Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Democracy on the Skids.

One cannot be so blind as to miss the fact that Democracy has its faults. Not only is it cumbersome but it is also prone to corruption, and not only from those that gain power. It is corrupt to its roots in the voters.  A Chinese lady came by asking whether we in the Tavern thought Democracy actually worked and whether or not I and my customers voted. She had no experience of living in such a system.

She was almost endearingly niaive asking an old cynic like me.

We who do not live under a Communist Party regime will no doubt have an opinion about Democracy from a lot of experience.  Supposedly we vote in people who will 'Represent' us.  Usually that is the last thing on their list of priorities.

The recent American election gained massive coverage, worldwide, exposing everyone to the way it is rorted, corrupted, manipulated and distorted. And that in the most Democratic of countries and largely by a Party and people who even call themselves Democrats.  

Talk about Americans not understanding Irony !

But what about other nations who claim Democracy as a central feature. They all share similarities in their processes. 

We are fortunate that Caesars no longer exist in the west. 
We might, if Christian, feel obliged to 'render unto' one. 

But in the absence we vote for a chap from the village. Or chapess. We are not morally obliged to render a pig's ear to them. And boy do they know about pig's ears. 

First a very small group of people choose someone from the next street, in secret, to 'stand' for election. You and I have no say in the choice.  Most of us have no clue even who comprise this small group. Several such small groups choose several 'candidates' with often opposing views on a small range of matters. Oddly they all say similar things which are barely believable from the outset. 

Then the hoohaaa explodes into the media where excoriations of one another pour forth from the 'candidates' mouths and from others who are already elected in the past who dip their poisoned oars in the water to destroy any vestige of credibility in those candidates.

Eventually after a huge amount of publicity monies are poured down the drain, the voters get a chance to show their hands. These voters usually do not know the candidates nor anything about them. The available information about them, in this Information Age, is scant and biased. At least the Americans conduct televised debates. Most nations do not go that far. 

But those debates are rife with corruption, with one candidate or another being favoured with a look at the questions beforehand. The voters have no idea who wrote the questions, which generally do not address matters that the voters might want to hear about.

So, devoid of any hope of guessing what a candidate might do when having to decide on some important matter, the voter votes as he or she has always done - along Tribal lines - like their parents and close friends do. 

Hardly anyone bothers to phone the candidate and ask questions. Nor email. Hardly anyone wants to even meet the candidate, share a cup of coffee, natter about life the Universe and anything, let alone Everything. 

The vast majority (clearly evidenced) vote for what goodies are 'promised' according to some TV autocue reader, knowing well that any promises made are going to be broken or ignored. And so they usually are.

At the Polling Booths we most often encounter some helpful souls who offer guidance. They hand out 'How to Vote' pamphlets. They will as easily guide you to Hell , penury, obligation to take from the poor and hand it to the rich, steal your wallet, this week and next, and in many other was seek to 'persuade'. 

These people are clearly under the entirely correct impression that you 'know not what you do'. 

We had a masked man (wearing a dog collar) come by the Tavern with his 'how to vote' pamphlet. I took a copy.  

Yes, yes, he does say it is for Catholics. But pretend, why don't you. Just while you drink this pint of good grace I am pulling for you.
Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics
This voter’s guide helps you cast your vote in an informed manner consistent with Catholic moral teaching. It helps you avoid choosing candidates who endorse policies that cannot be reconciled with moral norms that used to be held by all Christians.
As an aside, I might add, that non-Catholic voters might pay attention and see some merit here. 

On most issues that come before voters or legislators, the task is selecting the most effective strategy among several morally good options. A Catholic can take one side or the other and not act contrary to the faith. 
Most matters do not have a "Catholic position."
But some issues concern "non-negotiable" moral principles that do not admit of exception or compromise. One’s position either accords with those principles or does not. No one endorsing the wrong side of these issues can be said to act in accord with the Church’s moral norms.
This voter’s guide identifies five issues involving "non-negotiable" moral values in current politics and helps you narrow down the list of acceptable candidates, whether they are running for national, state, or local offices.
You should avoid to the greatest extent possible voting for candidates who endorse or promote intrinsically evil policies. 
As far as possible, you should vote for those who promote policies in line with the moral law.
In many elections there are situations where all of the available candidates take morally unacceptable positions on one or more of the "non-negotiable" issues.
In such situations, a citizen will be called upon to make tough choices. In those cases, citizens must vote in the way that will most limit the harm that would be done by the available candidates.
In this guide we will look first at the principles that should be applied in clear-cut races where there is an unambiguously good moral choice. These same principles help lay the groundwork for what to do in situations that are more difficult.
Knowing the principles that are applied in ideal situations is useful when facing problematic ones, so as you review the principles you should keep in mind that they often must be applied in situations where the choice is more difficult. At the end of the guide we will offer practical advice about how to decide to cast your vote in those cases.
Catholics have a moral obligation to promote the common good through the exercise of their voting privileges 
(cf. CCC 2240). 
It is not just civil authorities who have responsibility for a country. "Service of the common good require[s] citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community" (CCC 2239). This means citizens should participate in the political process at the ballot box.
But voting cannot be arbitrary. 
"A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law that contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals" (CPL 4). A citizen’s vote most often means voting for a candidate who will be the one directly voting on laws or programs. But being one step removed from law-making doesn’t let citizens off the hook, since morality requires that we avoid doing evil to the greatest extent possible, even indirectly.
Some things are always wrong, and no one may deliberately vote in favor of them. 
Legislators, who have a direct vote, may not support these evils in legislation or programs. Citizens support these evils indirectly if they vote in favor of candidates who propose to advance them. Thus, to the greatest extent possible, Catholics must avoid voting for any candidate who intends to support programs or laws that are intrinsically evil. When all of the candidates endorse morally harmful policies, citizens must vote in a way that will limit the harm likely to be done.
These five current issues concern actions that are intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by the law. Intrinsically evil actions are those that fundamentally conflict with the moral law and can never be deliberately performed under any circumstances
It is a serious sin to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any action contrary to the non-negotiable principles involved in these issues.
1. Abortion
The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide.
The unborn child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child’s, who should not suffer death for others’ sins.
2. Euthanasia
Often disguised by the name "mercy killing," euthanasia is also a form of homicide. No person has a right to take his own life, and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person.
In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed, by action or omission, out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil to another person (cf. EV 73).
3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Human embryos are human beings. "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo" (CRF 4b).
Recent scientific advances show that often medical treatments that researchers hope to develop from experimentation on embryonic stem cells can be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there is no valid medical argument in favor of using embryonic stem cells. And even if there were benefits to be had from such experiments, they would not justify destroying innocent embryonic humans.
4. Human Cloning
"Attempts . . . for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through ‘twin fission,’ cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union" (RHL I:6).
Human cloning also involves abortion because the "rejected" or "unsuccessful" embryonic clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being.
5. Homosexual "Marriage"
True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.
Not just 'Honk' but 'VOTE'

"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10).
Laws are passed by the legislature, enforced by the executive branch, and interpreted by the judiciary. This means you should scrutinize any candidate for the legislature, anyone running for an executive office, and anyone nominated for the bench. This is true not only at the national level but also at the state and local levels.
In America Judges are elected. In most other nations they are appointed.  
True, the lesser the office, the less likely the office holder will take up certain issues. Your city council, for example, perhaps will never take up the issue of human cloning but may take up issues connected with abortion clinics. It is important that you evaluate candidates in light of each non-negotiable moral issue that will come before them in the offices they are seeking.
Few people achieve high office without first holding a lower office. Some people become congressional representatives, senators, or presidents without having been elected to a lesser office. But most representatives, senators, and presidents started their political careers at the local level. The same is true for state lawmakers. Most of them began on city councils and school boards and worked their way up the political ladder.
Tomorrow’s candidates for higher offices will come mainly from today’s candidates for lower offices. It is therefore prudent to apply comparable standards to local candidates. One should seek to elect to lower offices candidates who support Christian morality so that they will have a greater ability to be elected to higher offices where their moral stances may come directly into play.
1. The higher the office, the easier this will be. Congressional representatives and senators, for example, repeatedly have seen these issues come before them and so have taken positions on them. Often the same can be said at the state level. In either case, learning a candidate’s position can be as easy as reading newspaper or magazine articles, looking up his views on the Internet, or studying one of the many printed candidate surveys that are distributed at election time.

2. It is often more difficult to learn the views of candidates for local offices because few of them have an opportunity to consider legislation on such things as abortion, cloning, and the sanctity of marriage. But these candidates, being local, often can be contacted directly or have local campaign offices that will explain their positions.
3. If you cannot determine a candidate’s views by other means, do not hesitate to write directly to the candidate, asking for his position on the issues covered above.
1. Do not vote based just on your political party affiliation, your earlier voting habits, or your family’s voting tradition. Years ago, these may have been trustworthy ways to determine whom to vote for, but today they are often not reliable. You need to look at the stands each candidate takes. This means that you may end up casting votes for candidates from more than one party.
2. Do not cast your vote based on candidates’ appearance, personality, or "media savvy." Some attractive, engaging, and "sound-bite-capable" candidates endorse intrinsic evils, while other candidates, who may be plain-looking, uninspiring, and ill at ease in front of cameras, endorse legislation in accord with basic Christian principles.
3. Do not vote for candidates simply because they declare themselves to be Catholic 
Unfortunately, many self-described Catholic candidates reject basic Catholic moral teaching.
4. Do not choose among candidates based on "What’s in it for me?" Make your decision based on which candidates seem most likely to promote the common good, even if you will not benefit directly or immediately from the legislation they propose.
5. Do not vote for candidates who are right on lesser issues but will vote wrongly on key moral issues. One candidate may have a record of voting in line with Catholic values except for, say, euthanasia. Such a voting record is a clear signal that the candidate should not be chosen by a Catholic voter unless the other candidates have voting records even less in accord with these moral norms.
1. For each office, first determine how each candidate stands on each of the issues that will come before him and involve non-negotiable principles.
2. Rank the candidates according to how well their positions align with these non-negotiable moral principles.
3. Give preference to candidates who do not propose positions that contradict these principles.
4. Where every candidate endorses positions contrary to non-negotiable principles, choose the candidate likely to do the least harm. If several are equal, evaluate them based on their views on other, lesser issues.
Hmmmmm. Of course, when push comes to shove and there are no decent candidates, do not encourage any of them.  
5. Remember that your vote today may affect the offices a candidate later achieves.
In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.
Again, do not compromise. That is as bad as a con-promise. 
A vote cast in such a situation is not morally the same as a positive endorsement for candidates, laws, or programs that promote intrinsic evils: It is only tolerating a lesser evil to avoid an even greater evil. As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, "an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality"(EV 73; also CPL 4).
This is a whole subject in itself. Politicians are all too eager to 'sell-out' in an effort to gain on something by approving something else. Be careful what that something else is, and beware the sell-outers. 
Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil. 
Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action,... 
...but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance. 
The role of citizens and elected officials is to promote intrinsic moral values as much as possible today while continuing to work toward better candidates, laws, and programs in the future.
Conscience is like an alarm. It warns you when you are about to do something that you know is wrong. 
It does not itself determine what is right or wrong. 
For your conscience to work properly, it must be properly informed—that is, you must inform yourself about what is right and what is wrong. Only then will your conscience be a trusted guide.
Unfortunately, today many Catholics have not formed their consciences adequately regarding key moral issues. The result is that their consciences do not "sound off" at appropriate times, including on Election Day.
A well-formed conscience will never contradict Catholic moral teaching. For that reason, if you are unsure where your conscience is leading you when at the ballot box, place your trust in the unwavering moral teachings of the Church. (The Catechism of the Catholic Church is an excellent source of authentic moral teaching.)
Please do not keep this voter’s guide to yourself. Read it, learn from it, and prepare your selection of candidates based on it. Then give this voter’s guide to a friend, and ask your friend to read it and pass it on to others. The more people who vote in accord with basic moral principles, the better off our country will be.
CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church
CPL Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life
CRF Pontifical Council for the Family, Charter of the Rights of the Family
EV John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life)
RHL Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation
UHP Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons
Our political systems need constant scrutiny. That is down to you.

But for the nice Chinese lady, I shall let Winston say his bit while I pull pints all round.

Drink up. Vote early, and just the once. 

If you have to. 

Which you don't.



  1. Hardly anyone bothers to phone the candidate and ask questions.

    I still remember a conversation with Jim Killen, ex minister in the LCP of the time, he'd started a Pensioner Party and I was in my 20s. It was a lovely conversation and I'd have voted for him.

    1. We have not seen the likes of Gentleman Jim Killen for many a year.

  2. The 5 non-negotiables don't mention a single sin Christ himself focused on, greed, hypocrisy, judgmentalism, or deceit? Hm. If we're going to ignore Christ's additions about how to better care/serve those lives once there here, perhaps we should be calling ourselves Jews or Paultians then ;)

    Now, here's where I'm coming from on a few things, may I? In 2 parts, the final paragraph being the most important. (Feel free to disagree, which I'm sure you will ;)

    Christ of course was the original "liberal" with OT law, where as Paul was a conservative - note I didn't say "IMO" on this one because it's not opinion, it's fact. Because Christ changed, even removed OT/Jewish/Sharia man-made law. (Yes, I'm calling it OT/Sharia/Jewish law because they are the same.)Scholars believe he did so because it was heavily borrowed from the surrounding captive culture, the Babylonians, who did not believe in an afterlife. All punishment was given without mercy and was very harsh. Proof? "An eye for an eye" is in the OT and is the basis for Sharia law - and it was carved into Hammurabi's code in Babylonia, which predates the written torah by centuries.

    In Matt 5:38, Christ specifically tells us not to follow it anymore. He also changes/removes other man-made OT laws, i.e., healing on the Sabbath. Why? He tells you himself when giving his own commandments. Because all of commandment and laws of the prophets are supposed to hang on loving thy neighbor instead :)

    In contrast, Paul adhered more stringently to OT law in order (the very definition of conservative) in order to please the Pharisees and save his own life - something Christ would never do. The bible is not forthcoming about Paul's mistakes like other humans, but they're there if you look. The most obvious was having Stephen circumcised, though he was originally dead-set against that Jewish law requirement. Less obvious mistakes are directly contradicting Christ by encouraging shunning/casting out people from the church for sin. Christ never said to shun/cast out anyone, the closest he came was "shaking the dust from your feet," but not for sin, but for not listening, and the only time he ever did so was Pharisees who were like talking to brick walls.

    Now - as you know, I'm with you on abortion except in medically necessary circumstances (and if raped, I'd have a hard time myself with that, so I at least don't judge that one). However, again, if we assume the responsibility of voting for their life's existence, we must also assume responsbility for helping to care/serve them in love - but we don't. In fact, we shame these women for having sex outside marriage, especially if they need public assistance (which they most often get because no one's helping them and in THIS country, women are still less educated than men and still make less than men. (Yes, that's a fact in the US.)


  3. Part 2

    Now, here's the part we probably won't agree on - homosexuality. The bible is very clear on distinguishing between "lying with" (consensual) and "sodomy" (rape). One is consensual, the other is rape. The bible mentions "lying with" in Leviticus as sin, but Levitican laws are 1) man-made laws 2) mentions many other things we now don't consider sin like not being circumcised, menstruation relations, not eating pork (changed in OT) etc. We still keep some because they're abuse or common sense, but have abandoned others in our "liberalism." Conservatives of OT law would be keeping them all - but they don't. Homosexuality (as opposed to sodomy) is never mentioned in the NT except by Paul, whom we've already discussed his reasoning for adhering to man-made OT law.

    So when I studied this in religion classes, I already had questions, but here's what sealed the deal - the most important part of my "speech" today :)

    When I transcribed for Boston Children's Hospital, I learned just how many children are born with some element of both genders (sometimes just a small internal element you'll never see) - and that number is thousands more than you'd think. In fact, the reason it is believed men have nipples at all is because they develop before any other reproductive organs, all of which develop several months after the brain itself. Considering the brain develops first, and so many intersex children are born, it IS possible there was an abnormality.

    In which case, I know God doesn't make mistakes. So perhaps the lesson of their birth isn't "mistake" or for THEM, it's for us - how better to love our neighbors?

    Thanks for allowing/reading - and as I said, feel free to offer the other perspective/interpretation/your insights, I'll listen:)

    1. You are doing a fine job crossing your legs and squeezing so as not to pee on the carpet. Well done. The arguements you put have been dealt with so many times that I will just pour you a nice drink rather than go through them.

      The five non-negotiables are not exclusive. Of course there are other sins. These are the most currently dangerous to society as well as our own individual souls. I suggest as you sip your wine you consider what is more prudent to yourself.... continue to make excuses and point fingers at Apostles, mis-interpret Christ and parse homosexuality into plank-length bits, or look to the safety and health of your soul.

      The guidlines are from a Catholic perspective. I can understand non-Catholics having different ones. But the effect is the same on them.

      Now, off to the ladies loo with you (no Trans ones here) :)

  4. I of course could accuse you of the same "crimes" of cherry-picking scripture from by my interpretation, but I won't because there's no guarantee I had the correct one, it was just my take on it and was expecting your perspective in return. I like to discuss theology and have been proven wrong before.

    Disappointed I didn't receive that discussion I'd hoped for. I apologize if you felt insulted enough to insult me in return about peeing on carpets and other accusations, because it was sincerely not my intent, discussion of varying perspectives was.

    Thanks for the drink offer, but I'll just go, then.

    My soul is fine because I worry about my own sin more than others, as in the end, I interpret Christianity to be SELF-examination and re-examination, which is what I thought we were doing here.

    Take care, Amfortas :(

    1. And there was I giving a little praise for behaving yourself. I am happy for you to stay. But you can see that I rarely get into long discussion with people. They can put their point of view, as you are welcome too, and I shall serve the drinks. People put their views which I present for all to see, but my own comments are kept brief.

      I welcome your points, Chrystal. They are often illuminating. My own 'cheery picking' of scripture is very likely less than anyone's as I am quite unlearned in the detail. But the voting item above was not mine directly. It has a URL so that you can, should you wish, go to the speaker and discuss it with him (or her). I will happily provide the drinks.

  5. PS - We kind of mock spar, which has included sharp teasing sometimes - that was my intent, but I obviously offended you in doing so this time. I'm sorry :(


Ne meias in stragulo aut pueros circummittam.

Our Bouncer is a gentleman of muscle and guile. His patience has limits. He will check you at the door.

The Tavern gets rowdy visitors from time to time. Some are brain dead and some soul dead. They attack customers and the bar staff and piss on the carpets. Those people will not be allowed in anymore. So... Be Nice..