Why do people switch parties?

[TheScout 10]

Baden, I think the vast majority of people count Catholics as Christians. I am one. I certainly consider myself Christian. The chief statement of our belief is the Nicene Creed as most other Christians.

 

I am unsure what you mean when you say the Popes statements are considred dogma. There are very specific cases when the Pope speaks in an infallible context.

 

Nonetheless assuming there were a billion Catholics and a billion other Christians, they would be 2nd and 3rd in terms of numbers behind Islam.

 

Merlyn,

 

Maybe there is a supremacy of sorts. Nobody can deny the predominence of Western Christian civilization in our world. All successfull states have adopted the Western model. Look at China or Japan.

 

Recall, Benjamin Disraeli, the 19th Century Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said, "difference implies superiority."

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

TheScout writes:

Nobody can deny the predominence of Western Christian civilization in our world.

 

Oh, I sure can. The bible supports slavery; western civilization doesn't (of course, we used to, but the bible is no reason to continue an immoral stance). The first amendment is incompatible with the first commandment. And so on.

 

All successfull states have adopted the Western model. Look at China or Japan.

 

But they haven't adopted Christianity, which shows that your linking of Christianity to western civilization is spurious.

 

I could just as well say it was the overwhelming presence of right-handed people that lead to western civilization because this is a right-handed nation. I'm even in a better position to assert this, given that western-style civilization has been adopted by non-Christian nations, but I don't know of any countries which have adopted it that are made up mostly of southpaws. My right-handed argument is more consistent.

 

Recall, Benjamin Disraeli, the 19th Century Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said, "difference implies superiority."

 

Recall he said that about race.

[TheScout 10]

I think it would be very fair to say Christianity is a very important part of Western civilization. It has had tremendous influence over the centuries.

 

Though states like China and Japan have not adopted Christianity, they adopted the Christian influenced Western civilization. What I said . . .

 

You might want to try Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, or Eric Jones' The European Miracle, or Woods' How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. They all point to the important Christian influence on Western civilization. You don't have to warp your God-hating to change history.

 

As far as I know Japan and other places have the same proportion of right-handed people, but this did contribute to saving them from the impact of forced Westernization by the Europeans.

 

I do recall what Disraeli was talking about - and then he led the British Empire to achieve its greatest days, subjugating many other races.

 

Moral relativism is a great error.

 

As the current day British politician Robert Kilroy-Silk once said, "all cultures are not equal - they are not. There are some that are reprehensible are not entitled to respect and we should say so."

 

I am unashamed to say that our culture is superior.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

TheScout writes:

Though states like China and Japan have not adopted Christianity, they adopted the Christian influenced Western civilization. What I said . . .

 

But it undercuts your basic claim. If Christianity is so responsible for western civilization, how could non-Christian nations successfully adopt it? You're assuming your conclusion.

 

I do recall what Disraeli was talking about - and then he led the British Empire to achieve its greatest days, subjugating many other races.

 

Moral relativism is a great error.

 

Well, that's an interesting juxtaposition - it sounds like you approve of subjugating races. After all, if that was part of the greatest days of the British Empire, and moral relativism is a great error, then what was good then (racial subjugation to expand an empire) is good now.

 

As the current day British politician Robert Kilroy-Silk once said, "all cultures are not equal - they are not. There are some that are reprehensible are not entitled to respect and we should say so."

 

I am unashamed to say that our culture is superior.

 

I'm unashamed to say my morals are superior to yours

[TheScout 10]

"But it undercuts your basic claim. If Christianity is so responsible for western civilization, how could non-Christian nations successfully adopt it? You're assuming your conclusion."

 

Christianity contributed to the political, economic, and cultural accomplishments of Europe. The Asiatics then borrowed the results of this European success.

 

The great European empires brought much good to much of the world. They brought teachers, built railroads and telegraphs, fought disease, brought modern agriculture, showed the world the rule of law and the concept of civil rights, and in many cases left democracies in their wake.

 

I would argue that Disraeli and his counterparts brought much light to dark areas of the world.

 

So are you saying that our Western Culture is not superior?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Christianity contributed to the political, economic, and cultural accomplishments of Europe. The Asiatics then borrowed the results of this European success.

 

It's that first sentence that's the problem. You're merely asserting its truth.

 

I would argue that Disraeli and his counterparts brought much light to dark areas of the world.

 

And since relative morality is wrong, it is still OK for, say, the US to decide to conquer a country and subjugate the races that live there? Or what are you saying?

 

So are you saying that our Western Culture is not superior?

 

I'm saying Christianity is not superior.

 

[TheScout 10]

"It's that first sentence that's the problem. You're merely asserting its truth."

 

I really don't have the time to recount the history of Western civilization here. But I did cite a couple quality books on how Christianity has contributed to it.

 

"And since relative morality is wrong, it is still OK for, say, the US to decide to conquer a country and subjugate the races that live there? Or what are you saying?"

 

If the United States wished to militarily intervene to bring light and stability to a land of darkness I would not think that is morally wrong. I would oppose it for other reasons, I am an old school Paleoconservative.

[BadenP 93]

Scout

what you preach is also called ethnocentrism, comparing all other cultures to your own and assuming yours is the superior one. It is the same mentality that drove many European and American cultures feeling perfectly justified in wiping out the indigenous peoples of N. & S. America, Africa, Asia, Oceania, etc. All your theory does is justify bigotry, racial superiority, and religious intolerance and none of that can ever be justified . Not to mention it is just plain "UnChristian".

 

When the Catholic Church states that all other Christian denominations are deficent, and their ordinations and sacraments are invalid, and that the Catholic church is the only true religion leading to eternal salvation, all of that is nothing more than religious bigotry, and is just not true morally,theologically, or ethically. Oh in the Nicene Creed Scout the word catholic was in lower case and it meant universal, not a particular denomination.

[TheScout 10]

And this comes from the man who apparently despises Catholicism, by far the largest Christian denomination and standing alone would be one of largest religions in the world.

 

Are you saying we should not have fought the Indians. Should our people have just stayed in Europe and left the New World to them? Our country wouldn't exist. I'm originally from New York and there the Iroquois frankly butchered Americans, terrorizing our settlements, in the words of the Declaration of Independence itself they were "merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions"

 

As Andrew Jackson said, What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages, to our extensive Republic, studded with towns and prosperous farms . . . and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion. I prefer the republic to the savages.

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Interesting discussions but, ahem, .....switching political parties? Helllloooo!

[Gunny2862 11]

I(and the wife) only register with a party to be able to vote in primaries. My wife and I are issues and ability voters - we look at the candidates available and vote for who we each think will do the best job and do at least the least harm and hopefully the most good. (So, no real party loyalty).

 

It's a shame but we don't do third party candidates because we think we should have a real impact on the vote. But it's a chicken and egg thing I guess, no votes for third party - no viable candidate v. no viable candidates - no third party votes.

 

I do wish we could get out of the current divisive and apparently ineffectual two-party trap - which in action looks a lot like big government on either side.

[BadenP 93]

Packsaddle you are so right so here is my take. As young adults we tend to be more liberal seeing an infinite array of possibilities and change for the future, then as we get to our 40's to 50's we start to feel the world is passing us by and changing too fast, so we try to hold on to pieces of our past in which we feel a sense of belonging and safety, becoming much more conservative in our views whether you are Democrat or Republican. Obama scares many older Americans because he wants to make drastic changes in our government and these older people want to hold on to the way things are. McCain gives older Americans more a sense of security and holding on to the past as does Lieberman which IMHO was one of the main reasons Gore lost against Bush . I think the McCain/ Lieberman alliance shows these ideologies go much deeper than any political party affiliations.

[BulldogBlitz 10]

people switch parties because the beer is better over there. ;->

[OldGreyEagle 5]

The Roman Catholic Church is the direct descendent of Jesus Christ on Earth. The pope is the successor of Peter, the Apostle whom Jesus appointed as the first pope, " and on this rock I will build my church". Each pope, each Bishop and priest can trace the Bishop who consecrated them as a priest back to peter, or thats the theory. If a priest is not in that succession they are not priests, hence the Roman Catholic assertion other priests are really priests, there is no way to check on succession. Now, you may not agree and that's up to you, but this is the reasoning.

 

Why do people change parties? Times change and peoples goal change and organizations change. Didnt Bill and Hillary start life off working on Campaigns for Republicans? I am not sure I should sign up a support a party that is liable to go off in a direction I find repulsive, being an independent is as American as you can get, then again, being an independent may color my perception of things

[BadenP 93]

OGE

Sorry but you are incorrect 1)the Roman Catholic Church is not directly decended from Jesus because Jesus did not establish a Church with clergy, Jesus nevered referred to Peter as POPE, 2) The Roman Catholic Church is a breakaway denomination from the Eastern catholic (universal) Church, around 1054 when the patriarch of Rome decided he was best suited to lead and formed the Roman Catholic Church with all the trappings and hierarchy you see today.3) There is no direct decendancy of the papal line from Peter because Peter never referred to himself or by anyone else with that title, and in Church history with the Avignon and Pisa popes ruling simultaneously with the corrupt Roman pope any possibility of a direct line was lost. You like all catholics, myself included, were brainwashed with this poppycock created by the Catholic Church to maintain control through fear of their followers. If you read the unbiased historical accounts you would see for yourself instead of blindly following false doctrines, I suggest the book The History of Christianity for a start.