Can a Catholic be a democrat?

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

Really, the government loves the poor?

I didn't see dead bodies in the streets in the 1950s, before the welfare state, dying of hunger and such. In fact, I see more dead from our government intervention.

You were alive in the 1950s???

 

[geocajun]

Brethren,
Please understand that I ask this honestly. I was thinking about this the other day, and I began wondering how the two can coalesce, since in order to be a Catholic in good standing, one needs to uphold some very basic Catholic principles, including;

1. Pro-Life
2. Pro Family values
3. Against Gay-Marriage
4. Against Contraception
5. Pro-tradition (since our Church was founded on tradition)
6. Against embryonic Stem-Cell/Cloning research
6. For prayer in school


Assuming that someone upholds all of the above, I was curious what belief system would outweigh the above principles in defining one as democrat rather than republican. Is it the democratic principle of greater government control (e.g., progressive tax on the rich to help the poor, universal health care, etc.)? I know there must be other things that I am forgetting at the moment.

Or, perhaps I am thinking about this the wrong way. Maybe the reason why some Catholics are democrats is because they are seeking to reform and improve the party from within?

-Davide

somehow some folks have managed to be pro-abortion republicans.. I guess it can happen that folks aren't required to 'tow the party line' even if they claim membership within a certain party? I think the mere question raised here is asserting that "group-think" is a requirement of political party adherence and that is not true. This isn't religion we're talking about when it comes to careful conformity to party beliefs.

I believe my own thinking is more inline with democrats than any other party on a lot of issues (naturally not any prolife issue), and in the upcoming election I feel strongly enough about the need for universal health care that it may sway my vote.
These false dilemmas presented such as "Can a catholic be a democrat?!?" are not getting us anywhere.

 

[Miss Shelby]

I'm starting to believe that a Catholic can't even be an American in good conscience anymore. And it's quite depressing.

 

[MikeK]

I didn't see dead bodies in the streets in the 1950s, before the welfare state, dying of hunger and such.

As stupid Gibbon beat me to, I doubt very much that you saw anything in the 1950s. The 1950s were a unique time when the US was thriving. I find it interesting that you didn't mention the 1930s instead - where the federal, state and municipal government most certainly was helping out starving people by the millions. People were being paid to do jobs that sometimes but not always benefitted the government. For every Hoover Dam there was a "let's re-pave a road that we paved last year" program. There were handouts, bailouts, federaly funded soup kitchens, etc. Why did you choose to speak of a decade that was so unique that we will never be able to recreate it without first winning a global war?

 

[WarriorAngel]

If Christians can start giving more to the Church and actually start participating in helping the poor, and giving to Charity, and working with the poor, then we will talk. But, people are too unwilling to do such these days. Therefore, until we can get more people to do such, we need the government to help.

The interesting aspect is, once the government is giving welfare, Christians don't help one another as much.
I am sure the government made ppl lazy in some respects.

Back in the day b4 they could run to a hand out, they would look for work.

Welfare is ok when it is not abused, and a family needs short term help, but becoming a career welfare recipient teaches the lazy to be dependent upon others who are out working.
Cos ya know..its not the governments money, its the workers money they are enabling some ppl to sit at home with.

That is the problem with government, they take the money from middle class workers to hand it out to the lower class who do not intend to find work since food and money is handed to them.

YES...I know enough to say this with absolute certainty.
They laugh at the system.

I guess I might as well since I'm 20

"Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain."

...Except that he didn't actually say that, it was Francois Guizot, but its always been misattributed to Churchill. I wouldn't say it's an overly accurate assessment.

Sounds about right...I used to be democrat.

As stupid Gibbon beat me to, I doubt very much that you saw anything in the 1950s. The 1950s were a unique time when the US was thriving. I find it interesting that you didn't mention the 1930s instead - where the federal, state and municipal government most certainly was helping out starving people by the millions. People were being paid to do jobs that sometimes but not always benefitted the government. For every Hoover Dam there was a "let's re-pave a road that we paved last year" program. There were handouts, bailouts, federaly funded soup kitchens, etc. Why did you choose to speak of a decade that was so unique that we will never be able to recreate it without first winning a global war?

Thriving?
Really?
What about the Korean war?

Anyway, when ppl got used to the idea that 'other ppl would work for them' they quit trying and sat at home.

I knew this one guy who 'refused' to get off welfare unless he got a job paying more than minimum wage.

Well, he found a sales job, but he got paid under the table...sooooo he still maintained welfare while doing the sales job.

Yea...ok.

People do not realise that in scriptures we are told not to eat another man's bread...to work for our food.
And we are told to be the ones to share that bread... if we see any hungry.

Sadly, we are forced to pay higher taxation for those who could work, but wont. And we enable them to become career welfare recipients.

In the 90's Congress came up with welfare reform...that Clinton finally signed. Who got the kudos...?

However; ppl have found ways around that system too.

 

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

Well, yeah, that is the debate that all first world nations should be having - how do we stop people from playing the system, and yes I know plenty of people who do it over here too, it's really very easy to do - while simultaneously making sure that genuinely needy people don't fall through the cracks.

There are probably ways we could make the welfare system more efficient. I think it's telling what Mike said about the public works that didn't actually help the public. Same basic idea as the workhouse really, makes sure people are actually working for their money so they'll be less inclined to slip into dependency on handouts. Maybe we could make the unemployed do some government-run menial work to qualify for benefits?

Then that's counteracted with the amount of people (at least over here) who claim incapacity benefit, not necessarily fraudulently, but certainly there are a hell'va lot of people who are being paid for by the taxpayer when in all honesty they could hold down some kind of job if they put their mind to it.

 

[MikeK]

Thriving?
Really?
What about the Korean war?

Yes.
Yes.
What about it?

 

[Skripper]

If the Democratic Party was the party it was, say, 50 years ago, I'd be a Democrat. Because I actually do agree with them on a wide array of issues, generally speaking. It's just that I can't get past some of the core "planks" of the modern-day Democratic Party.

 

[Irenaeus]

I'd be a democrat in a heartbeat if it wasn't for the pro-life issues.

I have some qualms with socialism because of my beliefs on psychology. I suppose I lean toward Distributism, as PeterPaul did of old. I fear the mentality of a nanny state.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

I'm a liberal not necessiarly a Democrat. But, why. ...

Joe Coneson says it best:

What do liberals stand for? Their adversaries constantly accuse them of elitism, political correctness, immorality, socialism, communism, even treason. These are standard-issue lies from the right-wing propaganda arsenal. Liberalism is an American philosophy that encompasses a broad variety of ideas -- yet is probably more coherent than the current brand of conservatism, which ranges from atheist libertarianism to theocratic fundamentalism.

....

If Americans have a common fault, however, it's our tendency to suffer from historical amnesia. Too many of us have forgotten, or never learned, what kind of country America was under the conservative rule that preceded the century of liberal reform. And too many of us have no idea whose ideas and energy brought about the reforms we now take for granted.

If your workplace is safe; if your children go to school rather than being forced into labor; if you are paid a living wage, including overtime; if you enjoy a 40-hour week and you are allowed to join a union to protect your rights -- you can thank liberals. If your food is not poisoned and your water is drinkable -- you can thank liberals. If your parents are eligible for Medicare and Social Security, so they can grow old in dignity without bankrupting your family -- you can thank liberals. If our rivers are getting cleaner and our air isn't black with pollution; if our wilderness is protected and our countryside is still green -- you can thank liberals. If people of all races can share the same public facilities; if everyone has the right to vote; if couples fall in love and marry regardless of race; if we have finally begun to transcend a segregated society -- you can thank liberals. Progressive innovations like those and so many others were achieved by long, difficult struggles against entrenched power. What defined conservatism, and conservatives, was their opposition to every one of those advances. The country we know and love today was built by those victories for liberalism -- with the support of the American people.

Whether they now describe themselves as liberal or not, most Americans remain strongly progressive in their views about taxation, healthcare, education spending, Social Security, environmental protection, and corporate regulation. In fact, despite conservative political advances in recent decades, survey evidence gathered by pollsters of all persuasions suggests that Americans are still more liberal than conservative.

 

[Irenaeus]

A wonderful quote, Charlie,

But the "classical liberals" of those days which brought us such great benefits and worked for justice just aren't the liberals of today.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

A wonderful quote, Charlie,

But the "classical liberals" of those days which brought us such great benefits and worked for justice just aren't the liberals of today.

No, they're not.

The Dem's of today have a blank stop underneath their left nipple.

But what am I supposed to do, back a conservative who want to wage war, bankrupt the country, enslave the population and rule like a fascist dictator just because the speak to speak of pro-LIFE ?

Everybody's not dumb.

 

[Irenaeus]

enslave the population

Wow, that's a new one.

I'm not saying you have to support you-know-who or the GOP. I don't in many respects. However, the lamentable situation is Catholic voters are stuck between a rock and a hard place: the non-negotiable life issues which threaten our very human dignity at its most fragile points, and those other issues which, although they may be just, unjust or merely prudential, are regardless very important to the average American.

I hate the system the way it is now. All voters who vote with Judeo-Christian ethics in mind are constrained to steal from Peter to pay Paul, to trade their nation's economy for their conscience and the country's prestige for her uprightness.

"America, America, God mend thine every flaw, confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law."

 

[WarriorAngel]

A wonderful quote, Charlie,

But the "classical liberals" of those days which brought us such great benefits and worked for justice just aren't the liberals of today.

To make the point further, liberals yesterday evolved into a new liberalism that does not even recognise itself now.

I used to be democrat, with alot of liberal ideas.
When I looked closer, it was not helping the little guy...but really hurting them.

I used to defend 'welfare' until I saw its gross abuse.
And how lazy many have became.
I used to defend 'unions' until it made the workers lazy, rude, and greedy.
Not to mention how the union machine takes plenty for their fees. And push one set of political ideas down ppl's throats.
I used to defend liberalism, until I woke up.

I saw the changes, where once it was about the middle class man, but now it is about the wealthy, and conservatives have become the middle class man...with religious aspirations superceeding political issues.

 

[geocajun]

Wow, that's a new one.

I'm not saying you have to support you-know-who or the GOP. I don't in many respects. However, the lamentable situation is Catholic voters are stuck between a rock and a hard place: the non-negotiable life issues which threaten our very human dignity at its most fragile points, and those other issues which, although they may be just, unjust or merely prudential, are regardless very important to the average American.

I hate the system the way it is now. All voters who vote with Judeo-Christian ethics in mind are constrained to steal from Peter to pay Paul, to trade their nation's economy for their conscience and the country's prestige for her uprightness.

"America, America, God mend thine every flaw, confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law."

let me ask you this - what more can the next president do for pro-life?

 

[WarriorAngel]

let me ask you this - what more can the next president do for pro-life?

If liberal...revoke the partial birth abortion ban.

 

[Davidnic]

If the Democratic Party was the party it was, say, 50 years ago, I'd be a Democrat. Because I actually do agree with them on a wide array of issues, generally speaking. It's just that I can't get past some of the core "planks" of the modern-day Democratic Party.

I agree. But it is getting just as hard to agree with the Republicans on a bunch of things. Sad really.

Can we vote (while upholding Catholic views) for anyone actually in the mix of an election, such as one of the top four? It seems that is usually a no.

 

[Davidnic]

I'm starting to believe that a Catholic can't even be an American in good conscience anymore. And it's quite depressing.

Yep.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I agree. But it is getting just as hard to agree with the Republicans on a bunch of things. Sad really.

Can we vote (while upholding Catholic views) for anyone actually in the mix of an election, such as one of the top four? It seems that is usually a no.

I wish I had money to help create a new forum for a new party.

Cathodox party.
Or the Orthocism Party.

I think if Catholics looked into the Constitution party, they might like it best.

Most of the good stuff, throwing away the fat.

 

[Davidnic]

let me ask you this - what more can the next president do for pro-life?

Depending on the composition of congress, get another pro-life justice. Ginsburg's place will likely be up in the next term.