Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Friday, February 13, 2015
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Vortex Follow-Up On "Catholic Politics"
Real Catholic TV posted this video today in response to some of the comments that they've received from avowed atheists. (Click here if you can't see embedded video).
As far as the vitriol that he reports, I can attest to that. Upon doing some googling, I found an article and some discussion on the pharyngula blog (run by the professor who drove a rusty nail through the Eucharist). I saw some of the comments.
When I wrote about Judge Vaughn Walker taking pot-shots at the Church in his ruling, I received a number of comments. In utilization of some tools, I noticed that they were linking from a comment on the pharyngula blog. WIth one regretable exception, the comments on my posting were relatively tame, but not so on the pharyngula blog. I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of the venomous coments to the Vortex post came from that blog.
All that being said, I still differ from Real Catholic TV on this matter. I do not hold the opinion that differences between democracy and republic are "hair-splitting" in the least; such a dismissive attitude towards that distinction is really quite ignorant. Now Voris does state plainly that he favors a "Catholic monarchy". He opines that "civilization would be better off if it were a Catholic monarchy. How this comes about? I don't know." What???!!??! That's almost as bad as Pelosi saying that "we have to pass health care to find out what's in it." The devil is in the details - and I think sometimes quite literally!
History tried Catholic monarchies; their successes or failures were clearly dependent on the one occupying the throne. History has proven that such dependence on one individual is not acceptable. Do I say that what we have now is perfect? No, it isn't. However, much of the current morass is due to too many people looking for a de facto king to take the reigns. I might suggest a close study of 1 Samuel 8 in the Old Testament. The people clamored for a king. It seems to me that the Lord granted their request, albeit reluctantly.
What Voris is suggesting is somewhat similar to an idea that floats about in some sedevacantist circles, called "divine right of kings". They somehow think of the days of Charlemagne as being the "glory days of Catholic civilization". One such proponent is a lady named Solange Hertz. I read a book of hers some years ago called "Star-Spangled Heresy". If my quotes from this book are not 100% accurate, it's because I pitched it in the trash. She sees only a Catholic monarchy, preferably a French monarchy, as being the only legitimate form of government. She also opines that the Bill of Rights is all wet. In her book, she completely opposes freedom of speech for the average citizen. Now think about it. She trashes the First Amendment and the American system - in a book that she was free to write precisely because of the First Amendment. Am I the only one who sees the irony here? An important aside to my sedevacantist friends - Satan wants all to leave the Church, and he doesn't particularly care if you exit "stage left" or "stage right"; it's all the same to him. Come back to Rome, lest you imperil your own immortal souls!
I agree that self-governance is hard work, one for grown-ups. The answer is not to regress to a monarchy. As I asked earlier, what would be the checks and balances? What redress would the people have in the case of a corrupt monarch? Real Catholic TV, please do take more care to think these proposals through before you broadcast them.
As far as the vitriol that he reports, I can attest to that. Upon doing some googling, I found an article and some discussion on the pharyngula blog (run by the professor who drove a rusty nail through the Eucharist). I saw some of the comments.
When I wrote about Judge Vaughn Walker taking pot-shots at the Church in his ruling, I received a number of comments. In utilization of some tools, I noticed that they were linking from a comment on the pharyngula blog. WIth one regretable exception, the comments on my posting were relatively tame, but not so on the pharyngula blog. I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of the venomous coments to the Vortex post came from that blog.
All that being said, I still differ from Real Catholic TV on this matter. I do not hold the opinion that differences between democracy and republic are "hair-splitting" in the least; such a dismissive attitude towards that distinction is really quite ignorant. Now Voris does state plainly that he favors a "Catholic monarchy". He opines that "civilization would be better off if it were a Catholic monarchy. How this comes about? I don't know." What???!!??! That's almost as bad as Pelosi saying that "we have to pass health care to find out what's in it." The devil is in the details - and I think sometimes quite literally!
History tried Catholic monarchies; their successes or failures were clearly dependent on the one occupying the throne. History has proven that such dependence on one individual is not acceptable. Do I say that what we have now is perfect? No, it isn't. However, much of the current morass is due to too many people looking for a de facto king to take the reigns. I might suggest a close study of 1 Samuel 8 in the Old Testament. The people clamored for a king. It seems to me that the Lord granted their request, albeit reluctantly.
What Voris is suggesting is somewhat similar to an idea that floats about in some sedevacantist circles, called "divine right of kings". They somehow think of the days of Charlemagne as being the "glory days of Catholic civilization". One such proponent is a lady named Solange Hertz. I read a book of hers some years ago called "Star-Spangled Heresy". If my quotes from this book are not 100% accurate, it's because I pitched it in the trash. She sees only a Catholic monarchy, preferably a French monarchy, as being the only legitimate form of government. She also opines that the Bill of Rights is all wet. In her book, she completely opposes freedom of speech for the average citizen. Now think about it. She trashes the First Amendment and the American system - in a book that she was free to write precisely because of the First Amendment. Am I the only one who sees the irony here? An important aside to my sedevacantist friends - Satan wants all to leave the Church, and he doesn't particularly care if you exit "stage left" or "stage right"; it's all the same to him. Come back to Rome, lest you imperil your own immortal souls!
I agree that self-governance is hard work, one for grown-ups. The answer is not to regress to a monarchy. As I asked earlier, what would be the checks and balances? What redress would the people have in the case of a corrupt monarch? Real Catholic TV, please do take more care to think these proposals through before you broadcast them.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Vortex On "Catholic Politics" - With My "Sed Contra"
As I've said before on a few occasions, it isn't often when I disagree with Michael Voris and Real Catholic TV, but sometimes that happens. In fact, no two entities will always find themselves in complete agreement. I debated whether or not to post my disagreement with this Vortex, but because I post so many of them with my concurrence, I was concerned that my silence regarding this one would be interpreted as tacit agreement. My disagreements in this matter are rather substantial.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Republic vs Democracy
I came across the following video and thought that it did a reasonably good job of explaining that the United States of America was founded as a republic and not a democracy. (Click here if you can't see embedded videos)
One thing I might add is that as the Romans started enjoying their prosperity, they also forgot their morals. They became slothful and thus desirous of a government that would assume the responsiblity of providing for them - and running their lives! Sound familiar? It's happening today under the Messiah Most Miserable!
Understand that the Bill of Rights exists because the founding fathers understood that the majority could be wrong (e.g., in trampling the rights of a racial minority). Doesn't that imply that there is an immutable standard of right vs wrong that is independent of the will of the people? From whence did such a standard originate? From the Delcaration of Independence, "we are endowed by our Creator". Yep! That means that our form of government makes absolutely no sense to dyed-in-the-wool atheists! That's why some can dare to conceive that a person who despises constitutionally-guaranteed rights (Elena Kagan!) is fit to sit on the US Supreme Court! Are dots being connected here?
We're quickly devolving to an oligarchy here. We know who they are: Obama, Pelosi, Reed, George Soros (the real money-bags behind everything). I'll close this post by suggesting a study of Alexander Tyler's cycle of national life; click this link and see where you might judge this country to be.
One thing I might add is that as the Romans started enjoying their prosperity, they also forgot their morals. They became slothful and thus desirous of a government that would assume the responsiblity of providing for them - and running their lives! Sound familiar? It's happening today under the Messiah Most Miserable!
We're quickly devolving to an oligarchy here. We know who they are: Obama, Pelosi, Reed, George Soros (the real money-bags behind everything). I'll close this post by suggesting a study of Alexander Tyler's cycle of national life; click this link and see where you might judge this country to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
