just talking nonsense Mike
the tea party is not totalitarian in nature
if anything, it has too strong of a Libertarian element to it

Rhamiel said:

you are just talking nonsense Mike
the tea party is not totalitarian in nature
if anything, it has too strong of a Libertarian element to it

Click to expand...

Same sex marriage. Drug legalization. Eminent Domein. Increased domestic police spending. Increased surveillance on citizens. You can argue that their rivals are also totalitarian, but you can't argue that most in the Tea Party favor a very strong and large government that places strict controls on its citizens.

MikeK said:

Same sex marriage. Drug legalization. Eminent Domein. Increased domestic police spending. Increased surveillance on citizens. You can argue that their rivals are also totalitarian, but you can't argue that most in the Tea Party favor a very strong and large government that places strict controls on its citizens.

Click to expand...

but it's not a global threat, so your comparison is moot.

MikeK said:

but you can't argue that most in the Tea Party favor a very strong and large government that places strict controls on its citizens.

Click to expand...

most of the Tea Party members who I have spoken too have talked on issues such as
less government regulations
getting Big Business out of Government, getting rid of the lobbyists
promoting religious freedom
national defense

so other then being pro-national defense
something that Libertarians are sometimes a little weak on
they seemed in favor of SMALLER government
and LESS control

unless you have any specific examples?

MikeK said:

Same sex marriage. Drug legalization. Eminent Domein. Increased domestic police spending. Increased surveillance on citizens. You can argue that their rivals are also totalitarian, but you can't argue that most in the Tea Party favor a very strong and large government that places strict controls on its citizens.

Click to expand...

Amazing how these things which have ALWAYS been illegal (drugs, SSM) no matter what party was in power are now suddenly a harbinger of a response of a totalitarian government in your book. So are you saying we have always been under this very threatening totalitarian government that was against these things?

You obviously know very few actual facts about the Tea Party.

brewmama said:

Amazing how these things which have ALWAYS been illegal (drugs, SSM) no matter what party was in power are now suddenly a harbinger of a response of a totalitarian government in your book.

Click to expand...

I named 5 things and you selected two to comment on, one of which you are correct on (that ssm has always been illegal, or at least not practiced) and the other (drugs) you are wrong on. Would you like to address the other 3?

So are you saying we have always been under this very threatening totalitarian government that was against these things?

Click to expand...

No I am saying the precise words that I typed, that you elected to not address directly and individually.

You obviously know very few actual facts about the Tea Party.

Click to expand...

Then educate me. Show me how /most/ leaders in the movement want to sweepingly ban EmDom. Show me how most TPers are calling for demilitarization of the police and reductions on the Government's ability to eavesdrop on people. These were things that traditional conservatives and libertarians were vocal about when I was young - these and other reasons are why they loathed the centrist, big-government Reagan.

Note the "mosts", address them directly if you can.

MikeK said:

I named 5 things and you selected two to comment on, one of which you are correct on (that ssm has always been illegal, or at least not practiced) and the other (drugs) you are wrong on. Would you like to address the other 3?

No I am saying the precise words that I typed, that you elected to not address directly and individually.

Then educate me. Show me how /most/ leaders in the movement want to sweepingly ban EmDom. Show me how most TPers are calling for demilitarization of the police and reductions on the Government's ability to eavesdrop on people. These were things that traditional conservatives and libertarians were vocal about when I was young - these and other reasons are why they loathed the centrist, big-government Reagan.

Note the "mosts", address them directly if you can.

Click to expand...

Your understanding is so lacking that you actually believe there are "leaders" in the tea party, calling for things. There are not really. The movement is made up of people who were never very political before and have gotten involved because of the vast negative changes and usurpation of power they see before them.

Meanwhile, you claim that "Same sex marriage. Drug legalization. Eminent Domein. Increased domestic police spending. Increased surveillance on citizens. You can argue that their rivals are also totalitarian, but you can't argue that most in the Tea Party favor a very strong and large government that places strict controls on its citizens."

You are the one who should provide proof of what you claim. Everything I read from the Tea Party is exactly the opposite of what you claim. Rhamiel had it right in his comments.

And drugs have been illegal for a long time, since the 30's at least, which was under a favored Democrat, so again, tell us how a reaction to SSM and drug use is now an indicator of a "very strong and large government that places strict controls on its citizens" as something new.

As for eminent domain, I don't know why you keep harping on it. That has been seen as a problem since 2005 when the liberal judges ruled in favor of the government in New London, Conn. Where do you see the Tea Party taking a stand on it?

Many people who identify with the goals of the Tea Party movement also identify with libertarianism.
There are certainly differences between the two movements, but they are hardly mutually exclusive either.

The only reason that libertarians have become identified much more with the right than with the left is because the left is an advocate of big government for social change and the social justice agenda through big government, and therefore through government spending.
These are things that libertarians are against much more than even social conservatives, who are much more associated with the Tea party movement than any other group.

On SSM, the left is an advocate of this, and on government enforcing this too, on the grounds of 'social justice' and 'social change' agenda. Social conservatives are for traditional marriage being the law of the land, as it has been since before recorded history, and libertarians tend to be against there being any laws at all in regards to adult sexual behavior.

It is never a neat and easy picture when it comes to differentiating between the political alliances that develop between different groups with different tendencies. Those who tend to be social conservatives will see a need for government to control the problems that arise with increased drug use, but legalization of drugs have always been a mainstay of libertarianism, who believe in giving people enough rope to hang themselves, if that is what the individual wants. The left in more recent years see legalization of drugs as a way to strengthen their ties with the youth Identity group, and do not have a problem with the libertarian cause here against their most loathed foe, religious right.

As far as traditional Catholic teaching goes, what enslaves us into a totalitarian system is sin, and sin alone. The message of the bishop discussed is easy enough to understand, if one has any understanding of Catholicism at all.
The increased licentiousness that comes from poor catechizing on the difference between freedom and license is what will enslave people to a totalitarian system. License is the opposite of freedom. Anyone who becomes addicted to either the pleasures of the flesh or the pleasures of recreational drugs understands fully how enslaved they are, how total thant enslavement is, but the wisdom derived from carnal knowledge always, always, always comes too, too late. Carnal knowledge etches itself permanently into the psyche, and people may come to regret and repent, and even resist, but the thirst and the tendencies remain with them forever. The blood of Christ is our garment that covers our sin and makes us presentable for the Wedding Feast, but it does not erase our sinful tendencies that remain beneath the pristine whiteness of that garment.

Catholicism has never been an advocate of a society allowing license in the name of freedom, but that doesn't stop Catholics from labeling those who stand against licentious lifestyle as being totalitarians.

The truth of course is the exact opposite. The more that the pleasures of the flesh are legalized and normalized, the more that people will become caught in their traps, forever. Giving people enough rope to hang themselves is therefore an accurate description of those who advocate for such things.

Tea party movement is not an anarchist movement. That of course hardly makes it totalitarian in nature. Its call is for less government interference in almost all aspects of government, not more.

brewmama said:

They HAVE the "freedom to do what they want"! Just not do it and remain Catholic, as it has been since apostolic times.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about ONLY Catholics, though. For example, look at the neocon reaction to CIVIL same sex marriage.

How can you lionise abstractions like freedom and liberty on one hand, but seek to deny people the ability to marry who they want on the other? Any number of similar issues.

Armoured said:

I'm not talking about ONLY Catholics, though. For example, look at the neocon reaction to CIVIL same sex marriage.

How can you lionise abstractions like freedom and liberty on one hand, but seek to deny people the ability to marry who they want on the other? Any number of similar issues.

Click to expand...

forcing recognition of same sex marriage goes against the natural law
those unions are not true marriages so treating them as such is an injustice

here is a quote from Martin Luther King Jr.
One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

Rhamiel said:

forcing recognition of same sex marriage goes against the natural law
those unions are not true marriages so treating them as such is an injustice

here is a quote from Martin Luther King Jr.
One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

Click to expand...

That's pretty much what all people say when they're defending totalitarian positions. There's always good reason for their restrictions of freedom.

Armoured said:

I'm not talking about ONLY Catholics, though. For example, look at the neocon reaction to CIVIL same sex marriage.

How can you lionise abstractions like freedom and liberty on one hand, but seek to deny people the ability to marry who they want on the other? Any number of similar issues.

Click to expand...

Please give us some examples of "neocon reaction to civil ssm" and how it differs from the majority of all religions on earth in regards to ssm, and how protesting the redefinition of a cultural institution as old as mankind is totalitarian. Are you trying to disagree with the Archbishop?