It is currently Sun Jul 05, 2020 11:51 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
 Democracy (The Constitution) 
Author Message

Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:49 pm
Posts: 25
Location: New York
New post Democracy (The Constitution)
Is the United States Constitution in conformity with the Catholic faith?

ARTICLE VI: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust in the United States.

The First Amendment which provides equal status to all religions clearly violates the FIRST COMMANDMENT.

Furthermore, how are we to establish the Social Reign of Christ the King when our political leadership may not even recognize His Divinity?

Note that there is no unequivical statement in the constitution which specifies the importance or relevance of Christian principles or morals. At no point is Christianity much less Catholicism singled out as the basis for any provision, principle or institution. The bible does not provide for any specific form of government except the monarchy which is precisely the type of government the founding fathers sought to separate us from.

"Moreover since human nature was stained by original sin, and is therefore more disposed to vice than to virtue, for a virtuous life is absolutely necessary to restrain the disorderly movements of the soul, and to make the passions obedient to reason. In this conflict human things must very often be despised, and the greatest labors and hardships must be undergone, in order that reason must always hold it's sway. But the naturalists and Freemasons, having no faith in these things which we have learned by Divine Revelation, deny that our first parents sinned, and consequently think that free will is not at all weakened and inclined to evil.
Humanum Genus
Pope Leo XIII

"The decay in the social acceptance of the Divine Plan for ordered life, since the 13th century, hasad for inevitable consequence the gradual disppearance of supernatural influences and ideals from the political and economic life of nations. This is the first result. There is a second. The elimination of the supernatural from public life is making smooth the path for the coming of the Natural Messias."
The Mystical Body of Christ
Father Fahey

Those who have not read my first post on Democracy (Liberty) may want to review the decrees by Popes and the quotes of the Doctors of the Church contained in that writing to determine if they are compatible with the constitution. In many ways our system of govenment is diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Catholic faith. This is easily discernable when considering how we treat abortion, divorce and even the creation of Family Courts and the decisions they hand down. Consider the reaction any one of us would receive were we to state in Family Court that as a Catholic man, father and husband we believe in practicing headship within our family? That the man is the head of the family and his wife is the heart of the family but that she does not have an equal voice when deciding family matters. Or acknowledging to Child Protection Services that we spank our children when they misbehave? Or that we oppose renting an apartment of ours to a homosexual or lesbian couple? We can't even prevent our under age children from receiving an abortion or birth control, nor are we entitled even to notification? Yet people persist in asserting that ours is a "Christian" nation.

(Writing of ancient Rome) "Having given up the habit of controlling their children, they let their children govern them and took pleasure in bleeding themselves white to gratify the expensive whims of their offspring. The result was that they were succeeded by a generation of idlers and wastrels who had grown accustomed to luxury and lost all sense of discipline.....A strong women's rights movementdeveloped in Roman society: some wives evaded the duties maternity for fear of losing their good looks, some took pride in being behind their husbands in no sphere of activity, and vied with them in test of strength which their sex would seem to forbid; some were not content to live their lives by their husbands side but carried on another life without him.....it is obvious that unhappy marriages must have been innumerable." Carcopno

"They marry in order to divorce". Seneca

As a nation we hold great admiration for the constitution and the belief that it protects us from an oppressive government. The wording: "we the people...and a government formed of the people, by the people and for the people " we find particularly endearing. Yet if we look at the constitutions of other governments which clearly do not have the best interests of their fellow countrymen at hand, we find striking similarities.

VIETNAM
ARTICLE 2: The Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a State of the people, from the people, for the people. All state power belong to the people and is based on an alliance between the working class, the peasantry and the intelligentsia.

LAOS
ARTICLE 2: The state of the Lao People's Democratic Republic is a People's Democratic State. All powers are of the people, by the people and for the interests of the multi-ethnic people of all strata of society with the workers, farmers and intellectuals as key components.
ARTICLE 4: The National Assembly is the organization of the people's representatives.

THE REPUBLIC OF (NORTH) KOREA
ARTICLE 1: The Deomcratic People's Republic of Korea is an independent socialist state representing the interests of all the Korean people.

The are of course several other examples. I listed those above because they are easily identified as oppressive regimes. The fact that what we base our system of government upon a document which mirrors that of our supposed enemies (as well as the Declaration of the Rights of Man which came later) should bring about several obvious questions.

The Church taught:
"About the Rights of Man' as they are called, the people have heard enough, it is time they should hear of the Rights of God."
Tametsi
Pope Leo XIII

Of course few are foolish enough to believe that such regimes adhere to their constitution. But what of our gullibility? Could the fact that it is a humanistic, man based document be a contributing factor?

Does it matter that within the 'representative government of the people' the constitutional convention was held in private and never put up for referendum? The reality is that it was little more than horse trading and not the ingenious balance of power we like to believe. The Constitution originally allowed for slavery (which is condemned by the Church). The states entering into it did so with the understanding they could seceed at any time. But were ensured their destruction when they did. Pius IX was sufficiently sympathetic to the South to gift Jefferson Davis the Crown of Thorns which is preserved in the Confederate Museum. To the detriment of society the constitution is only strictly adhered to when it benefits the elite.
"The Senate it was believed would be a stronghold of conservatism, if not of aristocracy and wealth.The president it was expected would be the choice of representative men acting in the electoral college and not of the people. The federal judiciary was looked to with it's virtually permanent membership to hold virtually the entire structure of national politics in balance against all disturbing influences. Only in the House of Representatives were the people to be accorded an immediate audience and a direct means of making their will effective in affairs." Pres. Woodrow Wilson.

"Modern society, under the influence of Satan, was to be organized on the opposite principle, namely, that human nature is of itself divine, that man is God and therefore subject to nobody."
The Mystical Body of Christ
Father Fahey

Next week when I attend the monthly meeting at our rod & gun club we will all stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance which was written by an avowed communist who came to America after the failed communist revolutions of 1848. The words 'under God' were added in 1954 by act of congress. The reason he and other communists such as Lenin and Marx were such a passionate supporters of the Union is that they favored a strong federal government and the elimination of states rights. Hence he wrote 'one nation indivisable'.


Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:30 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 282
New post Re: Democracy (The Constitution)
Deadlifter wrote:
Next week when I attend the monthly meeting at our rod & gun club we will all stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance which was written by an avowed communist who came to America after the failed communist revolutions of 1848. The words 'under God' were added in 1954 by act of congress. The reason he and other communists such as Lenin and Marx were such a passionate supporters of the Union is that they favored a strong federal government and the elimination of states rights. Hence he wrote 'one nation indivisable'.



I agree with some of what you wrote here but, where did you get this bizare notion about Francis Bellamy? I know he was a socialist but he was born in the USA and graduated from the same high school that I graduated from. He was also born in 1855.


Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:13 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Democracy (The Constitution)
It appears, Deadlifter, that some of your facts....aren't. You might wish to re-read the documents from which you got them.

How could Bellamy come to the United States after the failed revolution of 1848 when he wasn't born until 1855?

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:10 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:49 pm
Posts: 25
Location: New York
New post Re: Democracy (The Constitution)
You're right, if you notice that came at the end of the post and I was tired.

Here is a more complete quote: Ofall teh followers of Edward Bellamy, his cousin Francis Bellamy has had more lasting impact upon Americans than any other nineteenth century utopian socialist ideologue. Each time an American places his hand over his heart and recites the so-called pledge of allegiance, he is repeating a pledge inspired by and written by a utopian socialist ideologue. Francis Bellamy not unlike his cousin , Edward Bellamy, was a proponent of "Christian Socialism." Francis Bellamy's denial of the Deity of Christ, his rejection of the resurrection of Christ, and his rejection of the bible as the infallible word of God was justification of his removal as a Baptist minister. Born and raised in Massachusetts, a short stay in the South was enough to convince Bellamy that the South was hopelessly tied to orthodox Christianity even to the point of rejection of such "modern" and progressive theories as evolution. Francis Bellamy believed that the defining event in American history was the Civil War, and he admitted that he desired that his pledge would reinforce everything that the arguements of Hamilton, the Webster-Hayes debate, the speeches os Seward and Lincoln [and] the Civil War had accomplished. Alexander Hamilton, Daniel Webster, Abraham Lincoln and William H Seward were all advocates of big government--the antithesis of State's Rights."
Red Republicans and Lincoln's marxists
Pages 23 & 24
By Walter D Kennedy and Al Benson Jr.

So there you have my source. The book I cited focused on the communists who came over to America after the failed 1848 revolution and played a prominent role in government, that is where the mistake came from. I'm glad that was pointed out so that a clarification could be made. But I noticed Ken, that you didn't write "fact" but "facts." This suggests that much of what I've written is in error. That simply isn't true and you should reflect upon making false allegations. If you review my posts you will see that I typically provide the source of my information. Far more than others within this forum. That source is often but not always excathedra. It should also be noted that last week I was accused of inaccuracely quoting from the encyclical Satis Cognitum. I reviewed the encyclical from two sources to ensure that the wording had not been altered and found it to be precisely as I had quoted it. But unfortuanately someone rashly and irresponsibly concluded that I must have been in error and pulled the post. I suspect the reason why you pointedly wrote "facts" and not "fact" is based upon your insistence that a pope can lift an excommunication and thereby remove the damned from hell.


Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:37 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4337
New post Re: Democracy (The Constitution)
Deadlifter wrote:
It should also be noted that last week I was accused of inaccuracely quoting from the encyclical Satis Cognitum. I reviewed the encyclical from two sources to ensure that the wording had not been altered and found it to be precisely as I had quoted it. But unfortuanately someone rashly and irresponsibly concluded that I must have been in error and pulled the post.


No, they didn't. Here it is, and if you scroll down you can see my challenge to you. viewtopic.php?p=10815#p10815

Quote:
I suspect the reason why you pointedly wrote "facts" and not "fact" is based upon your insistence that a pope can lift an excommunication and thereby remove the damned from hell.

Ken doesn't think that, either. So that's Griff, me, and Ken, who all don't think it, yet you seem determined to believe that we do, and it's your office to bring us to a better mind.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:24 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Democracy (The Constitution)
Deadlifter wrote:
I suspect the reason why you pointedly wrote "facts" and not "fact" is based upon your insistence that a pope can lift an excommunication and thereby remove the damned from hell.


Why do you insist on this error? None of us has every "insisted" any such thing.

Let me attempt to make it as clear as I possibly can to you: NO ONE, not even a Pope, can "remove the damned from hell", Period.

To even hold such a literally stupid idea is a Protestant misunderstanding of what exactly an excommunication is, the true powers of a Pope, and the Protestant misunderstanding of what any real Catholic believes about all of the above.

You should understand that there are around 120 DIFFERENT "excommunications", and two basically different kinds, medicinal and vindictive, and most of them are medicinal!

We Catholics have fought such Protestant accusations for centuries and here you are, a supposed Catholic, making the same unwarranted accusations against us.

I firmly believe, dear Sir, that not only are you, perhaps unwittingly, infected with certain Protestant ideas, but you also need to learn considerable humility and leave off, eschew, quit, relying on your own interpretation of not only Church doctrine, but also of what we are trying to tell you.

If you insist on not really listening, then we cannot possibly help you...if you even realize you do NEED help!

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:29 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.