Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > In The News > World News
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #151  
Old Jan 20, '17, 11:01 am
joshman1 joshman1 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2011
Posts: 874
Default Re: Border wall to begin next week, says Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by Regular Atheist View Post
So attempts to restrict the poorest from voting? How much property would be necessary? Do you want to restrict most of the working-class?



What kind of test? How would it measure intelligence? Why do you think this is necessary?

Historically such tests have been used to prevent certain ethnicities from voting, by asking essentially impossible questions to groups that did not have access to good education.



Why do you think that the poor and the working-class do not have stake in things? The problem here is that you're handing power over to corporate capitalist interests entirely. Those with little property, those without access to good education, and those with small incomes will be totally removed from politics, more so than they are now.



This isn't true at all. When the working-class were excluded from the vote conditions were awful for them, and it was only through industrial action and popular demonstrations that they managed to achieve the right to vote along with better standards of living. They weren't blessed with the vote by their benevolent ruling masters - that isn't what occurred at all! They demonstrated for it. They committed acts of violence and "terror" for it.



No, they didn't. Women's suffrage movements made life difficult for those who didn't want to give them the vote. They chained themselves to fences, starved themselves, committed acts of arson, assaulted people, planted bombs and smashed shop windows. They forced the ruling class into giving them the vote, showed that they would continue their disruptive behaviour until they were given it, they weren't benevolently offered it.



Again, totally ignoring the history of the Civil Rights movement. All of the disruption and violence that the protesters brought is what gave them the right to vote. They fought for that right, they weren't given it by some benevolent ruling class.



They weren't willing to share. Those who were oppressed made it clear that they wouldn't simply sit back and accept it. They had to fight for their right to vote, and force those in charge to allow them to participate in the political process.

It isn't politicians or capitalists who offer rights to people, it's the population that fight for them to have these rights. It's trade unions and workers who fought for the 40 hour work week and working-class representation in politics, it's the women's suffrage movement that gave women the right to vote, and it's the black civil rights movement that got black people true participation in the political process.

Your system would mean that the only interests represented in politics would be those of the rich capitalist class. All this would really lead to is a regression in the standard of living for most people. Draconian labour laws, among other things.
Well said.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old Jan 20, '17, 11:56 am
Michael68's Avatar
Michael68 Michael68 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 17, 2015
Posts: 3,719
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Border wall to begin next week, says Trump

Is this a call to arms? lol
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old Jan 20, '17, 12:09 pm
EasterJoy EasterJoy is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: March 26, 2008
Posts: 20,884
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Border wall to begin next week, says Trump

Some friends who visited the Arizona border and spoke to border control agents last fall said they were told the government already has border security positions open that they can't fill. Where Trump is going to find all these people to be extra agents, I'm sure I don't know.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old Jan 20, '17, 12:13 pm
EasterJoy EasterJoy is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: March 26, 2008
Posts: 20,884
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Border wall to begin next week, says Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by exnihilo View Post
Apparently just requiring a government ID suppresses minority voting, so I'm not really moved by such worries. I'd have property requirements, possibly a poll tax, and possibly an intelligence test. All are very reasonable. I know you'll claim that is unfair and racist so I'll save you the time. But it seems to me very reasonable to limit the vote to people of reasonable intelligence and who have some stake in things.

A point I'd suggest you consider is that even when the vote was restricted the eligible voters were willing to not only create a system that was in some way good for those who couldn't vote but to actually give the non voters the vote. So men voted to give the vote to women. Whites voted to give the vote to Blacks. These groups couldn't have gotten the vote unless those who had it were willing to share. I see no reason to think things have suddenly changed.
Property requirements? A poll tax? An intelligence test? Written by whom? By what intelligence does someone conclude that people who "only" work and don't own property don't "have some stake in things"?

Looking to open some good old-fashioned debtors prisons, too? I'm flabbergasted.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old Jan 20, '17, 12:35 pm
JharekCarnelian's Avatar
JharekCarnelian JharekCarnelian is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: April 14, 2008
Posts: 28,575
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Border wall to begin next week, says Trump

As pointed out both women and blacks had to fight and struggle for the right to vote over a long period. No-one just gave them the right to vote. They eventually conceded those groups had a right to vote after a long, long time.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old Jan 20, '17, 1:23 pm
exnihilo exnihilo is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: June 13, 2011
Posts: 3,930
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Border wall to begin next week, says Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by Regular Atheist View Post
So attempts to restrict the poorest from voting? How much property would be necessary? Do you want to restrict most of the working-class?
A prudential decisions but any real property might work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Regular Atheist View Post
What kind of test? How would it measure intelligence? Why do you think this is necessary?
It would measure intelligence the same way all sorts of existing tests measure intelligence. It is not necessary, but it would be helpful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Regular Atheist View Post
Historically such tests have been used to prevent certain ethnicities from voting, by asking essentially impossible questions to groups that did not have access to good education.
OK. But that isn't the case today. Everyone has access to a good government education these days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Regular Atheist View Post
Why do you think that the poor and the working-class do not have stake in things? The problem here is that you're handing power over to corporate capitalist interests entirely. Those with little property, those without access to good education, and those with small incomes will be totally removed from politics, more so than they are now.
They have a stake in things in a general sense, but if they aren't paying the taxes they are redistributing then they don't have a stake in that sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Regular Atheist View Post
This isn't true at all. When the working-class were excluded from the vote conditions were awful for them, and it was only through industrial action and popular demonstrations that they managed to achieve the right to vote along with better standards of living. They weren't blessed with the vote by their benevolent ruling masters - that isn't what occurred at all! They demonstrated for it. They committed acts of violence and "terror" for it.
Working conditions improving isn't merely the result of voting. There are lots of factors at work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Regular Atheist View Post
No, they didn't. Women's suffrage movements made life difficult for those who didn't want to give them the vote. They chained themselves to fences, starved themselves, committed acts of arson, assaulted people, planted bombs and smashed shop windows. They forced the ruling class into giving them the vote, showed that they would continue their disruptive behaviour until they were given it, they weren't benevolently offered it.

Again, totally ignoring the history of the Civil Rights movement. All of the disruption and violence that the protesters brought is what gave them the right to vote. They fought for that right, they weren't given it by some benevolent ruling class.

They weren't willing to share. Those who were oppressed made it clear that they wouldn't simply sit back and accept it. They had to fight for their right to vote, and force those in charge to allow them to participate in the political process.
If the privilege to vote was done through voluntary actions (and it was) then yes, they did give them the right to vote. There may have been factors that moved them to do so. But how is that surprising? People usually act for a reason. The franchise wasn't secured through force even if some people did engage in violent acts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Regular Atheist View Post
Your system would mean that the only interests represented in politics would be those of the rich capitalist class. All this would really lead to is a regression in the standard of living for most people. Draconian labour laws, among other things.
It doesn't follow at all that only rich capitalists would be represented. I think the middle class far out numbers the rich.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EasterJoy View Post
Looking to open some good old-fashioned debtors prisons, too? I'm flabbergasted.
I'm not necessarily advocating for debates prisons but being able to just not pay a debt isn't so great either. That isn't exactly justice.
__________________
We fear men so much, because we fear God so little. One fear cures another. When man's terror scares you, turn your thoughts to the wrath of God.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > In The News > World News

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
6451CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: oldgraymare2
5940Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: hazcompat
5063Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
4614Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4208Poems and Reflections
Last by: tonyg
4052OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: Popeye14
3286For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: GLam8833
3259Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
2806Let's Empty Purgatory 2
Last by: yankeelady2015
2443SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:06 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.