Politics of Faith
I'm told by friends and family that you can not be a Democrat if you are Catholic and by other friends and family that you can not be a Republican if you are Catholic. I'm not an extremist on any single issue and that makes me the beast stuck in the middle of the voting block.
If you are a Catholic then the big abortion issue comes up where you must be pro life and thus you must be a Republican. Only because the GOP has cornered the concession stand at the bible belt and you have to pay whatever prices they want for the product. I can see some of that point but the Republican party only cares about defending the life of the child and not the circumstances to which that child will be forced to live in. Rape, incest, whatever the reason, the woman and mother does not have a say over her body. I don't agree with that theory. It is her choice and no man can or should be able to decide for that woman. That makes me a very bad Catholic in the eyes of some. And before you cast your venom, clean your own house of pedophiles within your church.
If you are Catholic then the issue of taking care of the poor as Jesus asked comes front and center. The Catholic Church does more work behind the scenes without question serving millions of poor people all across the world. I applaud that service and have helped in that effort. That is what the Democrats want to do but with a political sledgehammer. You must tow the party line or be lambasted as a reject or worse not worthy of the party.
My dilemma is that both political parties and my own religion are telling me that I suck and yet they all want my support. What if I just stick to the middle and tell all three sides to bite me? Tell the Democrats that I don't want their brow beating on budget issues where I have to give my national treasury away to the lower classes at my expense. Tell the Republicans to suck my... on giving tax breaks to the rich while the rest of the nation is faltering in debt. Then when the church asks me to give a little bit more then all I can do is beg that we not mix politics and religion. The difference between all three is that I go to confession to confess my sins and none of the other are ever accountable. And that my friends is why the founding fathers separated church and state.
Religion has no place in politics. Not in this country. I'll leave your politics alone when you leave my personal relationship with my God alone.
Papamoka
Labels: American Politics, Church and State, Thomas Jefferson
posted by Papamoka at
5:27 PM
13 Comments:
Well-said! Life's more fun in the middle anyway. One gets to dodge rotten tomatoes from all sides. But at least you can think for yourself, especially important when deciding which way to duck. ;)
MOOD ONE:
I am in one of those moods where I want respond to things way out of context. If you say something, you may provoke an essay that has little to do with what you said. You are today’s victim of that mood.
I'm told by friends and family that you can not be a Democrat if you are Catholic and by other friends and family that you can not be a Republican if you are Catholic.
As a precautionary measure, I recommend you stop being a Catholic.
I'm not an extremist on any single issue and that makes me the beast stuck in the middle of the voting block.
Extremism is pretty nice. You should take it for a spin.
If you are a Catholic then the big abortion issue comes up where you must be pro life and thus you must be a Republican.
You can be pro-life and still support Roe V. Wade. Sounds like a good compromise. That is where I am.
I can see some of that point but the Republican party only cares about defending the life of the child and not the circumstances to which that child will be forced to live in.
I see things thus: the Republican Party cares about defending the word of their Gods of choice, mostly the Christian Gods, which they then attempt to apply to the principle of life. They care about unborn babies, but once you drive that baby off its placental lot, its value drops immediately. The baby must be sustained while it is in the womb at all costs. Afterwards, life is an entitlement and helping it continue to live beyond is socialism. Socialism is wrong because we don’t like the label. The label “socialist” must be abolished, even at the expense of impoverished babies.
ABORTION:
Rape, incest, whatever the reason, the woman and mother does not have a say over her body.
I know I am wandering off topic, but you innocently ventured into one of my soap boxes. I am not sure why we debate the exceptional situations (such as rape) to prove our views about common cases. If you believe in a women’s right to have an abortion, you probably believe that a 30 year old woman who gets drunk and has unprotected sex in a bar bathroom has the right to go remove the fetus two months later. If you think that, then it is hypocritical to argue that some women are raped, so abortion should be permitted. We should argue what we believe for the reasons we believe it; and not argue extreme situations on the fringes to prove our theory on common cases.
When we argue extremes to prove our position on the common question we are mixing more than one question, using arguments from question A to prove our position on Question B. Both questions are about abortion, but one is about an instance of rape and the other is a common case. In the soft science of the study of critical thinking, this is knows as a Fallacy of Complex Question. Arguing an ad absurdum extreme of a question to prove the common case is fallacious.
I don’t mean to imply that Papamoka did this. I was simply inspired by Papamoka’s words to express the thought.
It is her choice and no man can or should be able to decide for that woman.
Legally I agree with this. Philosophically, if abortion should just be her choice is the question. Therefore, because “it’s her choice” cannot be the answer.
That makes me a very bad Catholic in the eyes of some.
Catholics who deviate from God’s law are not bad, in my view. You are fine. Did God ever speak out on abortion anyway? If He had said “thou shalt not kill,” that would have been speaking out. However, so far as I know, He didn’t. I tried to argue with someone once that God was a hypocrite because He commanded “thou shalt not kill,” and yet He was always commanding people to kill somebody. My opponent, who is Catholic, by the way, argued that God never said that. He said God said, “Thou shalt not murder,” and it was mistranslated. Of course, I would have none of it. I feverishly researched this in haste. Then I conceded the point to him and moved on with my life. Therefore, I am not sure God ever spoke out on the issue of abortion. Did He?
THE CHURCH:
And before you cast your venom, clean your own house of pedophiles within your church.
Ah, but committing pedophilia does nothing to weaken your argument that abortion is wrong.
If you are Catholic then the issue of taking care of the poor as Jesus asked comes front and center.
But what about God’s word? Are we going to take the word of a Rebel over the word of the Father? You have to give someone preference and I like the Son much better. However, I am not going to deny the Father His floor just because I side with the Son. It wouldn’t be democratic.
The Catholic Church does more work behind the scenes without question serving millions of poor people all across the world. I applaud that service.
Me too! I just clapped my hands.
… [and I] have helped in that effort.
Me too. I clapped.
POLITICAL HAMMERS:
That is what the Democrats want to do but with a political sledgehammer.
I want that too. Get me a hammer. I don’t mind hard work.
You must tow the party line or be lambasted as a reject or worse not worthy of the party.
Same is true in both parties. Welcome to America.
My dilemma is that both political parties and my own religion are telling me that I suck and yet they all want my support.
Maybe you suck and they want your support. Don’t over-complicate things.
What if I just stick to the middle and tell all three sides to bite me?
Only the side elected has that power, and rest assuredly, they will comply with your demands.
TAXATION AND ENTITLEMENTS:
Tell the Democrats that I don't want their brow beating on budget issues where I have to give my national treasury away to the lower classes at my expense.
Another one of my soapboxes: this is not directed at you, but everyone who wants to learn from my wisdom. The democrats are not generally asking that. The government provides defense for you, allows you to own and title property, and protects said property from nefarious characters who would take it if given the opportunity, assists in the event of a disaster (or used to. Eric Cantor and Ron Paul are saying this is the old way and Irene can rape at will), and they secure your ability to prosper. In return, they charge rent, which is needed for them to stay afloat, and continue to offer you these services. When they do this, they are representing you. There are also some people with eight kids, earning minimum wage, cleaning toilets. Those people are also providing an American service, not in the form of taxes, but in the form of toilets. I wish not to clean a toilet. They also need to be defended against the things that assault them, which for them includes poverty.
I, a liberal tax-paying, society-contributing, democrat, want to live in a world where the nation protects it’s citizens from dying in the street, from excessive heat exposure, from frostbite, from starvation, from disease, and by stopping terrorist and national enemies from killing me. I don’t want children to starve because one of their parents accidentally contaminated the last slice of bread. Others, also contributing to this nation, have additional needs that I don’t have. I do not selfishly ask that the government use ITS treasury to protect and make sure I have what I need to survive, but to do less for those less fortunate than I. I ask, that in return for taxation and clean toilets, the government makes sure we all survive.
I will agree that the tax “burden” should be spread more evenly, meaning we do not measure it in dollars, but in the burden of paying it, which can only logically be measured in opportunity cost (what would the dollars have been used for if they had not been forfeited to taxation?).
I want my tax dollars to go toward allowing everyone in this country to have a minimum standard needed for survival.
I know some recipients game the system. Review and reform is definitely in order. However, a reduction in benefits for those that are truly in need, is not in order; and I do not advocate punishing those who are not gaming the system to make sure I also stop the ones who are: the ole “kill them all, let God sort them out” mentality.
Now, the democrats want to close tax loopholes and raise top marginal rates above their near historic lows in order to bring in more revenue to help with the debt issue. I approve of this and I reject the theory that only supply side logic can save us. I have charts, so don’t mess with me. That does not dip into the middle class and below, so I think you are safe.
[TO BE CONTINUED …]
[TAXATION CONTINUATION …]
I pay a higher tax rate than most multi-millionaires because of tax loopholes, incentives and write-offs. Additionally, those who earn most of their income through long term capital gains have their taxable income logically capped at the same rate as someone making 34,000.00 per year, which is 15%, I believe. I believe between 40% and 50% of earnings are long term gains.
If you factor in consumption taxation, mostly sales tax, then our taxation policy is America is a regressive system, meaning the less you make, the higher your tax rate. This is abominable in my opinion. The Democratic Party claims to want to do something about it. They should. We should.
For those most in need, a progressive system is best: the more you make, the higher your tax rate; a flat tax is the next best: everyone gets taxed the same percentage of income; a regressive tax is the worst: the less you make, the higher your tax rate, such as consumption tax, “FairTax,” Sales tax. Conservatives constantly gripe about the unfair federal “tax burden” on the wealthy because they are technically taxed at a progressively higher rate (capped at 35%, an already low number no rich conservative has every paid on the top marginal portion of his income, because of incentives, loopholes and writeoffs).
However, the reverse disparity in the tax rate exists in sale tax and property tax, which the poor actually do pay, every penny; and you never hear a peep out of conservatives about that; nor do they factor those taxes into their equations of burden and fairness. This intentional omission renders their complaints meaningless.
Republicans want entitlement reform. I completely agree. If we could do this without curtailing the benefits of those in need, then I am all for it. That would probably save at least a half a billion dollars per year, and perhaps much more. Healthcare and welfare was close to 1.5 trillion in 2010. I do not support, however, reducing needed entitlements. The targets should be those who receive benefits who could easily work instead or who receive benefits to which they are not legitimately entitled, per the rules of the entitlement, such as my next door neighbor who was disabled and could not work. She was, however, able to play ball with my sister and me.
THERAPY:
The difference between all three is that I go to confession to confess my sins and none of the other are ever accountable.
People need to disencumber themselves of burdens, self-recrimination among them. People have a real psychological NEED to confess the things they have done wrong. That mechanism helps discharge the guilt.
The difference between all three is that I go to confession to confess my sins and none of the other are ever accountable.
That’s accountability?! Most therapists charge. Confession is nothing more than you getting a service for free in exchange for sinning. I hardly call that accountability.
THE FOUNDERS:
And that my friends is why the founding fathers separated church and state.
I am not sure they really did this. I think we inferred it based on hints in the Constitution, which really says nothing about separation of church and state. I do agree that a good many of them wanted this. A good many of them were Deist’s and did not believe the Bible, so they would not have wanted to be bound by the word of God. I believe that Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, were more Deist than Christian.
Religion has no place in politics. Not in this country. I'll leave your politics alone when you leave my personal relationship with my God alone.
Yes! And you cannot be a Catholic and say that, you demon.
Holy crap John! ROFLOL! Umm... I'd reply but I have to spend the next couple of hours reading you comments. LOL!
Blog on my friend.
I just reviewed the article sober.
It is actually very good. I find the thesis statement buried deeply in the text:
My dilemma is that both political parties and my own religion are telling me that I suck and yet they all want my support.
To paraphrase, The Catholic Church, the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party currently all have the stance that anyone who is not a fanatic is not one of them; and that if you belong to any of these institutions, which for many means if you participate in politics and religion in America, then you should faithfully support your institution of choice, the very one that otherwise rejects you.
It's an excellent point, truly excellent, and spot on. If I linked to purely political articles, I would link to it.
It was just your turn to be spammed, Mr. Moka. It happens to everyone who knows me sooner or later.
Thank you John for your sober experience on my thoughts. Most of the articles I write have one key point and it is right there for all to see. Not many people get it though. And yet I write what I think and say what I believe at that point in my life.
Thanks for the email by the way. I look forward to seeing you and the wife in November.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home