Posted on 04/12/2005 7:39:57 AM PDT by Zero Sum
Historically, religion always represented a threat to government because it competes for the loyalties of the people. In modern America, however, most religious institutions abandoned their independence long ago, and now serve as cheerleaders for state policies like social services, faith-based welfare, and military aggression in the name of democracy. Few American churches challenge state actions at all, provided their tax-exempt status is maintained. This is why Washington politicians ostensibly celebrate religion-- it no longer threatens their supremacy. Government has co-opted religion and family as the primary organizing principle of our society. The federal government is boss, and everybody knows it. But no politician will ever produce even a tiny fraction of the legacy left by Pope John Paul II.
(Excerpt) Read more at house.gov ...
It's too bad, because he used to have some excellent ideas.
I think he still does, which is why I posted this. What he wrote is all too true. Which is more important: being "relevant" or being right?
He has SOME great ideas. He's dead wrong on foreign policy and while this article does make some valid points, he is looking at this totally wrong.
Hardly. What he wrote is a self-serving generalization.
Which is more important: being "relevant" or being right?
When discussing politics it is best to be both.
Ron Paul was wrong about Iraq and instead of manfully acknowledging his mistake and taking a constructive role, he insists on being wrong at all costs.
To the secularists, this was John Paul II’s unforgivable sin-- he placed service to God above service to the state. Most politicians view the state, not God, as the supreme ruler on earth. They simply cannot abide a theology that does not comport with their vision of unlimited state power. This is precisely why both conservatives and liberals savaged John Paul II when his theological pronouncements did not fit their goals. But perhaps their goals simply were not godly.
Another excellent piece by Congressman Paul
He is right of course...not to overgeneralize but we all know that too many Americans, even those who call themselves religious, are primarily worshippers of the American state
His statement about the Pope is correct, of course. However, one of my beefs with the Catholic Church (as a Catholic-turned-Protestant myself) is the "peace at all costs even if we are getting attacked" stance of the Church.
I don't think that very much of what Congressman Paul does in Congress is "self-serving." If that were the case, then he is doing it very poorly.
When discussing politics it is best to be both.
And if no one happens to listen, it is not possible to be both. Which brings us back to my original question.
Ron Paul was wrong about Iraq and instead of manfully acknowledging his mistake and taking a constructive role, he insists on being wrong at all costs.
I do happen to disagree with him about the specifics of Iraq. He maintains that our government should take a limited role in foreign affairs, which I think is a good rule of thumb but he regards as an absolute. But the war on Iraq is not the main point in this column.
I consider myself very fortunate to have grown up in a parish where the sermons were about God and not about political activism. Ever since I left home for college I have not been so fortunate, and I am sorry to say that it has resulted in my not attending church at all here on campus.
I'm not disputing the word of the Lord.
But I don't agree that Iraq wasn't a threat. Does God approve of a nation allowing another nation to gas it's own people and train terrorists to kill others? I don't think He does.
We're talking about what he wrote here, not what he does in Congress.
And what I find self-serving is that he uses the Catholic Church's response to Iraq and correctly characterizes it as apolitical even as he uses it to justify his stance which was quite political.
Paul is not a pacifist, he just has a foreign policy agenda which is at odds with the Bush administration.
As a Catholic, I will not condemn other Christians like Baptists as statists just because their moral view of the war happened to coincide with administration policy.
Paul, in order to make his thesis intellectually honest instead of just slander, needs to demonstrate that Erastianism is actually the ethos and doctrine of these Christian groups he is criticizing.
I know who Pope John Paul II was and his significance and influence reached well beyond the world's 1 BILLION Roman Catholics.
Who is Ron f'n Paul and why should I care about his opinion on anything?
BTW, how does he get away with posting such drivel from a government (www.house.gov) URL?
I think the Pope was being naive, but I don't blame him for wanting to avoid further bloodshed.
I personally think the dialogue between America and the Vatican is a healthy one - America is the world's second well-intentioned superpower and the Vatican's statements of conscience help keep that focus.
Uh...ever hear of "freedom of speech"? Congressmen have it, too. If they don't, you don't.
The Catholic Church is not Ivory Snow pacifist ("peace at all costs even if we are getting attacked") but it has developed some pretty careful criteria for determining whether a particular war, or a particular act of war, is just.
John Paul II never declared (in a definitive way that would be binding on Catholics) that the Iraq war was unjust; if he had, it would have been a mortal sin to participate in it. Like it's a mortal sin to participate in abortion, i.e. an unjust killing.
However, he did very actively and vigorously lay out a "case" against the war, based on the principles that (1) pre-emptive war is not just, UNLESS you are morally certain that a disastrous attack by the other side is IMMINENT; and (2)proportionality: the potential for absolute chaos, large sectors of the Muslim world rising up in a "conflict of civilizations" war in which all the ancient Christian communities of the East would be annihilated.
It could be argued that the intelligence available to the Bush administration was flawed, in that it said that an attack by Iraq-based forces WAS imminent; and the intelligence available to John Paul II was flawed, too, because it said that an attack on the Christians communities of the Mideast and of Western Asia generally, was imminent.
I believe that both the President and the Pope came by their information honestly. It's only in retrospect that we can see (a little) better what the actual situation was.
All six of the Catholic "Oriental" Patriarchs (Syrians, Melkites, Maronites, Copts, Chaldeans, and Armenians) were against the Iraq war. They actually live in the region and would take the brunt of the consequences. They feared the total extermination of their ancient Christian communities --- not by the USA, of course, but by the enraged reaction of their Muslim neighbors--- and that's why all six of them personally came to Rome to beseech Pope John Paul to oppose the war.
Most Westerners don't even know that these ancient Christian communities scattered through the Middle East even exist.
John Paul II, a lifelong advocate of peaceful struggle (e.g. Solidarity) upheld the "Oriental" (Eastern) churches, and the regional bishops (Patriarchs) --- taking seriously their view that their communities could have been wiped off the face of the earth in the chaos of war.
The Catholic Church is not Ivory Snow pacifist ("peace at all costs even if we are getting attacked") but it has developed some pretty careful criteria for determining whether a particular war, or a particular act of war, is just.
John Paul II never declared (in a definitive way that would be binding on Catholics) that the Iraq war was unjust; if he had, it would have been a mortal sin to participate in it. Like it's a mortal sin to participate in abortion, i.e. an unjust killing.
However, he did very actively and vigorously lay out a "case" against the war, based on the principles that (1) pre-emptive war is not just, UNLESS you are morally certain that a disastrous attack by the other side is IMMINENT; and (2)proportionality: the potential for absolute chaos, large sectors of the Muslim world rising up in a "conflict of civilizations" war in which all the ancient Christian communities of the East would be annihilated.
It could be argued that the intelligence available to the Bush administration was flawed, in that it said that an attack by Iraq-based forces WAS imminent; and the intelligence available to John Paul II was flawed, too, because it said that an attack on the Christians communities of the Mideast and of Western Asia generally, was imminent.
I believe that both the President and the Pope came by their information honestly. It's only in retrospect that we can see (a little) better what the actual situation was.
All six of the Catholic "Oriental" Patriarchs (Syrians, Melkites, Maronites, Copts, Chaldeans, and Armenians) were against the Iraq war. They actually live in the region and would take the brunt of the consequences. They feared the total extermination of their ancient Christian communities --- not by the USA, of course, but by the enraged reaction of their Muslim neighbors--- and that's why all six of them personally came to Rome to beseech Pope John Paul to oppose the war.
Most Westerners don't even know that these ancient Christian communities scattered through the Middle East even exist.
John Paul II, a lifelong advocate of peaceful struggle (e.g. Solidarity) upheld the "Oriental" (Eastern) churches, and the regional bishops (Patriarchs) --- taking seriously their view that their communities could have been wiped off the face of the earth in the chaos of war.
I agree 100%.
Ron Paul is a congressman? What district, what party?
As for freedom of speech, more power to him. Dot gov (.gov) websites are paid for with taxpayer money. Let him post this drivel on his own website or on his party's website if he must but not on my dime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.