Kind of fed up with two system parties the don’t fully represent me as a Catholic either one fo them. Someone recommend the ASP went on their main website was pleased with what I say. But when I went on their discussion board I was a little turn off, kinda of sympathizing with some things that I am religiously against such issues. any thoughts ?
I’m not American, but I can still tell you that you’ll never really find a party with which you identify 100%. There will always be debate and division among humans, even within the same political party. From a Catholic perspective, as long as your party or candidate does not officially espouse beliefs that are completely irreconcilable with the Catholic Church, such as abortion, Communism, etc…, you’re good to go. It’s not reasonable to expect that everyone in a democratic party think the same way; it’s not a hive or a cult. Even authoritarian-inclined parties have divisons, though those might be less visible or outright suppressed.
Who are sympathising with things you are against? Is it member of the party, or people who represent the party in an official capacity? There is a difference, and the people on the discussion board are not necessarily totally in line with what the party says. To give an analogy, users here on CAF are not necessarily in line with everything the Catholic Church teaches, or everything Catholic Answers produces. That’s why CAF has a disclaimer at the bottom of the page:
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.
All political parties are broad churches, they need to be in order to attract as many people as possible. You will never find a political party you agree with 100%. I recommend looking at what the official party position is on these issues, and make a decision from there.
The idea is good but the weight of such a party is 0 in US politics.
I think we should vote for candidates, not parties. We should vote for people, not parties. Sometimes, the so called third parties have the best guy for the job. Sometimes, they have, by far the worst. I can’t offer you any advice but this: there is nothing in the catechism that says you must only vote for of two parties. In fact, Jimmy Akin made that point in a dispute he was having with Mark Shea. (Jimmy agreed that Mark could, in good conscious, vote third party, but Jimmy’s point was the voting for McCain was not sinful). When someone tells you that you’re wasting your vote, remind them of two things: 1) It’s your vote to waste, and 2) Every vote counts. Oh and the “helping the other guy” myth, that needs to stop. It’s statistically improbable that you would help get another person elected. They tried to say that in the 1992 election, but a lot of people that voted for Ross Perot, probably would not have voted for Bush or Clinton, anyway. A two party system is only one party away from a one party state.
That’s the problem. Online discussion boards do not accurately represent the party. Certain personality types do most of the posting.
Bear in mind also that a few posters might be professional trolls trying to sow division or make the party look bad.
If you find a perfect political party, let us know!!
When it comes to politics the perfect is the enemy of the good.
I’m a registered Libertarian, but I probably will do what I do most years and not vote.
How do you reconcile that with the Church’s teaching?
"“Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country.” (CCC 2239-2240)
BTW - for me, I can’t really support a “third party” in America unless they are a break away party from one of the main two.
Whether we like it or not, America is a two party system. That’s not going to change. The only way a third party will ever replace one of the existing two is if there is a top down split/exodus to a new party.
I don’t feel it’s possible for a third party to rise to prominence via grassroots movements. Grassroot movements will only modify the policies of the existing parties, they won’t lead to replacement.
I don’t. I only have to reconcile it with God and I’m not too worried about that.
I like the ASP very much, but the 2020 presidential election is literally a life-and-death matter for the unborn. If Trump and a Republican-majority Senate are re-elected, there is the possibility of appointing one, two, possibly more, Supreme Court justices who may be pro-life and who may overturn at least portions of Roe v Wade. Select justices who are reasonably young, such as Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, and their effect will last possibly three or four decades. If Biden and a Democratic-majority Senate are elected, it’s game over.
After 2020, I am not terribly optimistic that there will ever be another Republican president elected. The coming demographics militate against it. Perhaps a moderate-conservative, libertarian-type party will emerge to replace the GOP, if it is sufficiently moderate to attract those who would otherwise be conservative Democrats. Maybe that’s where the ASP and similar movements, yet to emerge, could come into play in creating a new “fusion” party.
Umm, Republicans were a third party before Lincoln. Your ignorance of history is showing.
We are not in Lincoln’s time and I don’t see the solidarity party gaining momentum any time soon.
The directives to US Citizens from our Bishops:
Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote
according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide,deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions,redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal
cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an
intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving
human life and dignity.
There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.
When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter
faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.
Which has nothing to do with its actual likelihood.
Yes, but the Republican Party was formed from a top down split from the Whig Party.
In the USA, a third party will never replace one of the two main parties without a top down split/exodus.
Without party leaders from the Republicans or Democrats moving to a third party, you will never have a third party replace the Republicans or Democrats.
Grassroots movements don’t lead to party replacement because they simply lead to party platform reformations.
Yep, I’ve been a big supporter of them for a couple of years now, because I am fed up with the two major parties. If I may ask, what are the issues that you disagree with them on?