Let's stop kidding ourselves

[Debi1967]

Debi, you are comparing our lives as pilgrims to that of politics? So we are to hold true to the Republican party no matter what because they are the bearers of truth and the light in the darkness? There are just some men that fail in that course and we must stay it even if they fail?

But, you see, this is my contention. That we don't have to. That there can be a viable third option, and that capitalism in itself has failed as much as socialism because it renders its inhabitants as nothing but matter (they are both rooted in social darwinism, not a reality of man).

I believe the Republican party is dragging its feet on abortion and morality. I could be wrong, but I certainly don't think that even if I am, we MUST stick to any of the BIG two. Why? Why when the very platforms between the two parties have been blurred. I can't tell the difference anymore, except on one proposing immorality and the other one not championing morality, but being forced to eat its vegetables.

the answer to your question was in the very next paragraph. Now I am going to ask, did you read my FULL post PP?

We have achieved steps in the right direction in many matters that effect us morally. With these effects we will be able to hopefully, to effect more change steadily towards that ultimate goal. But to ask, those that are firmly entrenched in what they believe to pick up and now change midstream, would probably set us back, instead of moving us forward at this point in time IMHO. The steady stream of pressure that has already been applied is what is getting this done to begin with and that too is also my opinion.

I will expand on this more...

We live in a two party system, anytime a third party has tried to overcome these parties, it has been unsuccessful. Especially, now in this century. There are times that we have to work within what we have and not against it. This would be one of those times. This is not to say that we lower our values. This is to say that we help them to see that they truly need to see our values and that they are not representing them properly. My equating this to our lives is perfectly reasonable. We in the Church also live within a Hierarchy of which we are responsible to.... The whole tone of my post was to say that our trying to uprise against something that is the establishment may only harm us not make things better, it may only set us back.

Because we are talking about the issues of Morals of which we probably would not even be talking about to begin with if we did not have the Church teachings to guide us and the Lord to Save us from the depravation that sinners all engage in, then it is perfectly understandable to equate it how I did.

I know what you think, I also know that IMHO, you are expecting that change is just a matter of some sort of uprising... That it does not have to be done within what is already established, or that it even can be done within what is already established.

Now how is this, you have tow evils but one is the lesser of the two evils and can turned more easily, which one do you choose?

Which one do you then try your hardest to effect that change in?

Now the honest truth is we do live in a TWO Party system that is not likely to change soon... We are not going to achieve what you desire in order to over turn this system. That is reality. I would of course be wonderful if everyone thought the same way that we do but they do not. We even have many Catholics that believe that Abortion should be a choice. That too is evident with some of the conversations that have been in this very forum.

Now take this to a new level....
If we then divide everything further than it already is, and if the one of the two we even divide, then that gives more power to the worst of the two evils.

So what is the more prudent choice? Give the worst of the evils more power for an indefinite period of time while we ourselves try to gain enough in numbers to overthrow them or to work within what is already established and gain them more and more to our side, so that we can efffect more change?

I vote for the latter because it is more prudent and makes more sense. Because we are already, establishing change.... the thing is it is not at the rate WE WANT IT.

 

[PeterPaul]

Roe vs. Wade ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to have an abortion during the first 6 months of her pregnancy. In doing so, it overturned all state laws criminalizing abortion.

And why hasn't anyone argued this decision usurped state sovereignty? Why has there been no proposal to dictate that an unborn baby is alive and that the decision is unlawful because it is the murder of life? I'm not seeing Bush even get on t.v. to argue that in front of millions of Americans?

Am I overzealous or is he not interested in rocking the vote (or that of the pro-choice constituency that votes for him?)

I agree with John that we shall see, but I still contend we need to start another party.

 

[Dream]

And why hasn't anyone argued this decision usurped state sovereignty? Why has there been no proposal to dictate that an unborn baby is alive and that the decision is unlawful because it is the murder of life? I'm not seeing Bush even get on t.v. to argue that in front of millions of Americans?

Like I said before, Bush has taken more steps towards outlawing abortion than any President has.

Am I overzealous or is he not interested in rocking the vote (or that of the pro-choice constituency that votes for him?)

Like we already established, Bush is not the most pro-life candidate.

 

[PeterPaul]

the answer to your question was in the very next paragraph. Now I am going to ask, did you read my FULL post PP?


I will expand on this more...

We live in a two party system, anytime a third party has tried to overcome these parties, it has been unsuccessful. Especially, now in this century. There are times that we have to work within what we have and not against it. This would be one of those times. This is not to say that we lower our values. This is to say that we help them to see that they truly need to see our values and that they are not representing them properly. My equating this to our lives is perfectly reasonable. We in the Church also live within a Hierarchy of which we are responsible to.... The whole tone of my post was to say that our trying to uprise against something that is the establishment may only harm us not make things better, it may only set us back.

Because we are talking about the issues of Morals of which we probably would not even be talking about to begin with if we did not have the Church teachings to guide us and the Lord to Save us from the depravation that sinners all engage in, then it is perfectly understandable to equate it how I did.

I know what you think, I also know that IMHO, you are expecting that change is just a matter of some sort of uprising... That it does not have to be done within what is already established, or that it even can be done within what is already established.

Now how is this, you have tow evils but one is the lesser of the two evils and can turned more easily, which one do you choose?

Which one do you then try your hardest to effect that change in?

Now the honest truth is we do live in a TWO Party system that is not likely to change soon... We are not going to achieve what you desire in order to over turn this system. That is reality. I would of course be wonderful if everyone thought the same way that we do but they do not. We even have many Catholics that believe that Abortion should be a choice. That too is evident with some of the conversations that have been in this very forum.

Now take this to a new level....
If we then divide everything further than it already is, and if the one of the two we even divide, then that gives more power to the worst of the two evils.

So what is the more prudent choice? Give the worst of the evils more power for an indefinite period of time while we ourselves try to gain enough in numbers to overthrow them or to work within what is already established and gain them more and more to our side, so that we can efffect more change?

I vote for the latter because it is more prudent and makes more sense. Because we are already, establishing change.... the thing is it is not at the rate WE WANT IT.

A. If you believe the party is moving slowly because it wants to effect change, then you are not up to date with your party.

B. There is no reality other than a two party system that insists only a two party system exists, and forces that system to usurp any further opposition.

C. You make it sound as if the system is not in our control (the people) but rather, like a tyrannical socialist country, we are forced to play by "their" rules.

D. No one is talking about "uprising" as if advocating we take it to the streets. Rather calmly, I am discussing change.

E. Perot was not unsuccessful. If he hadn't dropped out like he did, he may have even pulled off what never had been done before. Let's remember that Clinton won in a narrow victory.

F. When you discuss division Debi, you are making it sound like it is "us" versus "them", good versus evil, Autobots versus Decepticons. I hardly would say this is God versus Satan.

G. Also, there is no "appearance" of defiance on the part of a third party. The libertarians are being quite successful in it.

 

[Milla]

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I honestly believe that the Republican party will not truly work to outlaw abortion. If abortion were outlawed, they would lose so many single-issue voters to the Democrats. I know many people who would be Democrats were it not for the issue of abortion...

I've no doubt that certain lawmakers sincerely mean to do away with it, but I don't think the power structure actually does.

 

[Dream]

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I honestly believe that the Republican party will not truly work to outlaw abortion. If abortion were outlawed, they would lose so many single-issue voters to the Democrats. I know many people who would be Democrats were it not for the issue of abortion...

I've no doubt that certain lawmakers sincerely mean to do away with it, but I don't think the power structure actually does.

What basis do you have for this claim?

 

[Debi1967]

A. If you believe the party is moving slowly because it wants to effect change, then you are not up to date with your party.

B. There is no reality other than a two party system that insists only a two party system exists, and forces that system to usurp any further opposition.

C. You make it sound as if the system is not in our control (the people) but rather, like a tyrannical socialist country, we are forced to play by "their" rules.

D. No one is talking about "uprising" as if advocating we take it to the streets. Rather calmly, I am discussing change.

E. Perot was not unsuccessful. If he hadn't dropped out like he did, he may have even pulled off what never had been done before. Let's remember that Clinton won in a narrow victory.

F. When you discuss division Debi, you are making it sound like it is "us" versus "them", good versus evil, Autobots versus Decepticons. I hardly would say this is God versus Satan.

G. Also, there is no "appearance" of defiance on the part of a third party. The libertarians are being quite successful in it.

Sorry PP, but I think you need to ralize a few things IMO, and that is we are first and foremost Spiritual individuals and that our Spirituality should be coming first in our lives and that if this is so then it should also then be entrenched in all of our thinking and how we approach all of the situations...

Secondly, I have made good points, and no sir it is not that it is not in our hands it is that this is the peoples choice to begin with.

Third, Perot dropped out of the race because he had no chance of winning and even said so himself, he pulled out because he realized that he was taking away from the party that if he could not win he would want to win, and that was the Republicans.

We have always had other runners in the election and never have they gained any of the vote, you are right, Perot was the only one to even come close, but he would have been a poor choice. He too was for Bigger Government on certain things if they were to his advatage especially if it came to business.

PP, you may not like what I am saying but the fact still remains, that you have used one article to come to these suppositions. And if I have to I can find many more that contradict what you have presented, I think you already know that as well.

I have contended that governments are fraught with all sorts of things that are not what we consider moral....
I have admitted that these men are looking out solely for themselves.
Plain and simple I have admitted to many things in my posts, all of which you have seemingly overlooked. Because, anytime I have agreed with you on something you do not even acknowledge that I did. The only things that you do acknowledge is my disagreement with you because you see only one way to fix a situation and I see another as viable. I am allowed Brother, just as you are to establish my side of the argument and why it is so and why I think the way I do, just as you are allowed to do.

There are always choices .... And these choices should always be examined. I have given logical, prudent, and sensical reasoning behind my choice.

PP, you are talking about changing the minds of a nation.... that in reality without proper capital, and people, is just not realistic.... You are talking of them making a choice to leave what they are firmly entrenched and established in. You are talking about saying to them come with me to the unknown. People have a fear of the unknown... they are not going to go as willing as you think. They may agree with you wholeheartedly, but it has been established already many times over that they will stay where it is familiar to them. And if you manage to finally gain enough to effect a election but it effects it to the point that a man is voted into office that the majority really did not want in office to begin wwith you will then lose what you had in momentum and then be villified. This too has been seen in history. Hence Perot when he ran again, and did not have the same support as he did before.

No sir it is not the only answer, there are other answers. And I am presenting them.

 

[PeterPaul]

Sorry PP, but I think you need to ralize a few things IMO, and that is we are first and foremost Spiritual individuals and that our Spirituality should be coming first in our lives and that if this is so then it should also then be entrenched in all of our thinking and how we approach all of the situations...

Secondly, I have made good points, and no sir it is not that it is not in our hands it is that this is the peoples choice to begin with.

Third, Perot dropped out of the race because he had no chance of winning and even said so himself, he pulled out because he realized that he was taking away from the party that if he could not win he would want to win, and that was the Republicans.

We have always had other runners in the election and never have they gained any of the vote, you are right, Perot was the only one to even come close, but he would have been a poor choice. He too was for Bigger Government on certain things if they were to his advatage especially if it came to business.

PP, you may not like what I am saying but the fact still remains, that you have used one article to come to these suppositions. And if I have to I can find many more that contradict what you have presented, I think you already know that as well.

I have contended that governments are fraught with all sorts of things that are not what we consider moral....
I have admitted that these men are looking out solely for themselves.
Plain and simple I have admitted to many things in my posts, all of which you have seemingly overlooked. Because, anytime I have agreed with you on something you do not even acknowledge that I did. The only things that you do acknowledge is my disagreement with you because you see only one way to fix a situation and I see another as viable. I am allowed Brother, just as you are to establish my side of the argument and why it is so and why I think the way I do, just as you are allowed to do.

There are always choices .... And these choices should always be examined. I have given logical, prudent, and sensical reasoning behind my choice.

PP, you are talking about changing the minds of a nation.... that in reality without proper capital, and people, is just not realistic.... You are talking of them making a choice to leave what they are firmly entrenched and established in. You are talking about saying to them come with me to the unknown. People have a fear of the unknown... they are not going to go as willing as you think. They may agree with you wholeheartedly, but it has been established already many times over that they will stay where it is familiar to them. And if you manage to finally gain enough to effect a election but it effects it to the point that a man is voted into office that the majority really did not want in office to begin wwith you will then lose what you had in momentum and then be villified. This too has been seen in history. Hence Perot when he ran again, and did not have the same support as he did before.

No sir it is not the only answer, there are other answers. And I am presenting them.

Actually, you are presenting the same answer, not an alternative.

If it be unrealistic to change, then history might just be on my side.

This is not the only article, book reference or statistic to make an argument, which is what I'm doing, to the viability of a third choice. I merely posted this article and we all have drifted. So, I don't know how you came to that conclusion (in fact, over the course of the past few months I've been posting diverse writing on the subject of two party systems, alternative economies, and the viability of options).

As sprititual individuals, especially Catholic, I would think we need to reform those things which our prescribed by our historic and present Church. After all, the Church is wise to instruct us in the justice of economy, law and politics.

Perot, even after coming back, was able to give Clinton a weak election. It was after this that suddenly third parties managed to be excluded from debates and larger participation in our media outlets.

I suppose that by stating you have given logical, prudent, and sensical reasoning (which I never said you didn't have your side) that you imply I haven't. But, that's ok.

What is by the way, "proper capital"? When you mention that people are afraid of the unknown, I am left to think that it might be scarier to drift into the known (Republicans expanding the Federal government and recanting on stem cell research). The question then becomes if a new or different theory might be more welcome than knowing you are walking into a minefield.

I never barred you Debi, from the public discourse we are exercising. In fact, I never mocked you or your arguments. I just rose an objection or two. That is what debate is about, even if informal.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Well, I understand where Debi is coming from. She is saying that the ony parties that will ever have a realistic chance of winning (at least in our lifetime) are one of the two parties (in regards to the presidency). I think this is true. If the Republican party basically gives up on the pro-life movement and goes pro-choice (which I think is happenING and will probably happen fully within our life time unless America speaks out louder) then as far as I am concerned, outlawing abortion is a lost cause.. at least for a generation or two. But outlawing abortion is not the goal. The goal is getting rid of abortions and actually the Catholic Church's (and other pro-life groups) programs to persuade people to choose life have been highly effective. Notice that I said that OUTLAWING abortion may one day be a lost cause... fighting agaisnt it will never be. More important than our vote is what we do to offer these woman alternatives and to realize the lies and deciet behind the pro-choice movement and help them realize how destructive abortion is. Dont get me wrong. I am not saying that it is not important or helpful to have the law on our side, but it is not inconcievable that for at least a few decades, that this may become a politically moot point. We may one day only have a party that says it is pro-life very quietly.. which, when translated to English means "we want your vote.. but we aren't really going to do anything about this issue." Well, I won't let them prostitue me around like that. There may come a tme when I need to say enough, and vote for a party that offers more humane fiscal decisions a better more moral international policy that represent my beliefs... because at least I know they will act on that.

Everyone in here has made excellent points for me to think about. God bless!

John

 

[Debi1967]

I suppose that by stating you have given logical, prudent, and sensical reasoning (which I never said you didn't have your side) that you imply I haven't. But, that's ok.

Wait a second PP I never said that you did not have a point either, so do not say or imply that I did... I merely pointed out it's dangers.

What is by the way, "proper capital"? When you mention that people are afraid of the unknown, I am left to think that it might be scarier to drift into the known (Republicans expanding the Federal government and recanting on stem cell research). The question then becomes if a new or different theory might be more welcome than knowing you are walking into a minefield.

I undertand what you are thinking and why....

Let me put this out there as an analogy, A woman is being abused, and wants out of it desperately, people tell her there is a different way, and yet she still stays... why? Because to leave it will put her into the unknown. At least where she is at she knows what to expect. Trust me on this one I have practical experience. It takes a great deal of persistence and will power to leave, a great deal of courage.... your first impulse is always to stay. Especially since you have been entrenched in it and trained to think that way. The point is that we have. We have been trained to think in the Two Party system point of view. It is what is most comfortable.

The reason that Perot had success, well that is because the man had millions of his own dollars to spend (capital). He was able to use his status as well. He was a well known man of the highest importance in the business world, he capitalized on this fact. This enabled him to gain enough votes in the primary for him to even be on the ballot to begin with. He was able to launch a campaign that allowed this, using his status celebrity and capital to his advantage.

Now if all of the smaller groups did this, such as GreenPeace, and the like, if they all got together, pooled their resources, and found someone of such stature that was willing to represent all of their causes for them, they might actually have a chance as well. How they have not figured this little factoid out yet I do not know, unless of course it is merely pride that keeps them from doing so.

Now you are right it is in theory more frightening to frift into the more comfortable, and it is oft times, also most confusing when people do, but then again who said that we are always the most rational either. In fact, a lot of the time our decisions would probably seem pretty irrational. I know to the Lord they probably seem so. We are also talking about today, the right here and now.... Not in the past and what has happened two hundred years ago... When I am speaking of history I am speaking of recent history, within the past 100 yrs in this country. What works for anothe country will not work for another, and most certainly what worked for us 200 yrs ago will not work for us today in this country because of our progress.

I think what a lot of people also fail to realize too, is that we are still relatively new as far as nations go. We are young still. Still developing. For as far as we have come in such a short period of time it is pretty amazing.

And PP, you know something, you are a man of conviction that is for sure... Because for as strongly as you debate, you also have the ability to be the biggest class clown which has the outrageous ability to cheer someone up when they need it at the most opportune time. You certainly do offer me a challenge at times that is for sure, now whether that is a good thing or bad I still have not figured out just yet.... j/k

As sprititual individuals, especially Catholic, I would think we need to reform those things which our prescribed by our historic and present Church. After all, the Church is wise to instruct us in the justice of economy, law and politics.

Yes but we also must be ever mindful as to how far we go in this endeavor that we also do not become corrupted. Starting a party of our own may sound good right now, but down the line when we are no longer here to manage it's effects and others are in charge of it, then we are still leaving it int he hands of men that too can be corrupted. This too, we only have to look at our own Church History to see. And to seethe effects of what happened because of the errors made. Power is an awful temptation, and is an easy corrutor....

 

[PeterPaul]

Wait a second PP I never said that you did not have a point either, so do not say or imply that I did... I merely pointed out it's dangers.

I'll take that as a compliment.

Let me put this out there as an analogy, A woman is being abused, and wants out of it desperately, people tell her there is a different way, and yet she still stays... why? Because to leave it will put her into the unknown. At least where she is at she knows what to expect. Trust me on this one I have practical experience. It takes a great deal of persistence and will power to leave, a great deal of courage.... your first impulse is always to stay. Especially since you have been entrenched in it and trained to think that way. The point is that we have. We have been trained to think in the Two Party system point of view. It is what is most comfortable.

I agree completely. But what is most comfortable isn't necessarily right. As Catholics we strive for truth and to follow the guidelines left by popes socially and fiscally.

The reason that Perot had success, well that is because the man had millions of his own dollars to spend (capital). He was able to use his status as well. He was a well known man of the highest importance in the business world, he capitalized on this fact. This enabled him to gain enough votes in the primary for him to even be on the ballot to begin with. He was able to launch a campaign that allowed this, using his status celebrity and capital to his advantage.

And I'm sure you would agree that none of the parties are "grassroots". They all have plenty of money to dip into. Just like capitalism, the problem with politics is that there are too few politicians. Only millionaires seem to be applicable.

Now you are right it is in theory more frightening to frift into the more comfortable, and it is oft times, also most confusing when people do, but then again who said that we are always the most rational either. In fact, a lot of the time our decisions would probably seem pretty irrational. I know to the Lord they probably seem so. We are also talking about today, the right here and now.... Not in the past and what has happened two hundred years ago... When I am speaking of history I am speaking of recent history, within the past 100 yrs in this country.

[/size][/font]What works for anothe country will not work for another, and most certainly what worked for us 200 yrs ago will not work for us today in this country because of our progress.

So you agree then, that change, while slow is not only possible but historically true. And this is my point. Something we seem to lack today is imagination. We can't see "x" happening ever. We can never be attacked from within, we will never see homosexuals portrayed as normal, we will never see a party change and become proabortion, we would never have a society that advocates euthanasia. Why are we so short sighted? What is it about liberals that they can envision something a hundred years ago and make it come to pass? I'll tell you what, we lack the great Catholic imagination of yesteryear.

I think what a lot of people also fail to realize too, is that we are still relatively new as far as nations go. We are young still. Still developing. For as far as we have come in such a short period of time it is pretty amazing.

Absolutely. And what is even more amazing is how these past 40 years have been so decadent. And if this nation is young, and truly the last hope for the West, we need to start thinking now about 40 years from now.

And PP, you know something, you are a man of conviction that is for sure... Because for as strongly as you debate, you also have the ability to be the biggest class clown which has the outrageous ability to cheer someone up when they need it at the most opportune time. You certainly do offer me a challenge at times that is for sure, now whether that is a good thing or bad I still have not figured out just yet.... j/k

Challenge is always a good thing Debi. Chaos is not. I only offer what I think. One of the things we do in Europe, right or wrong, is we discuss things, even at the meal table. It sometimes may get heated but it isn't personal. Often, we will reflect on these discussions and realise what we said that was good and what we were told that was even better.

Yes but we also must be ever mindful as to how far we go in this endeavor that we also do not become corrupted. Starting a party of our own may sound good right now, but down the line when we are no longer here to manage it's effects and others are in charge of it, then we are still leaving it int he hands of men that too can be corrupted. This too, we only have to look at our own Church History to see. And to seethe effects of what happened because of the errors made. Power is an awful temptation, and is an easy corrutor....

Yes, and that goes for established parties as well. The last thing I want is power. I only want for our social doctrine to be applied. Man can be changed. We are proof of that effect, and our mission is one of change. If we fail to believe in the possibilty of growth than we have lost our mandate as Catholics. And as Catholics, we are to do the "work of God" (Opus Dei). This work must be applied not only socially, but in business and especially in politics (our leaders will be held responsible).

One of the things I've noticed in my life, is how people do cling to positions, even when truth slaps them in the face (I'm not saying I am applying truth with that comment). I believe it might have been Chesterton who said that often one becomes a follower of college rugby and football teams, proponents and fanatics of them, whilst they never even attended that college. It can become tribal. We have become accustomed to one group or another, black versus white. We have thought that because we believe in truth, that these human institutions, while at one time affirming truth, will always do so. I shudder at the soon to be explanations for support for this party in the event that it does become pro-abortion, or nominates a candidate with that leaning. It has happened at the Senate and Gubernatorial level. And then, will we say, but they still stand for morality on other issues?!

Will that be the excuse? That they are still better than the Democrats? Is that enough or does a significant change need to occur before then, rather than wait for the last minute?

I know I don't have all the answers. I am however starting to change my frame of mind, starting to read the thoughts of others who think of a third way and I have good company. I have the popes.

 

[Milla]

What basis do you have for this claim?

Naught but the political rhetoric and my own cynicism, admittedly. But it must be acknowledged that without the abortion issue, the Republican party loses much of its sway over Catholics and other Christian voting blocs. One must ask oneself: what is more important to this politician - staying in power, or doing the right thing? And then one must ask oneself: what is more important to this politicans handlers, spin doctors, wealthy fianciers and corporate backers - staying in power, or doing the right thing? I myself come to a rather dismal conclusion.

 

[Debi1967]

I'll take that as a compliment.

I agree completely. But what is most comfortable isn't necessarily right. As Catholics we strive for truth and to follow the guidelines left by popes socially and fiscally.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, that is what we are supposed to tbe doing. You and I, and certain others we know do this on a continual basis and are willing to stick up for it, but how many of us do you know will not?

And I'm sure you would agree that none of the parties are "grassroots". They all have plenty of money to dip into. Just like capitalism, the problem with politics is that there are too few politicians. Only millionaires seem to be applicable.

Yes I can agree with this to a certain extent, and even if they start out as "grassroots" by the time they have come to the be at where it would be feasible for them to qualify for Presidency they are no longer what we would term "grassroots".

So you agree then, that change, while slow is not only possible but historically true. And this is my point. Something we seem to lack today is imagination. We can't see "x" happening ever. We can never be attacked from within, we will never see homosexuals portrayed as normal, we will never see a party change and become proabortion, we would never have a society that advocates euthanasia. Why are we so short sighted? What is it about liberals that they can envision something a hundred years ago and make it come to pass? I'll tell you what, we lack the great Catholic imagination of yesteryear.

The point is if someone can't see that this is already happening then they are blind...

Liberals had the will to stay the course... they achieved what they have because they knew that change would have to won and it would have to hard fought to be won so they were patient... This is what I am talking about now, in order to combat what we have allowed to go on unchecked until it got to the point of outrage, then we shall have to show the same will and patience and fight just as hard if not harder. I just think that we can affect this within what is already available and that it is realistic to do so.

Absolutely. And what is even more amazing is how these past 40 years have been so decadent. And if this nation is young, and truly the last hope for the West, we need to start thinking now about 40 years from now.

Agreed, but again we live in a time that most of think only of the here and now not the future, or even how the decisions that we make will effect what is to come. If we are to be able to properly do any of this then we must start with the simple fact of changing our way of thinking longterm instead of short term and thinking of how things effect others as well as ourselves instead of just thinking about how it will benefit us.

Challenge is always a good thing Debi. Chaos is not. I only offer what I think. One of the things we do in Europe, right or wrong, is we discuss things, even at the meal table. It sometimes may get heated but it isn't personal. Often, we will reflect on these discussions and realise what we said that was good and what we were told that was even better.

Yeah well sit around my family table and tell me about whether chaos does not also equate discussion that later can be profitable, it is something about us Italian/Irish people.... j/k Now can I ask are you saying that I am causing chaos?...hmmmm that too was a joke... Just ribbing you PP. Just because I disagree with you and it seemingly comes across between the two of us as though it is personal it really is not. I think it is all that hotbloodedness that comes out in us. I love the discussion I get into with you because you do challenge me to think and to stretch myself... remember that...

Yes, and that goes for established parties as well. The last thing I want is power. I only want for our social doctrine to be applied. Man can be changed. We are proof of that effect, and our mission is one of change. If we fail to believe in the possibilty of growth than we have lost our mandate as Catholics. And as Catholics, we are to do the "work of God" (Opus Dei). This work must be applied not only socially, but in business and especially in politics (our leaders will be held responsible).

Our Social Doctrine is spawned off of our Doctrine of Unity for all under the Church. It is part of us acting responsibly, and what we owe to governments and what we do not owe to them. And our Social Doctrine is careful to mention that our first allegiance is always to the Lord. It also applies to the Church. Within the Church we apply Social Doctrine, yes now you have me looking into that one too... So this would mean combining Church and State again. In this Country there is a clear division of this.

One of the things I've noticed in my life, is how people do cling to positions, even when truth slaps them in the face (I'm not saying I am applying truth with that comment). I believe it might have been Chesterton who said that often one becomes a follower of college rugby and football teams, proponents and fanatics of them, whilst they never even attended that college. It can become tribal. We have become accustomed to one group or another, black versus white. We have thought that because we believe in truth, that these human institutions, while at one time affirming truth, will always do so. I shudder at the soon to be explanations for support for this party in the event that it does become pro-abortion, or nominates a candidate with that leaning. It has happened at the Senate and Gubernatorial level. And then, will we say, but they still stand for morality on other issues?!

I will only support a candidate that is in accordance with the Laws of the Lord... So IOW if both candidates were both pro-abortion then I would have not voted at all. I would have abstained from the vote as is also my right, especially since it is my moral obligation to abstain.

Will that be the excuse? That they are still better than the Democrats? Is that enough or does a significant change need to occur before then, rather than wait for the last minute?

No we will work for change, we will work for it and be patient that the Lord is working and doing what is needed to be done. Remember, that with all that is going on this world today there is a plan, that this degradation in the very nature of mankind is also part of His plan, and that we also should to a certain extent not be trying to work against that either...

I know I don't have all the answers. I am however starting to change my frame of mind, starting to read the thoughts of others who think of a third way and I have good company. I have the popes.

I don't have them either PP. I wish I did, I only know that there is only One that does and in the end He will be the one to make all of this right, not us... All we can do is our best to spread His message, and that is truly our first obligation....

 

[RhetorTheo]

That's a really bad article, IMO. Roe v. Wade may very well get overturned by Bush's nominees. If you only work with people who agree with you 100%, you will get nowhere.

 

[marciadietrich]

I would have to check percentages, but imperfect as they can be having the republican party being pro-life in its platform and over time I would guess from Reagan to now that the general population has shown a considerable shift in whether it considers itself pro-life or pro-choice. Can't recall exactly but would guess there has been a 10 to 15 percentage point increase. I would guess the percentages that identify themselves as republican probably increased a similiar percentage over the same period of time. Some of it being pro-life dixicrat southerners changing party. Lots of factors I'm sure, but I wouldn't discount the influence of the republican party having a pretty strong pro-life plank as an entity, which leans on the candidates who might have differing personal opinions.

The democrats are pro-choice (death if you prefer) in their platform, their presidential candidates conform to that regardless and so will their supreme court nominees. Clinton and Gore before presidential campaign were democrats who tended pro-life - even if just because they were in the south. Republican presidential candidates have to conform towards the pro-life plank of the party even when they are not personally pro-life (Bush the elder was pretty much pro-choice, but he had to conform to the platform). I think I mentioned how our Senator here in Kansas Sam Brownback had both a change from pro-choice to pro-life personally because of being a republican getting flack for that, he had a spiritual conversion as well and is a convert to Catholicism.

Marcia

Marcia