Mitt Romney Ad Featuring Pope John Paul II
August 9, 2012 26 Comments
Accusing President Obama of waging war on religion. American politics.
A new Mitt Romney ad released Thursday accuses President Barack Obama of waging a “war on religion.” The ad, along with recent attacks on Obama’s welfare policy, signals a move away from attacking the president’s handling of the economy.
“President Obama used his health care plan to declare war on religion, forcing religious institutions to go against their faith,” says a narrator in the ad. “Mitt Romney believes that’s wrong.”
Romney is referring to an Obama administration decision to mandate that religiously-affiliated employers — but not religious institutions themselves — cover the cost of contraception in their health care plans at no charge to the employee. The administration tweaked the mandate to allow employers with moral or ethical objections to request that the insurer cover the extra costs of the coverage.
Romney’s invocation of a “war on religion” recalls an infamous Rick Perry ad that attacked Obama for the same, though on different culture-war grounds.
The latest ad then cuts to Romney praising Pope John Paul II, who helped end officially atheist communism in Poland. “[I]n 1979, a son of Poland, Pope John Paul II, spoke words that would bring down an empire. ‘Be not afraid,’” says Romney, speaking from a recent trip to Poland.
Drawing a comparison between what it portrays as the repressive Polish communist regime and a preventative health care mandate, the narrator says, “When religious freedom is threatened, who do you want to stand with?”
About Fr Stephen Smuts
A Judeo-Christian conservatism really wins here! But the Brit’s have already lost that, and America is also on its way! Can there be a Western Judeo-Christian renewal? I doubt it, but GOD is sovereign!
OF COURSE Obama is at war with religion, more so than the so-called “War on Women” that is a great liberal lie spread around by comedians and entertainers. They should all be thrown into a furnace, as a plague is killed by fire!
Obama is the bastard child of Marxists who did not believe in the sanctity of marriage; considering how Obama is called the first “Gay President” the connection shows. He is of the people who have poisoned the world with atheistic, liberal filth. He is the great ally of Cultural Marxists all over the world, and only got to where he is because of the color of his skin and “Hope” and “Change”- which are nothing more than propaganda. Of course there is a war on religion, as true as how he funds global efforts to promote abortion, contraception, and homosexuality in places like the Philippines and Africa.
What the government is doing is forcing churches to provide abortions and contraceptives, and maybe eventually forcing churches to acknowledge homosexual marriages, and gender-equality policies for the clergy. If that is not enough proof that the government is at war with the Church, I don’t know what else will do, other than, as I have pointed out in other posts, actual soviet-style persecution of religious followers and attempts to blot out or control churches, ala Chinese Patriotic Catholic Associations.
Not that the Mormon is any better. He -seems- like a good man and is the lesser evil in comparison to Barack Obama. But never trust earthly princes. They will not save us, and I am even more suspicious of people who promise heaven on earth.
Obama is a charismatic man. But so is the Devil. And what people vote for now, I think, are celebrities who tell the public what they want to hear regardless of what really needs to be done.
There are, of course, very great differences between the US and UK political systems and I have to say that I have always found the “nothing barred” style of political advertising rather distasteful. The best one might say about the Romney ads is that it is, I suppose, a change from the position in the first JFK campaign where the Republican theme was than it would not be right to elect a Catholic whose allegiance would be to a foreign power (i.e. the Holy Father) to the office of President. But, in those days, of course, the Republican Party was the party of the WASP establishment.
I happen to think that the last Republican President one can consider a statesman was President Eisenhower. Others will, of course, disagree. Even Nixon had his supporters.
It is my very strong belief that the Church should try very hard to stay out of party politics. Yes, it has to speak truth unto power, but this should be on particular issues and a good overall litmus test is which party comes closest to Catholic Social Teaching.
Sad to say, there was a time when there were those in the Roman Curia who took the view that since democracy was not necessary to salvation, the Church should ally itself with those governments which gave most advantages to the Catholic Church. This led to concordats with fascist dictators – Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, the Argentinian Juntas. It led to large sections of the French Church favouring the Vichy Regime rather than the French Resistance.
Then, when for example, democracy was restored to Spain and Portugal, the Church was seen in a bad light and that had consequences in terms of observance.
Likewise, in postwar Italy, the US government sought to prevent the possibility of a Communist takeover by secretly funding the Christian Democratic Party. But what Langley did not realise was that Italian Commuists were still Catholics at heart (see the delightful Don Camillo stories) and a lot less corrupt than the Mafia connected Christian Democrats.
I well recollect the time when Rome elected its first Communist Mayor. There was consternation in the Vatican because protocol required that the Mayor be received by the Holy Father. And the first thing the Mayor did when he was recived was kneel for the Pope’s blessing! Which the Pope gave – to the consternation of the curialists for whom all communists were excommuicate.
One of the problems of the CofE has been that it was long seen as “The Conservative Party at Prayer”. Examplified, perhaps, exemplified by that verse in the well-known Children’s hymn: “All Things Bright and Beautiful”:-
“The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, He made them, high or lowly, and ordered their estate.”
Written, of course, in 1848 by a very genteel Anglican lady at Markree Castle near Sligo during the height of the Irish Potato Famine in which one million of those at the gates of the Protestant Establishment’s Castles and Country Mansions died of starvation and another million were forced to emigrate many of who perished on the way to the USA.
Given that it is “easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle….” .the Church has to be wary of rich men in government whose policies are designed to increase rather than reduce social inequality.
Oh, so that’s what Monty Python’s “All Things Dull and Ugly” was mocking. They aren’t that funny anyways. (Maybe for angry 13-year-old boys.)
And yes, I agree that President Eisenhower is great. I like Ike, but Reagan is pretty close up there, in my opinion.
Living in a Blue (Democrat) State, I grew up on the promises and the ideals of the Left. It helped that my peers were blindly supportive of the Democratic Party. And I considered myself one of them. But fast forward to when I have to live like an adult and things are no longer handed to me just because I want or feel like I need them: I’ve had to re-examine my political stance through an honest critique of my previously held beliefs and the things I’ve cast down especially during my adolescence, which led me back to Catholicism and Conservatism and reconciliation with authority.
It seemed to me that in order for Democracy to work, (Not just the Democratic party, but the entire notion that the “people” should have the power in government) the electorate should be educated and are capable of making objective, rational decisions. The problem is that the majority in America are easily influenced by people like satirists, political commentators, comedians, and the like. One has to read through various thinkers who express their doubts about Democracy to lift oneself out of the haze of emotionalism that clouds the democratic crowd. For example, Plato’s Republic states that “Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequaled alike.” And I’ve come to the same conclusion that a world view is egalitarianism betrays the fact that we are not all the same. Furthermore, Democracy, being egalitarian in its distribution of power (“For and by the people”) has espoused (even if just limited to social and cultural realm) a subjectivist outlook which is detrimental to the objective truth that the Catholic Church teaches. (I am also reminded by statements of Dr. Peter Kreeft, who advocates a return by the Church to a culture centered not on egalitarianism but a striving for excellence, tempered by the virtue of humility.)
I do not believe a society will get far if everyone does what they want and have too much faith in the notion that “People are naturally good” ala Jean-Jacques Rousseau, without being tempered by the fact that people are also flawed, which is what the Catholic Church teaches, in my understanding. There will be stagnation when too much unrestrained freedom becomes the ideal philosophy; most likely, people will end up eating each other in a Mad Max sort of world. (It has happened before in history, from the French Revolution to Mao’s Cultural Revolution- authority came from the bayonet, the mob, and the bullet.)
Going back to America, people think that just because they live in a “Democracy” They have more power than they really do or ought to have, and while Democracy would work in -some- situations, it cannot be the Panacea; this is why the United States is actually more of a Republic, and have sought to model themselves in a mixed sort of government, like Venice; part Democracy, part Aristocracy, and part Monarchy. Of course, given the American distaste for authority, society has turned a blind eye to the fact that there will ALWAYS be a Monarchical and Aristocratic class. It’s just that they put faith in social mobility, to be one of such classes; this is why people, especially my generation, have become obsessed with celebrity, and center their gossip around celebrities. Famous people who are famous without even doing anything (for example, Paris Hilton) become the new American aristocracy, and people like Obama become the monarchs- not necessarily because they have done anything beneficial to society, but because of the hype and idealism mixed with a culture celebrity worship.
As for the Catholic Church’s involvement in politics. I’d say that our Lord was pretty minimalistic, only saying “Pay your taxes, whatever belongs to Caesar is Caesar’s, and the Lord’s is for the Lord.” yet 2,000 years later, we need to have a real bark and a real bite from the dogs who help the Shepherd guard and keep his flock safe from wolves. Why should I pay what is Washington’s, if Washington will murder children inside their mothers, or allow mothers to pay doctors to kill their children? I would fight such a thing, even in armed resistance! I’m afraid that bishops are being lazy or afraid and disguising it as being diplomatic. This is where the vote comes in. If we are afforded the ability to voice our own opinions, those opinions will have to be formed by -something- and I’ve seen in history where opinions informed by “scientific thought” leads- to eugenics, Josef Mengele, and Unit 731. Whereas Catholic Thought has led to things like preservation of civilization while Rome decayed, the patronage of the arts – because goodness and beauty and truth are linked to each other- and all else. If Catholic thought fails, it only fails because there is an objective standard that exists outside of human experience and opinion. Whereas the current popular view is that murder can easily be subjective, and therefore perpetually correct.
I have discovered the writings of Clerical Philosophers- I must say that no American school taught about them- at least in places where I was educated- always about John Lock and Rousseau and Montesquieu- but never about Joseph de Maistre, Louis de Bonald, and François-René de Chateaubriand; why is this, if not the fact that American education is hijacked by leftists who would in effect brainwash children and young adults to go against what the previous generation upheld, even if those things stabilized the country and made it prosper, and even if the current generation can provide no alternative other than to whine about what their parents and grandparents generation have done in a giant masturbatory circle of guilt and liberal filth. Meanwhile, they indulge themselves in hedonism, while society decays. (One has to look at American Television to see the sickness of the soul of the increasingly morally bankrupt American society.) This is why there must be a return to tradition, and to wipe out the obstinate who will neither cooperate nor listen- but will oppose and riot; they are stupid, angry, and they are not above violence. Or at least, as a more peaceful alternative, cultivate the remnant, and oppose attempts by the larger culture to suppress the growth of the faithful through exercising the ability to vote- if Democracy is not hypocritical it is not merely a legitimizing apparatus through which a mob feels justified in oppressing those who disagree.
Then, again, as Dr. Peter Kreeft have stated- It is a form of idolatry to make politics religion and to turn religion into politics. Whether if it is the Elephant or the Donkey, so long as it deviates from the worship of God.
Yet what of conscience? What of things that influence policy? This is the dilemma. “Blessed are the Meek,” the Lord says; but we must never rule out that there may be a time to fight, not only with arms, but with other ways.
@ Ioannes
You wrote: “And yes, I agree that President Eisenhower is great. I like Ike, but Reagan is pretty close up there, in my opinion.”
US Conservatives have canonised Reagan but this is to view his era through some very rose-tinted spectacles. You might try reading 10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan.
You will doubtless be familiar with the Res Gestae Divi Augustus. I wrote a Res Gestae for Reagan while watching the Gipper’s funeral on TV:
The Res Gestae of Ronald Wilson Reagan, 40th President of the United States of America
“1. In my 26th year, I became a film actor making 53 files over a 20-year film career. In World War II, I served my country in Hollywood with the US Army and Army Air Force making over 400 training films for the Army Air Force and leaving active service with the rank of Captain.
2. After World War II, my fellow screen actors elected me to the presidency of the Screen Actors’ Guild entrusting me with the defence of the members’ interests. Those I considered to be my enemies because of their political views, I drove into exile by my testimony as a friendly witness on 23rd October 1947 before the House Un-American Activities Committee.
3. Although in 1950 I campaigned for the California Democratic candidate in her race against Richard Nixon for the US Senate, in 1952 and 1956, I supported the Republican candidate for the presidency leading a movement known as “Democrats for Eisenhower”.
4. In 1954 I was hired as a propagandist by the mega enterprise, General Electric Corporation, and I hosted television shows and much else. My training at GEC honed my communications skills and in 1960 I once more worked to seduce Democrats from allegiance to their party’s candidate by campaigning under the label of “Democrats for Nixon”.
5. My time with GEC gave me an important understanding of how business operates. GEC fired me because I had in error criticised the Tennessee Valley Authority whose commercial favour GEC wished to have. Understanding that the business of America is business and that the political process cannot function without the gold of the corporations, in the same year I switched my formal political allegiance to the Republican Party.
6. In 1964 I gave my final film performance in “The Killers”, in which for the first and only time in motion pictures, I played the bad guy. I then turned to full-time bad guy work as co-chair of California Republicans for Senator Goldwater. In my speech – A Time for Choosing I attacked the wicked Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programme which sought to give unnecessary wealth to the poor and deprived plebeians – by means of the monstrous expedient of taxing the wealth of the corporations and the rich citizens. My speech served to to convince many right-wing millionaires that I had the communications skills to “sell” Neoconservatism to the American plebs.
7. With the financial support of my rich business friends I ran for the office of Governor of California and was accorded the victor’s laurels by the voters of that state. Upon assuming office in 1967, I rewarded my business friends by imposing on the state a 10% reduction in expenditure thus reducing the ability of the impoverished to obtain luxuries such as mental health care and education which were unnecessary for their station in life.
8. The people of California rewarded me in 1970 by re-electing me as Governor of their state. In my second consulate, I removed 300,000 plebeians from the public dole. However, I was unable cut taxes and was forced to impose on Californians the largest tax increase any state had ever demanded in American history.
9. I was loyal to President Nixon, only admitting that he had deceived the American people on 6th August 1974 three days before he resigned to avoid the indignity of impeachment for his high crimes and misdemeanours. I refused office under Gerald Ford because I thought him too liberal and I challenged him for the Republican nomination in 1976 but was defeated.
10. In the1980 presidential race I vied with the incumbent President, one Jimmy Carter, who had not learned the lesson that morality is a luxury that presidents cannot afford. My friends rewarded me with $10.6 million of “independent” contributions to the campaign while my opponent received only an inconsequential $28,000. The American plebs rewarded me with their trust and I was sworn into office on 20th January 1981 as the 40th President of the United States of America.
11. Despite an inherited Federal deficit of $100 billion I launched a programme of tax cuts for the rich and of cuts in welfare and social programmes for the poor which created a new underclass of severely disadvantaged people in American society. At first I had difficulty in getting my plans through Congress but I was helped by a failed assassination attempt. During my two terms in office I managed to almost triple the Federal Deficit. Thanks to my fiscal policies, by 1st November 1982, I succeeded in putting nearly 9 million Americans out of work, the highest number since the Great Depression. By 1st January 1983 I had caused the jobless total to reach the new height of 11.5 millions.
12. On 8th March 1983, I delivered my great Evil Empire speech before a gathering of so-called evangelical Christians. Considering that such people claim to follow the misguided teachings of some nonentity or other from far off Judea, whom it appears they call by the ludicrous title of “Prince of Peace”, my oration was received surprisingly well. It is of course the great state contracts for weapons which enable the corporations to make vast profits and therefore my Strategic Defense Initiative, which the plebs called “Star Wars”, was very well received by the merchants, although foolish scientists claimed that no workable weapon was capable of deployment.
13. In August 1982, I sent US Marines to Lebanon to keep peace between warring Lebanese factions, but on 23rd October 1983, 241 US Marines were killed by a suicide bomber. O Varus, give me back my legions !
14. I gave enthusiastic support to many generals and military leaders from the lands of Latin America, among them the generals of Argentina and El Salvador, General Pinochet of Chile, General Montt of Guatemala and the Contras of Nicaragua. All these valiant warriors were fighting foolish governments elected by ignorant people infected with the democratic virus. With my support and the weapons I supplied, the warriors were able to slay thousands and, wondrous to behold, made many of their people simply disappear.
15. Notwithstanding the legal prohibition on the funding actions in support of the Nicaraguan Contras which some foolish senators and representatives of the plebs in the Congress enacted by the ludicrous Boland Amendment to the War Powers Act, I continued to give the Contras my support. In my State of the Union Address of 9th May 1983, I sought the support of Congress against the lawfully elected Sandinista government and described the Nicaraguan Contras as “freedom fighters”. In that speech I also announced support for the Mujahhidin in Afghanistan. When Congress did not support my plans for Nicaragua, I caused my spies to arrange clandestine funding of the Contra’s heroic efforts, inter alia, by the secret sale of weapons to Iran.
16. In pursuit of my crusade against communism, I did not hesitate to overthrow foreign governments. On 25th October 1983 I invaded the sovereign state of Grenada and subdued its foolish leaders, an act regrettably declared to have been an unlawful aggression by the UN General Assembly. I was forced to use my supreme authority to veto a similar foolish resolution in the UN Security Council.
17. The arrangements I made for my spies to conduct covert actions in support of the Iran Contras later caused the United States of America to be found to have acted unlawfully by the International Court of Justice in the Hague. Fortunately, these judges have no armies at their disposal and I was able to treat their judgment with contempt.
18. In December 1983 I sent a certain Donald Rumsfeld as my envoy to repair relations with Saddam Hussein the dictator of Iraq and provide him with assistance and support in his battles against the wicked Iranians. I later approved the sale of “dual use” equipment to him which unfortunately he used to gas some Kurdish barbarians who apparently did not appreciate the benefits of Iraqi citizenship. But thus it was that I benefited our great merchants by arranging the sale of arms to both sides in the Iran-Iraq war.
19. In 1984 I reviewed the Kirkpatrick Doctrine of my UN Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick. The stupid woman had attempted to justify my support for Third World dictatorships with bad human rights records with a philosophy based on the dubious proposition that the communist states which the United States opposed were “totalitarian” regimes while the third-world dictatorships which the United States supported were but “authoritarian” ones. I have never liked logomachy. The Kirkpatrick doctrine was strongly criticised by some ignorant liberals among the senators because it involved a little bloodshed, perhaps quite a lot, and even though my dictator allies were, for quite moderate pension contributions, creating a favourable climate for US corporations to do much lucrative trade with the countries they controlled. In a stroke of genius I was inspired to reformulate Kirkpatrick’s babblings as the Reagan Doctrine, which stated that the USA would henceforward support any anti-communist insurgency. By this means the state could still support right-wing dictatorships and more generally any insurgents against any government I disliked. It was sufficient to decree that my enemies were communists.
20. On 11th August 1984, I mistakenly quipped into a microphone that I thought was off air, “My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes”. A few liberals were unhappy but I received a surprising number of missives supporting the concept.
21. On 4th November 1984 and in my 73rd year the American plebs rewarded me with supreme power for a further 4 years. At the election I received 59% of the popular vote, 49 states and 525 electoral college votes. My forlorn opponent Walter “Fritz” Mondale was supported by only one insignificant state with miserable 10 electoral college votes. Geriatrics can still rule.
22. The Reagan doctrine enabled me on 27 March 1985 to sign off on National Security Directive 166 authorising assistance to the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan which seemed like a good idea at the time. Of course I did not know that the money would be used by my underlings to create Al Quaida.
23. Throughout my presidency I was careful to ignore the AIDS epidemic which is actually beneficial since it attacks persons who indulge in unnatural vice. Unfortunately in October 1985 I was compelled to announce that I would make AIDS research a priority when some lovesick matrons learned that a certain faggot named Rock Hudson had died of the disease. I ‘prioritised’ the research by cutting funding for it.
24. I authorised the bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi in April 1986 in retaliation for the bombing of a disco in Berlin where a US serviceman was killed. These rag-heads need to be taught lessons in a manner they understand and slaughter of their women and children from the air is always effective. I learned that from Saddam Hussein.
25. On 25th November 1986, my Attorney General was forced to admit that between $10-30 million earned from illegal arms sales to Iran had been equally illegally diverted to aid the Contras. Since impeachment seemed a distinct possibility, I appointed a Commission with orders to review matters as slowly as possible. When I was compelled to testify to the Tower Commission I was unfortunately suffering from amnesia and was unable to assist them in clarifying the role of my underlings. On 26th February 1987, the Tower Commission Report was delivered to me. I arranged for it to be printed and sold by Bantam Books. It concluded that, “confused and unaware”, I allowed myself to be misled by dishonest staff members who organized the trade of arms to Iran for hostages held in Lebanon and pursued a secret war against the Nicaraguan government. The report charged that I had failed to “insist upon accountability & performance review” allowing the National Security Council process to collapse. The impertinence of these people. Unfortunately for my enemies I could still appeal to the American plebs. A model defence to executive branch wrongdoing is set out in my 1987 Iran Contra speech which should serve as a useful example for my Republican successors.
26. On 19th December 1986 my enemy Lawrence Walsh was appointed independent counsel to investigate Iran Contra and what little is in the public domain about Iran Contra is now documented in the Walsh Report.
27. In my Brandenberg Gate speech of 12th November 1987, I make a bid for the credit for détente with the Soviet Union. My words: “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” went down well with my ever credulous sheeple. After all it was only two years since my spiritual guide Margaret Thatcher had told me after she had met Dear Gorby in 1985 that he was a man we could do business with. How wise dear Margaret is, such a comfort to me and, unlike my devoted Nancy, she has no truck with astrologers.
28. On 8th December 1987, Gorbachev and I signed the INF treaty, which only eliminated 4% of the our nuclear arsenals but it was the first U.S.-Soviet treaty to provide for destruction of nuclear weapons and to provide for on-site monitoring of the destruction. Leading conservatives were critical of the treaty, but I think it was a good idea.
29. My good friends Oliver North, John Poindexter, and two others were indicted by a federal grand jury on 16th March 1988 on charges of conspiring to defraud the U.S. government by secretly providing funds and supplies to the Contra rebels fighting the government of Nicaragua. These ignorant lawyers simply do not understand that we must support our allies. Fortunately, documents can be classified and presidential pardons can be procured.
30. On 31st May 1988 I did my question and answer bit at Moscow State University beneath gigantic bust of Lenin. “We do not know what the conclusion will be of this journey, but we’re hopeful that the promise of reform will be fulfilled. In this Moscow spring, this May 1988, we may be allowed that hope: that freedom, like the fresh green sapling planted over Tolstoy’s grave, will blossom forth at last in the rich fertile soil of your people and culture.” I forget who Tolstoy was. Certainly I remember no ally of that name.
31. I did my bit of campaigning for George Bush Senior. I did not consider he would long survive as President since he was too much the gentleman, but he was my faithful deputy and in any event I needed him to grant some presidential pardons after the inauguration. The plebs duly elected him as my successor on 8th November 1988 and he delivered the pardons I had sought.
32. On 11th January 1989, I delivered my Farewell Speech to the American people from the White House.
33. On 5th November 1994, I informed my loyal subjects that my amnesia had in fact been diagnosed as Alzheimer’s disease and that I was withdrawing completely from public life. It appears my memories will gradually fade to nothing so at least no-one else will be able to ask me any more impertinent questions. This was my 83rd year.”
In your incredibly biased and narrow-pictured account you’ve missed his fundamental role in the fall of Communism. Having lived in Eastern Europe for many years I really understand why people have named numerous streets or squares after him.
Somehow you have also missed to mention his staunch pro-life stance in your diatribe.
That’s for starters.
Having read among others the excellent summary of the late President Reagan’s wonderful achievements above words cannot express how refreshing it is to be among kindred spirits! I for one no longer visit the extreme left wing/liberal ‘Anglo-Catholic’ especially since Ms sorry I’ve forgotten her name but it ends in gong resigned. I wonder if readers would care to join the little prayer group I have founded: ‘Christians for Revenge’. We are calling for the recriminalisation of the ‘Gays’, the immediate canonisation of General Franco the great European crusader (our Patron) and the banning of electricity. May I also take this opportunity to advise any readers who are going on long sea voyages to take care not to sail too far lest they fall off the edge of the World.
Someone will misinterpret your sarcastic tone and publish it all over. And that’s pretty normal on the internet. “Disgruntled Dissidents form ‘Christians for Revenge’ prayer group.”
Mrs. Deborah Gyapong merely went on a hiatus over the “ahh-my-head-is-on-fire” style of posts on “Anglo Catholic”
Now, if I were to take your post seriously, here’s what I’m thinking;
Ban gay marriage, criminalize sodomy and other non-procreative sexual activity. Hunt down pornographers, confiscate their assets. Let the criminals do manual labor. Censor works by atheists, reintroduce anti-blasphemy laws. Reintroduce mandatory prayer in all academic environments, ban liberal arts, save for philosophy and theology and other few exceptions, science should be first deemed compatible with Church teaching before being taught at lower levels; if people will not study, nor work, they ought to serve in the armed forces.
The Internet should be heavily censored, and there can only be limited television and radio stations.
But you see, that’s not going to work in “The West” because the typical westerner cannot survive without the things they take for granted. And, you know, materialism and all that.
But honestly, let’s consider what sort of society is sustainable before being too optimistic about how things are. I don’t think it’s sustainable at this rate. The U.S. Economy alone is scheduled to implode before 2020 at its most generous estimate. The Outstanding Public Debt as of 11 Aug 2012 at 08:13:36 PM GMT is: $15,923,302,294,624.26 and is increasing. Oh, and the government still needs to engage in deficit spending just to run the country. Eat the Rich? Well, take a look at this video. (Circa March 21, 2011)
Can you really vote for a candidate who belives God the Father is an exalted man with a wives, that he had sex with the Virgin Mary and that the Divine pattern of marriage ( to be restored at the second adevent is polygamy)?
Will Romeny stop gay marriage..no.
will he end abortion…no
Will he stop death rom USA..no
Will he help the 30 per cent of Americanms who live beneath the poverty line..no
Yes, Mormons are from Mars. This should be common knowledge already.
But, see: Romney is that old, wall-eyed, scabies-afflicted dog from the pound we have left as an option. He is the better (not the best) choice against a disease-ridden sewer rat that has suddenly become a beloved house pet.
Vote Romney, even if it’s only to get Obama out.
@Ioannes
You will, I hope, forgive me if I suggest that you have been a victim of some pretty unsavoury propaganda.
To put matters right, I suggest you start by reviewing the very useful Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church.
Note the teaching on the universal destination of goods and the preferential option for the poor.
As a next step, before taking some peoples’ arguments on the US economy as gospel, do some simple research. You might start with this page: The Numbers: How do U.S. taxes compare internationally?
Note this comment:-
“Among OECD countries only Mexico, Chile and Turkey had lower taxes than the United States as a percentage of GDP. In many European countries taxes exceeded 40 percent of GDP, but those countries generally provide much more extensive government services to their citizens than the United States does.”
In plain English, what this means is that the USA could provide the safety net for those at the bottom of the pile which we take for granted in Europe – but which the USA presently does not do, partly because it collects less by way of taxation. But if you were to go deeper into matters, you would also find that the lower middle classes pay a disproportionately high percentage of the total US tax take, while the Uber-rich find it far easier to avoid or evade paying their fair share.
How can this happen in a democracy?
Well, one answer might be that your legislature is hardly representative of the people in terms of wealth. Nearly all US Senators are millionaires and the House is not exactly the poorhouse. See Your Senator is Probably a millionaire.
But another is the old one about the power of advertising to influence public opinion. Almost uniquely for a democracy, in the USA the very rich enjoy the unfettered possibility of spending unlimited amounts of money on political propaganda to peddle untruths. The methods are legion and I would not regard anything Bill Whittle (or anyone else of the Pyjamas Media stable) as a reliable source of information.
Have a look at this: National Debt Graph by President. After the Great Depression and WW2, all US Presidents of whatever political colour until Carter brought the US Deficit down. The big deficit culprits are Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. You won’t hear Bill Whittle telling you that, of course. Check out the link on that page to ‘Voodo Strategy’ for an explanation of the essential error in the video you posted. A deficit can be cut by cutting spending, or by raising taxes – preferably by both, and if you need to, taxes can be raised by bearing down harder on the rich than on the middle class.
Cutting spending without raising taxes on the rich is essentially a “soak the poorest” strategy and for me, that’s immoral and unchristian and contrary to the Social Teaching of the Church.
How is public opinion manipulated? By adopting the principles of manipulation of public opinion first enunciated by Herr Doktor Goebbles.
But, Ioannes, what worries me most of all is your action programme: “Ban gay marriage, criminalize sodomy and other non-procreative sexual activity. Hunt down pornographers, confiscate their assets. Let the criminals do manual labor. Censor works by atheists, reintroduce anti-blasphemy laws. Reintroduce mandatory prayer in all academic environments, ban liberal arts, save for philosophy and theology and other few exceptions, science should be first deemed compatible with Church teaching before being taught at lower levels; if people will not study, nor work, they ought to serve in the armed forces. The Internet should be heavily censored, and there can only be limited television and radio stations.”. I have to say that this action list bears a frightening resemblance to that of the Fascists of the 1920′s.
Finally, the Church can and does intervene on the side of social justice. The late Cardinal Manning did so in relation to a bitter labour dispute in the London Docks. You may like to read this New York Times Account of his funeral in 1892: Cardinal Manning Buried The NYT reports that 100,000 attended the Cardinal’s funeral. Most of them will have been non-Catholics.
While the Church must disapprove of certain aspects of present US government policy, thee also has to be a value judgment as to the protection of the poor.
Thank you for linking the Social Doctrine of the Church; I try to read it and, if I am indeed the victim of propaganda, it will take some time before I can fully absorb the Church’s teaching as reflected by that document and to interpret it properly.
I never had any issue with taxation, so long as I can purchase necessities, and so I never mentioned it- what I mentioned implied the inability of the current U.S. Administration to do anything about the national debt and how horrid some liberal solutions would be (Eat the Rich); taxation is a means and I don’t think it can be avoided in any case. I’m not a business owner nor am I at risk of losing millions, etc. What would worry me more is how the tax money is spent, and more pressingly, it is the notion that the money of both the faithful and the godless would be used to kill children and promote something that is poisonous to the mind, the body, and the spirit. This would favor the agenda of the godless minority, whose aberrant attitude and intellectual dishonesty regarding the existence of God makes me question their sanity.
I will admit; if there’s any one Protestant denomination I can respect, it’s the Amish. Nevermind their 17th-century anti-Catholicism. It seems to me more or less a sustainable society. I’m not saying that the United States should become a Luddite society, but merely to look at the Amish as a means of moderating excesses in modern society; being sustainable means that society is not always on the verge of anarchy because of the failure of a system of money that relies on peoples’ faith rather than actual gold and putting faith in the banks that deal with fiat money. I am always suspect of people who talk of the poor, as if there is a real solution to poverty. (The Lord said “You will always have the poor,” and I’m not arguing with Him.) I am always suspect of people who would promise Heaven NOW, especially without the involvement of the Church or the notion of God, or people who say “If I’m smart enough and good enough, and powerful enough, I can make a real difference.” (It always ends up being a Frankenstein story.)
Calling my stance “Fascism” is inaccurate. I’d consider it closer to Clerical Fascism in the same vein as Engelbert Dollfuß or José Antonio Primo de Rivera rather than the Fascism in the style of Mussolini. (If there’s anything I’d thank Mussolini for, it’s the Vatican City-State.)
I know why you are worried about how close I am to fascism- it’s the people killed by the State, I think. People like Hitler come to mind. And even worse, a State the claims to do God’s Will on Earth will only dishonor God if injustices were made in His Name or in the name of the Church. But I never stated death penalty as a means of punishment in civil matters. Only armed resistance ought to be met with proportional measures, which may lead to death.
After thinking on my way to and from Church, I have come to the understanding that I may probably engage in debate or straight out arguments about my own Far-Right, Ultraconservative stance and it may go on forever. Whether if it is my own upbringing, my own personality and temperament that makes me sympathetic to what politics I subscribe to, it makes it difficult for me to easily change my mind about the issue, namely that the current political and social climate in the United States makes the Left and liberalism very unappealing to me. The fact that the Church, or at least the U.S. Conference of Bishops is closely associated with the Left, the Democratic Party, makes me nauseous. Not that the “Right” embodied in the Republican Party, is any better (for the reasons you have cited, namely the seeming lack of concern for the poor.)
My ideal State is one that is dovetailed and even subservient to the Church and Her teachings- this is diametrically opposed to a church that is merely a puppet of the State, such as in China. Countries with majority leftist politics leave me with a poor impression; the local Church is either liberalized and rife with abuse, with homosexuals, with rebellious nuns, and dwindling Church attendance and vocations; or even a schizophrenic attempt at, in the American example, compromising being a Patriotic citizen with being a Roman Catholic. In comparison to, say Orthodox Russia, with its exclusionary policies on other religions and persecution of abominable “social experiments”; another example would be the traditional societies of Africa- no news on attempts at legalizing homosexual marriage there- and I remember one Archbishop talking about how patronizing the West is on thinking it knows what’s good for Africa and other non-Western nations.
My ideal State would give preference to the Roman Catholic Church, and marginalizes atheistic liberalism, and is suspicious of foreign ideas for the sake of developing its own ideas rather than aping and being a Second-class Western nation than a first class Catholic nation. Not that the Church would not suffer hardships under such a State; there will be disagreements, but this disagreement will not lead to, say, the same Irish problem of abandoning the religion of their fathers, because the State would censor outside interference, and would deport foreign activists and attempts to undermine both the regime and the Church. I certainly would not force the Church to sign any “Concordats” and the Church would remain independent of the State, but I don’t believe the State should be independent of the Church, if there’s any real attempt at making what the Church’s vision, therefore, Christ’s vision, a reality. The problem is the opposition. Always the opposition in the form of the Left, with its expansive hold on culture and the fact that they have poisoned the minds of the youth and have allowed this sickness to spread in places like schools and universities.
You might wish to study the history of Quebec to see how an apparent policy of making the state subservient to the Church actually made the Church weak and dependent, with catastrophic results. “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s….” seems a more prudent policy, given the inevitable failings of human leaders.
I like the fact that Quebec has a most overwhelmingly Catholic population. Too bad that it seems as if the Quebecois are not immune from secularization. I wonder if the people still retain their religion, or are they also going the way of Ireland? In any case, I will read the History of Quebec, even if I am suspicious certain things (Like the Quiet Revolution.)
I refuse to believe that the only step forward is through liberalization. Liberalism has society headed towards a primitive, tribal, if not anarchical state, An open invitation to something sinister. At one time, Liberalism may have fought stagnation from the monarchies- but now, it’s just destructive and itself stagnant.
Reading the History of Europe, the conflict between Church and State has been overly emphasized in liberalized institutions of education in America. They keep quiet about the instances in which the Church and State were in harmony, perhaps limited to some brief statements about the ‘Dark Ages’, the Renaissance, and the Baroque, emphasizing “Brilliant thinkers ahead of their time” and the “Heroic efforts of Martin Luther” and hammering on the “Galileo Incident” and then suddenly glorifying the Enlightenment, because to critique the Enlightenment and everything that went after would ruin “Progress” and is “backwards”. And now, liberals indoctrinate everyone with the idea that the State had won, which is why we have a problem of secularization, statism, moral relativism, and the Catholic Church only believed as relevant by people in their twilight years. (Or maybe even not! I know many elderly individuals who would delight in liberalizing the Church. It seems strange to me, as I always believed the elderly to be supposedly wise.)
—————
But yes, what our Lord taught is always trustworthy. “Render unto Caesar…” Fine, he can take my tax money, but children in mothers’ wombs are not Caesar’s, nor am I, nor anyone is the property of Caesar’s. So we must resist any insistence that any one human being, or even a group, or even mankind united as a whole has the same powers as the Almighty. This is the reason why I am not advocating Caesaropapism as a part of the ideal state, and why I am critical of democracy (One has to recall the fact that some churches have their doctrines voted on.) There is the State, there is the Church- they ought to co-operate and not be divorced from one another.
Electing a Mormon Peresident will give a unprecdented publicity coup to the Mormon cult.It is estimated the Osmonds brought 500,000 converts into the Mormon Church.
I find it offensive to call President Obama a sewer rat..at least we know where he stands..but with Romney he will do everything to be elected. To hide behind a false name and so denigrate a man is disgraceful.
Anyone will do anything to get power if they want it enough. Such is the nature of power- for better or worse, those who crave it cannot control it. As for Obama being compared to a sewer rat- doing so would be racist and bigoted and offensive wouldn’t it? Well, it doesn’t matter anymore at this point. Because that’s what Obama is compared to Romney. Is it disgraceful? Okay, if you say so. Someone call the internet police, someone is being disgraceful! (Or at least Fr. Stephen Smuts can do what he pleases with his own blog.)
@Ioannes
You write: “After thinking on my way to and from Church, I have come to the understanding that I may probably engage in debate or straight out arguments about my own Far-Right, Ultraconservative stance and it may go on forever.”
I see you as something of an “angry young man”. Anger btw is not the exclusive prerogative of youth, we “wrinklies” sometimes also succumb and I have to say that one of my pet phobias is political extremism of any kind, whether on the right or on the left. But I do not dispair of you – since you have the gift of faith there’s hope for you yet.
Meanwhile, lighten up. As an aid to refection you may enjoy this.
There is a Thatcherite group in the British Conservative Party called “Conservative Way Forward”. A very senior Party grandee looked at their publicity material at a party conference and exploded:
“Don’t these blithering idiots realise that the first rule for Conservatives is NEVER move forward! Backward is always the best option. If that is impossible one can always try sidways – but one should NEVER, EVER be seen to move forward!”
@Mourad: A good word! I am a conservative Brit myself, but sadly since I have been in the US and America, I have become and even more conservative! Not so much in the American stream, but certainly in the long history of a Churchhill type! But we simply must pull back into a more political and social sense of the libertarian mind, but also towards a Judeo-Christian worldview. The majority of course will not, but we conservatives must press for the right paths, and seek to leave some example! But as I have said, these are dark days for the Judeo-Christian reality!
Well, being in the Catholic Church helps me look beyond political affiliation, so long as they do right by the Church.
YES! I am angry! I often feel that my generation has no future! Where will we be when people like you are gone!? I cannot imagine the partying, promiscuous, drug-using, alcoholic fratboy in college would suddenly become the next President of the United States or the head of a multimillion-dollar banking firm! We are a spoiled people now. Not to blame your generation or anything like that; in fact, I appreciate that your generation, and even older generations have done great things for our sake. But I feel we are the lesser sons of greater fathers. While older generations have suffered through wars and famines, they are able to persevere and cope with those sort of things running nothing more than on the promise of the world to come.
In contrast, what exactly do I see from my generation? Unwise investment of time and money, obsession with novelty and entertainment, an attitude of smug, unwarranted self-importance with an unjustified sense of entitlement. (There may be some good young people out there, and I’m probably not one of them, but those people I feel are so few or unnoticeable and are going to be overwhelmed and trampled by barbaric adult-children who will whine about unemployment, legalization of drugs, gay marriage, and freedom to party, etc. at every turn that those good, responsible young people may be discouraged and just “go with the flow”.)
Because of this, I am very angry, and deep down this anger is to prevent a sort of despairing sadness that will accomplish less than an emotion that has more of an aggressive energy.
I would pray for more than the gift of faith, but the Holy Spirit will probably give me what I need rather than what I want, and I will thank God for whatever He gives me.
Anger and depression are two sides of the same coin. Both of them are temptations and must be resisted. Seek out the company of positive people and projects that will stave off a descent into these negative ways of being. Your insights and energy are needed.
I’m not saying anyone here is a complete fully florid utterly deranged loony tune Nut Case but it might be better to advise people to avoid places where firearms are sold and if the Doctor suggests increasing the antipsychotic medication dosage, ‘just say yes’.
That is, if they can afford them anyway.
The firearms?
I don’t know about firearms, but people seem to be more dangerous to others and themselves without antipsychotic medications regardless of firearms. I’d rather trust a medicated, armed person than an unarmed psychotic individual. (Though both can be unsavory at times.)