Reason.com
New at Reason
You can do whatever steps you want if you have cleared them with the pontiff—and, says Patrick Basham, Republicans hope it stays that way.
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
- Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism (5.26)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
CodeMonkeySteve|4.15.05 @ 2:53PM|#
Damn you, Sanchez! Now I'll have that song stuck in my head all day!
Get in line in that processional
Step into that small confessional
There the guy who's got religion'll
Tell you if your sin's original
...
|4.15.05 @ 3:28PM|#
I don't mean to pick but how could JPII's papal influence have anything to do with a Catholic shift toward Republican voting in 1972 if he wasn't pope until 1978?
No surprise that the winner of the Catholic block of votes wins the election. Catholicism is the largest denomination in the US.
Mike|4.15.05 @ 3:58PM|#
No surprise that the winner of the Catholic block of votes wins the election. Catholicism is the largest denomination in the US.
And with the 2000 election within the margin of error and 2004 also being very close, even that seems like a stretch. The "Catholics predict the election" idea is about as useful as the people who say "such-and-such county in North Dakota has gone for every president since Polk." It'll be true until it's not.
Larry A|4.15.05 @ 3:59PM|#
So let me get this straight. If the fundamentalist Protestants get their wish that the government be run according to "Christian principles" the largest bloc of votes will be held by members of the denomination that put the "P" in Protestant.
Let the good times roll!
|4.15.05 @ 4:23PM|#
So an organization that was recently led by a physically decrepit old man who just completed an 84 year fuckless streak (hat tip to www.ravingatheist.com for that one) who believed that a woman from 2,000 years ago magically altered the path of a bullet to just miss killing him, criminally hides and enables serial child abusers, believes human beings rise from the dead, practices symbolic cannibalism, believes in virgin births, and receives preferential tax treatment and legal exemptions that make organized crime look like amateurs is influencing American politics and the American electorate.
As Eric Cartman might say, "What's the big fucking deal?"
|4.15.05 @ 4:26PM|#
Good one, Jarod. Now do Islam!
|4.15.05 @ 4:40PM|#
I call bullshit. All the Catholics I know in person are liberal, and don't get their voting advice from their church.
There is no Catholic voting block. Perhaps the leaders of the church do try to influence politics towards conservative causes, but the pew warmers know better. And they vastly outnumber the leaders.
Maybe Thoreau could further enlighten us?
|4.15.05 @ 4:55PM|#
Depends on which Catholics you're talking to. I'm a recent graduate of a Catholic high school; 1most of the Catholics there were quite conservative, especially on social issues (we had a large Pro-Life club and organized trips to DC every year on the anniversary of Roe to protest in front of the Court).
|4.15.05 @ 4:57PM|#
"All the Catholics I know in person are liberal, and don't get their voting advice from their church."
you need to get out more. or meet my in-laws. yee-haw!
|4.15.05 @ 5:13PM|#
Catholics come in all different varieties. To the extent that our voting is influenced by our beliefs, we find ourselves with a difficult choice:
The Church is big on life issues, and on most life issues, the Republicans are perceived (however rightly or wrongly) as being more in keeping with Catholic doctrine. OTOH, if you regard war as a life issue, then the Democrats are perceived (however rightly or wrongly) as the more dovish party. Of course, if you believe that government tends to create injustice when it gets involved in personal decisions then a more libertarian approach (which is not always the same as the left's approach) makes more sense.
The Church is also big on "social justice." To most Catholics this means redistribution of wealth. The Dems certainly seem to be more into that. OTOH, if you believe that social justice is about maximizing the economic well-being of the least fortunate in society (as I do) then it's arguable that free market policies are the way to go.
So, I'm a libertarian and a Catholic because I prefer to look at what government actually does rather than what the parties pretend that they'll do. If government actually kept its promises and really did produce a more just and virtuous and prosperous society I'd vote for a fiscally leftist/socially conservative party without any hesitation. But since it never seems to work out that way, I prefer that virtue and justice be handled by private initiatives.
To prove that I practice what I preach, after I'm done in the lab today I'll be heading to a bulk discount grocery store to buy lunch supplies for a homeless shelter where I volunteer. And rather than selling my wife's car when we get a new one we'll donate it to the shelter.
|4.15.05 @ 5:22PM|#
dhex sez:
If they are anything like the Schindlers, I'd rather not.
|4.15.05 @ 6:59PM|#
I think we just found out that thoreau really isn't at all against coercive force, but just dislikes government control because it produces a worse result than a freer society. (I'm not a perfect Libertarian either, but that's really illuminating.)
|4.15.05 @ 7:10PM|#
I think we just found out that thoreau really isn't at all against coercive force, but just dislikes government control because it produces a worse result than a freer society.
Why do you think I'm against coercion? Because it creates misery.
What's so wrong with that? Do I have to hand in my secret decoder ring now?
|4.15.05 @ 7:19PM|#
thoreau,
I didn't mean to offend. I just didn't know you were such a pragmatist. I'm a bit of a pragmatist myself, but I still think it's wrong for the government to hold a gun to my head and take the product of my labor even if they actually do good with it. I can donate to charities on my own, thank you very much.
|4.15.05 @ 7:41PM|#
And with the 2000 election within the margin of error and 2004 also being very close, even that seems like a stretch. The "Catholics predict the election" idea is about as useful as the people who say "such-and-such county in North Dakota has gone for every president since Polk." It'll be true until it's not.
So at this point, the Catholics have one election over the last Redskins home game. :)
|4.15.05 @ 9:58PM|#
If "I'm against coercion...because it creates misery" is somehow an amoral, pragmatic viewpoint...well, here's to amoral pragmatism.
|4.16.05 @ 12:07AM|#
Bill-
Fair enough. I guess my Catholic upbringing and education instilled just enough collectivism in me that I don't object a priori to the notion that I am my brother's keeper. Rather, what I object to is that here in the world force never works out that way.
Now, one might get suspicious and think that I'll go along with coercion if somebody assures me that "This time it's going to work!" But the failure of coercion isn't just a matter of people not doing it right. Coercion fails because:
1) Human nature: Power corrupts.
2) Human nature: People do things better when they are free to make their own choices and enjoy their own rewards.
3) Finite intelligence: No central planner can match the distributed intelligence of numerous independent agents responding to events in real time.
I almost always arrive at the same conclusions as those libertarians who embrace the notion "I am not my brother's keeper". I know that some libertarians find it absolutely abhorrent that I don't embrace that postulate, but I don't believe that notion should be implemented via coercion. If that isn't good enough for them, if they still think I'm not a "real libertarian", well, would they prefer that I start voting for Democrats?
I didn't think so.
|4.16.05 @ 12:09AM|#
I think the writer overestimates the degree of the pope's influence over even conservative Catholics. If, hypothetically, the next pope is theologically liberal, and comes out in favor of gay marriage, women in the priesthood, legal abortion, etc (note that this is EXTREMELY unlikely), you wouldn't see conservative Catholics suddenly changing their minds about those issues. Papal infallibility does not mean that every word that comes out of a pope's mouth is eternally true; in fact its definition is very restrictive.
What you would see in that situation is a gigantic civil war inside the Church. But those who voted for Bush on the basis of his supposedly pro-life credentials would still almost certainly vote Republican.
|4.16.05 @ 12:09AM|#
CORRECTION:
"but I don't believe that notion should be implemented via coercion"
should be
"but I don't believe that my collectivist values should be implemented via coercion"
|4.16.05 @ 12:11AM|#
If it is, try playing it safer,
Drink the wine and chew the wafer!
2 - 4 - 6 - 8,
Time to transubstantiate!
Can't believe I still remember that after 35 years . . .
|4.16.05 @ 11:50AM|#
Thoreau,
The adage could read "I don't mind sharing but don't make me share." I fail to see anything inherently non-libertarian about that. Nor is it non-libertarian to want to help others provided that it's a mutual free choice. Non-Randian, maybe, but that's another argument.
Larry A|4.16.05 @ 3:32PM|#
Thoreau, I think what wou're postulating is the difference between people who volunteer to <fill in the blank>: and the "community service" folks who are "volunteering" as an alternative to sitting in jail. And who are one step ahead of the high school students who are "required to volunteer" hours to government-approved programs to graduate.
Whatever the merits of such programs, they shouldn't be labelled "volunteer."
|4.16.05 @ 4:50PM|#
Most of the Catholics I know tend to be the "a la carte" variety, inasmuch as they treat the church very much like they do political parties. They describe themselves as Catholic and attend services at a Catholic church but they allow themselves to disagree with traditional doctrine, usually on issues like homosexuality or premarital sex. As a former Catholic, I was always taught one had to accept the doctrine in toto or be part of another church.
Oh Mark,
So get down upon your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!