AmericanPapist Comments
It would be better to say that Clintoon normally wins more nominal Catholics. No real Catholic would vote for either Abortion Queen or Abortion King (unless they subscribe to the notion that the "Minimum Wage" is the holiest of all holies compared to a mere unborn child, pardon me, foetus. Tom
It's the Republican primary too. I can hardly wait to pull the lever for Ron Paul!
I will vote for either hillary or barak hussein....
when hell freezes over!
'Catholics have picked the winner "in eight of the last nine presidential elections."'
Wow. That makes me sad... Makes you want to cry up to the sky "Oh Lord, what have we DONE?!" in a Young Frankenstein style.
I believe that Mr. Obama stands poised to capitalize off of the Pope's visit to the States because the over-arching (and for the love of Jesus that's the key word here) theme of both of their "encounters with the American People" has been HOPE. Granted, obviously, the substance of both persona's tour de force is different on pretty key issues (the life issue being the most glaring), but they way both have been turned into Media Darlings is a testament to how both have 1) taken the American People (not just Catholics in the case of the Pope) by suprise and 2) have done this by offering a message that is contrary to the typical cynicism that is witnessed in the world.
But please, don't throw me under the bus for at least looking at the Apostolic visit from a different approach and realizing that there are similarities between why people are so attracted to these Chrismatic men.
Someone PLEASE tell me WHY Clinton has any appeal whatsoever among Catholics?
I wouldn't vote for either in a general election but I did end up voting Clinton in the primary, because of the two she is the least electable in the general election for a lot of reasons. I honestly don't think she stands a chance against McCain. But Obama definitely has a chance when Obamamania sets in.
So since the Republican nominee is sealed, why not vote for a democrat who will lose in the general election? In the long run you are helping John McCain win.
Mattheus,
I agree with you that the reaction to Obama's message is very similar to the reaction to the Pope (or vice versa, temporally speaking).
However, I do think it is important to note what the lack of substance in Mr. Obama's message of 'hope' actually constitutes and why these two men are soooooooooooooo different.
What separates Benedict here is the fact that he identifies what hope is and, therefore, gives guidance for what and how hope ought to be directed. Mr. Obama's message is scarily lacking in answers to the question: "for what may I hope?" He merely peddles the word around as if hope left to its own devices always arrives at goodness. His council of hope is not good council at all because it aims at HIM as the messiah, not the real one, Christ.
I'm sorry if I'm being pedantic. I'm sure you have already grappled with this, as your post clearly indicates. While I'd say that the analogy holds up on the surface, the problem is that not everyone who responds gleefully to Obama responds gleefully to the Pope or vice versa. I, for one, find nothing reassuring or enlightening in Mr. Obama.
It would be interesting to see what the statistic is of people who support Obama and have a favorable view of Benedict. My sense is, because Benedict actually knows and talks about what hope is and Obama doesn't, that even those who do adore both do so for disparate reasons whether they know it or not, in spite of the fact that the messages seem superficially similar.
What I do think is absolutely dead on target about what you've said is that it implies that people are in fact clamoring for something that rises above the level of cynicism and strife. This country lacks a good statesman and has lacked one for quite some time. The lack is so great that we get excited about a well-polished sophist in shepherd's clothing. And I'm not alluding to Benedict there.
I am not an american but since the role of the Clinton administration had in the chaos in which my country is immersed (I am not saying it's the whole american people), I do follow elections in your great country. It makes me sad to think catholics will be voting for any of two radical abortionnists. Obama is eloquent and many people on the african continent are so happy to see him running a great campain. I find him quite disappointing on very essential ethical issues. I do not worry about his lack of experience, I worry about the fact that he will surround himself with likeminded advisors. The same goes for Mrs Clinton, who besides everything else has used such negative tactics in her quest for the top job, that I can't see her turning positive magically.
Thanks Teep, I think you were able to verbalize exactly the heart of the matter with
"those who do adore both do so for disparate reasons whether they know it or not, in spite of the fact that the messages seem superficially similar."
And I'm glad that we're in aggreance that people are tired of the cynicism of the past whether it's in our politics with pandering followed by hypocricy and failure to deliver (a materialism of sort) or in our religio-cultural understandings of the world which is a cynicism I believe that arises from the moral relativism that plagues us.
To the latter it's the obvious generation from a relativistic outlook that one become so cynical. After all if everyone has truth, then there is no truth.
To the former it is the profound sense of disappointment and betrayal because of the encroachment of that relativistic philosophy that compounds to create said cynicism.
I'm beginning to believe we can't change the former without first acheiving the latter. After all the it is our moral and religious values in this country that often help shape and inform our political decisions - which is why to a degree Religion is not completely despised by politics and vice versa.
Magdalen, hasn't the derogatory use of Mr. Obama's middle name even been discouraged by the Republicans themselves?
Mattheus,
I think you've hit the nail on the head. People are simply growing weary of what seems to be a proverbial "shake down" when it comes to both the life of faith and the life of political action. And yes, they are thoroughgoingly interdependent. I've been contemplating your comments all day; thanks to you for bringing up the analogy and Thomas for running this little piece about the Catholic voter factor!
Point 1. What have the “Pro-life candidates” actually accomplished to put an end to abortion?
And 2. Shame on people who continue the vaguely racist/xenophobic practice of emphasizing Mr. Obama’s middle name.
3. Curious about the morality of voting for someone who will lose so John McCain wins. Seems kinda like a lie. Why not campaign harder for your guy to win.
4. “His council of hope is not good council at all because it aims at HIM as the messiah, not the real one, Christ.” A. did you mean counsel? and B. actually the role of Messiah is not cast as Obama, but the American People.
“It would be interesting to see what the statistic is of people who support Obama and have a favorable view of Benedict.” Probably more than you know but they keep their mouths closed because they don’t want to argue.
Sadly, I begin to understand why people are so angry at Catholics and Christians. And before you jump all over me. I won’t be back.
Do check out Democrats for Life.
"I won't be back."
What a wonderful way to undermine whatever good points you might have made.
Correction:
Catholics voting for:
Hillary!. . . . . . . . . . . .0
Hussein. . . . . . . . . . . 0
Again, really - derogatory use of someone's middle name because it derives from a culture that is different than yours?
yeah way to show Christian Charity Father....
To the "Dem for life" who took the ball and went home (if indeed you'll look at the comments without responding):
1. I'd love to actually have a conversation with you, as you seem to have a reasonable head on your shoulders. Others who regularly comment here may take a swipe or two at you directly, AmP included, but that ain't my style. Wish you'd have stayed to clarify your position.
2. Yes, sadly, I misspelled 'counsel.' As a grammar freak myself, I feel ashamed.
3. Explain to me how the populace is the messianic figure in Obama's message? I don't get it. Is he not the one we are supposed to put our hope in? The people do not anoint themselves by selecting Obama, they anoint him, do they not?
4. Read the Pope's last encyclical and you'll get where my distinction about kinds of hope is from.
5. The number of people supportive of Obama and Benedict is probably not more than I assume to know, as my comments indicate. I'd venture a guess that it is a large number of people. I'm just saying that, given my advice under point 4 above, there's some serious differences between the kind of hope each offers.
6. Why the vitriol directed at Catholics and Christians, other than those who think its cute to used the tired old "Hussein" thing like a bunch of 8-year-olds? I don't understand why making intellectual decisions about political figures via the Catholic understanding of the meaning of the concept of 'hope' constitutes me being a bigot or a moron or someone generally to be despised.
7. I HAVE checked out Dems for Life and am happy to see that they exist (in my younger days I certainly contemplated joining). Would that there were more democrats who thought and acted along these lines.
8. Show me one good thing that "pro-choice" candidates do to end abortion! Last time I checked, most pro-life candidates were also big-time advocates for adoption. Though, I do confess that I don't know if this is true of McCain.
Note that my e-mail is posted. If you're interested in actually having this out, I don't bite.
Props to Mattheus, Dem4lyf, and Teep for conducting dialogue with cool heads.
Sidonius Apollinaris:
mattheus mei:
I reserve my limited supply of courtesy for non-baby-killers. There's no reason to speak of Hillary (the fully aware wife of the rapist of Juanita Broaddrick) or Hussein "God Damn America" Obama with respect, because I also don't speak with respect for Hitler, Mao, Stalin, or Pol Pot.
Speaking of wicked, violent, dishonest, vicious people with discourtesy is not evidence of a lack of charity.
Joe, you're a racist, and a jerk to boot. I hope that you're not actually a priest because I surely would feel sorry for all who had to labor in their faith with you for a minister.
I can not accept that someone who has a scrap of intelligence or education would so cheaply malign someone because of their middle name. This is positively outrageous. The name Hussein, furthermore, is semitic and its Hebrew derivative is well-used in the Tanakh. You are nothing less than a vile-mouthed, spineless creep whose hateful speech has rendered his arguments naught but sleazy ad hominem attacks. The garbage that comes from your pen isn't worth reading.
And yes, discourtesy is evidence of lack of charity - we must love all.
hey, Sidonius, your third paragraph is pretty funny after your first two. I'm not thrilled w/Fr Joe either; pharisees like him are all too common among priests under 45. But he's honest.
Sid:
If two pro-life candidates, one white, and one of some other color, were running for President, I would vote for the non-white candidate. I think it would be good for the country.
My antipathy to Obama stems ENTIRELY from his being pro-abortion, pro-killing-of-born-babies, pro-killing-of-Terri-Schiavo, and from his being a socialist. Socialism, you may recall, is condemned in Catholic Social Teaching. I would not have used his middle name as I did if there weren't abundant evidence that he is not patriotic. Someone, probably Bill Buckley, said, "Liberals don't love America; they love their plans for America." The next time you hear Obama speak of love for this country, try to think of some measure in the War on IslamoMarxism that he doesn't condemn.
Jeannette:
Most of the complaints I've ever read about people being "judgmental" have included statements along the lines of: "You people are horrible. How can you possibly call yourselves Christians? Rot in hell, you judgmental S.O.B.s!"
The fact remains Joe that you used someone's name in a derogatory fashion. If you want to deride someone for being anti-American, then proffer some evidence of their anti-American sentiments. Give us an intelligent argument that socialism is detrimental to American society. Don't ridicule a candidate's, or anyone's, name.
By the way, Joseph is equally as Semitic as Hussein.
Neither can you justify your bigotry by saying that the common response to your particular brand of racism is equally racist. Two wrongs a right do not make.
Senator McCain has acted with dignity by condemning people like you who negatively use names. He does not dabble in such low behavior. What you did, no matter what reason you want to attribute it, is an ad hominem attack and libellous and it is morally wrong.
"Give us an intelligent argument that socialism is detrimental to American society."
Sidonius Apollinaris,
Socialism was detrimental to Russian society.
I don't see why it's relevant that "Joseph" and "Hussein" are equally Semitic, unless you are asserting that I am an anti-Semite. Oh, that's not derogatory, is it?
Listening to Jeremiah Wright for 20 years is ample evidence that a man is not patriotic.
Advocating the murder of babies, even when they survive an abortion, which one also advocates, is all the reason I need to consider a candidate: 1) Incapable of true patriotism; 2) complicit in mass murder.
Socialism is the systematic violation of the right to private property under color of law. It is the systematic violation of the Principle of Subsidiarity (a fundamental principle of Catholic Social Teaching.
If you want to see some evidence of the effects of Socialism, look at the rent-controlled South Bronx. Or look at photographs of East Berlin before the wall came down. Or take a look at photographs of the bodies heaped up at Auschwitz and elsewhere by the National Socialists. Or take a look at the Council Housing in Britain. Or look up Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis. (Hint: the city finally did what the residents advocated at a City Council meeting: "Blow it up! Blow it up! Blow it up!") Take a look at the people being advised by the National Health in Britain to PULL THEIR OWN TEETH. Take a look at our government schools.
It is interesting that you express skepticism that Socialism is evil, despite the fact that it is condemned by the Catholic Church, and by more than a century of human experience.
Joe (and also David B.),
I mentioned that the name Joseph is also Semitic because you address Sen. Obama as Hussein in the hope that others will conflate his person with other notorious Husseins. The assumption is that an Arabic-sounding name represents or augments his apatriotic positions, which is a false representation. I was just pointing out that anyone could equally accuse you of being apatriotic because you have a Semitic name.
Also, it wouldn't be so easy to use his middle name if it were, say, Tom or John or Harry. So yes you were being derogatory and anti-Semitic, but this is par for the course for you. Yet, naturally, virtue demands that you not wallow in your racism.
You read skepticism into my remark about socialism. I can see how this interpretation is possible, but my comment was couched in a discussion on how you, Joe, might act intelligently (and intelligibly). It was more a call to argue effectively than to raise a red flag over the Capitol and start handing out copies of Das Kapital.
But, I would add, and I think that this will goad your McCarthyist approach to people with different views than yourself, that appealing to authority, in this case Catholic Social Teaching, is also a false argument.
Sid,
I still think my argument against
socialism is pretty good. :-)
The appeal to Catholic Social Teaching is "false"? I think you mean "invalid."
In any case, on a Catholic blog, I can't see how appealing to the teaching of the Catholic Church could be considered out of place, invalid, objectionable, etc.
Arguing based on authority is a patently false method. Authority is not a source of information nor is it an epistemologically sound baseline for making statements. Only right reasoning can provide valid and true argumentation.
And yes, David B. did actually provide some evidence...
P.s., how do you make italics marks?
Sidonius Apollinaris,
You put < plus i or b plus > (for 'Italic' and 'Bold') on one side, and < plus i plus / plus > on the end of the word(s) you want to effect.
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church is a source of information, and citing that authority is rational.
How does "reasoning" verify that there are two natures in Christ, or that He rose from the dead, or that He is substantially present in the Eucharist, or that there will be a General Resurrection?
There are ample rational arguments, and centuries of experience, to verify that Socialism produces economic misery, and that there is a direct correlation between the thoroughness with which Socialism is attempted and the degree to which the Socialists must resort to mass murder to keep the great unwashed in line.
Citing the fact that the Magisterium condemns Socialism is legitimate in a forum where the authority of the Magisterium is recognized, and that condemnation is completely consistent with the data of experience and a rational analysis of human nature. (Cf. _Human Action_ by Ludwig von Mises for 800 pages of step-by-step rational exposition of why Socialism is war against the nature of the human mind and will.)
Saying that the Magisterium is "legitimate in a forum where the authority of the Magisterium is recognized" is no different than saying that using Mein Kampf as an authority in National Socialist circles is self-evidently right.
Now, when you add in the fact that this Magisterium is both is supported by and explains human experience and is furthermore justified by rational analysis, then you've got yourself a sounder argument.
But it should be mentioned that "reasoning" does verify theological thought, because theology is arrived at via rationality and exists within the boundaries of rationality. Indeed it seems that the ability to reason is a great gift that God has bestowed to us. I add that in forming a Christian intellectual tradition, people like Ss. Augustine and Jerome (inter alia) used the rational analytical methods learned from the philosophers of the Greek and Roman worlds.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
