Paul Ryan it is...

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

CNN headline -

Is Ryan for or against Ayn Rand.

so silly

Read it, it's actually pretty interesting.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Read it, it's actually pretty interesting.

-spence

Yes, interesting. The author states that Ryan can be an objectionist, or he can be a Christian, but he can not have it both ways.

Has the author ever put in print "Biden can either be a Catholic or he can be an abortion advocate, but he can not have it both ways?". Nope...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes, interesting. The author states that Ryan can be an objectionist, or he can be a Christian, but he can not have it both ways.

Has the author ever put in print "Biden can either be a Catholic or he can be an abortion advocate, but he can not have it both ways?". Nope...

Apples and oranges.

Biden is a known quantity and his position on abortion has been consistent. I'm not sure polls indicate that the Roman Catholic's absolute position on abortion is really embraced in the US anyway.

With Ryan the author is assertion a clear and very recent contraction. Ryan is a subject of interest who most people don't know much about...

Apples and oranges.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not sure polls indicate that the Roman Catholic's absolute position on abortion is really embraced in the US anyway.

-spence

it's trending well

"Pro-Choice" Americans at Record-Low 41%

Half of Americans, 51%, consider abortion morally wrong and 38% say it is morally acceptable

this could be BIG trouble

The percentage of political independents identifying as pro-choice is 10 points lower today than in May 2011, while the percentage pro-life is up by six points. As a result, pro-lifers now outnumber pro-choicers among this important swing political group for only the second time since 2001, with the first occurring in 2009.

More broadly, since 2009, independents have been fairly closely divided between the two abortion positions, whereas for most of the 2001-2008 period, significantly more independents were pro-choice than pro-life.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

it's trending well

It's still pretty flat over 5 years...go back a year and it was flipped...some of those Catholics must have been back in the kitchen...

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It's still pretty flat over 5 years...go back a year and it was flipped...some of those Catholics must have been back in the kitchen...

-spence

Spence, at 5:12 PM, you say that the anti-abortion position isn't really embraced in the US. At 5:35, you admit that polls show otherwise, but you dismiss it.

Spence, do you ever get tired of incessantly moving the goalposts until it looks as though your side has scored a goal?

[scottw]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;953839]Spence, at 5:12 PM, you say that the anti-abortion position isn't really embraced in the US. At 5:35, you admit that polls show otherwise, but you dismiss it.

QUOTE]

makes you wonder what he was doing between 5:13 and 5:34

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, at 5:12 PM, you say that the anti-abortion position isn't really embraced in the US. At 5:35, you admit that polls show otherwise, but you dismiss it.

Spence, do you ever get tired of incessantly moving the goalposts until it looks as though your side has scored a goal?

You're not paying attention.

There's a difference between an absolute position on abortion and what Catholics or for that matter Americans really think.

Please read my posts twice before you respond.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not sure polls indicate that the Roman Catholic's absolute position on abortion is really embraced in the US anyway.


-spence

Spence, I'm not sure what planet you live on. Here on Earth, recent polls I see, show it's about 50-50 in this country. And as Scott correctly said, it's trending in the Catholic doctrine. I don't know why, but it is.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

.

Biden is a known quantity and his position on abortion has been consistent. -spence

Yes, it has consistently been in direct violation of the sacred teachings of the church he claims to be a member of. Spence, Biden goes to Catholic Mass on Sunday because he wants those votes. Then he goes to a pro-abortion rally on Monday because he also wants those votes. That's called pandering. If you want to get the Klan vote, fine. But you shouldn't also court the endorsement of the NAACP.

Real leaders take a stand, tell you what they think, and let you decide if you like them or not. To believe in everything, is to believe in nothing.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That's called pandering. If you want to get the Klan vote, fine. But you shouldn't also court the endorsement of the NAACP.

Real leaders take a stand, tell you what they think, and let you decide if you like them or not. To believe in everything, is to believe in nothing.

You've just clearly articulated my biggest gripe and reservations with Romney.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes, it has consistently been in direct violation of the sacred teachings of the church he claims to be a member of. Spence, Biden goes to Catholic Mass on Sunday because he wants those votes. Then he goes to a pro-abortion rally on Monday because he also wants those votes. That's called pandering. If you want to get the Klan vote, fine. But you shouldn't also court the endorsement of the NAACP.

Real leaders take a stand, tell you what they think, and let you decide if you like them or not. To believe in everything, is to believe in nothing.

I am admittedly a lapsed Catholic, but I know more than a few people who are practicing Catholics, but disagree with some of the Dogma, but still believe in their faith and are supportive of their church. They do not go just to pander...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I am admittedly a lapsed Catholic, but I know more than a few people who are practicing Catholics, but disagree with some of the Dogma, but still believe in their faith and are supportive of their church. They do not go just to pander...

Of course, there are exactly zero Catholics who are perfect, we all have our flaws.

But the cathechism has binding beliefs, and non-binding beliefs. Binding beliefs means just what it says...those are things that you cannot disagree with and call yourself Catholic...like believing that Jesus is the son of God, believing in the importance of charity (not a strength of Biden either), and being opposed to abortion.

My point being, it's OK to disagree with some of the dogma. It's OK if you don't say the rosary, for example. It's not OK to disagree on abortion.

I don't know why anyone who is pro-choice would choose to call themselves a Catholic. I'm certain Biden (and Nancy Pelosi) does it to increase his voting base. And if his bishop had any spine whatsoever, he'd tell 'Plugs' to decide whether or not he wants to get Communion on Sundays.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

To believe in everything, is to believe in nothing.

Yes, and if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Read it, it's actually pretty interesting.

-spence

That Ryan's views on Ayn Rand might put him at odds with the christian right or the Catholic Church are moot since both are at odds with both parties, but probably more so with the progressive anti-religious views of the Dems.

Weiss allows college students to go through a "literary infatuation" with Rand and then to repudiate her later, but Ryan must not be allowed this path, and must always forever be a true and absolute Randian.

Weiss mentions that her books celebrated greed and selfishness and saw altruism as "evil," but doesn't go into her arguments of why so, just drops those loaded words into his essay to help paint her as a brutish, uncaring, anti-social being. Also mentions that she was a militant atheist who favored abortion, which, not being an atheist who favors abortion actually is a prime reason to understand that Ryan is not a pure Randian.

Ryan says, according to the article, that he was more deeply influenced by his Catholic faith and by Thomas Aquinas (than, it follows,more than by Ayn Rand.) But, somehow, we must not accept that as true, but, rather, as true the implication that he is a true Randian because of a speech, whose words in that speech must be the total truth of his views that negate anything else he might say. In that speech he says he was taught quite a bit about who he is and what his value systems are and what his beliefs are. But "quite a bit" is different than "totally." But we are to assume, by the author's implication, that the true and total Randian view is what his value systems are, therefore they cannot be his Catholic faith or Thomas Aquinas.

Further, Ryan, according to the article, says that if there were one person who he might credit for going into politcs, it would be Rand and her views (in stark terms as the Weiss emphasizes) on the struggle between the individual and the collective.

The thing about Howard Roark, hero of "The fountainhead" is he was an ideal, a totally virtuous individual, not a real flawed human being full of various sometimes conflicting ideas. Being an ideal, it is likely that such men do not, or rarely exist. He was a literary emblem. And Weiss points out, gratuitously, that the book was denounced as amoral. Which is strange since it was about an ultimate morality, and was contradicted as a Randian position by Weiss's comment on her next book, "Atlas Shrugged," being a statement that laissez fair capitalism is the only moral social system.

The fact that, as Weiss concedes, "Ryan is no atheist, but atheism was at the core of [Rand's] philosophy," certainly indicates that Ryan does not fully accept Rand's philosophy. He certainly doesn't act like a true Randian hero--he is fighting for his views through government, not as an individual ousider. Just as the only ideal Christian was Jesus Christ, the only ideal objectivist might be Ayn Rand. The other "Christians"--see puritans, liberation theologists, Catholics and various protestants and sects, can, apparently depart from the ideal Christian, so saying that Ryan cannot be an objectivist and a Christian at the same time is an extreme and absolutist view. One that a "centrist" might object to. We as centrists, relativists, rationalists, eclectivists, modernists, pholosopers, realists, individualists (more so than collectivists), and especially politicians (even statesmen), can take what is good and useful from philosphies, even those like Rand's, which might be impossible or too ideal, yet have value that take us in the direction, the vector, of our society's ideals.

The U.S. Constitution (you know I had to get that in here) which Rand admired (except for the commerce clause not being more clearly articulated) points the vector toward individual freedom. Socialism's, Marxism's, Communism's, and progressivism's vector points us toward the collective over the individual.

Which vector do you prefer?