Why a Catholic Monarchy?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-01-2014, 05:15 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(06-01-2014 02:42 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  

...because Google search didn't have any sort of .gif I had in mind, of the Weasley Twins blurting, "FUCKING BRILLIANT!"

I'm proud to say that I had to google that Smartass

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 07:48 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(05-01-2014 06:19 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  
(05-01-2014 07:07 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  So basically you accept choosing a ruler based on who their parents were rather than on their qualifications? ... and you do so based on the idea that revolutions often don't really benefit the people?
Revolutions? I never stated I wanted a king through revolution. Revolutions have typically ended up badly. We were fortunate here in America, I suppose. For the most part, I view revolutions as a satanic thing.
(05-01-2014 07:07 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  ...and you think that if you have a hereditary monarch people will rebel more and the king would have to comply with the will of the people more?
The people might rebel more. Who knows? A Catholic monarch on this continent will never happen in my lifetime, and I cannot predict that scenario. But no, the king would not have to comply with the will of the people.
...
(05-01-2014 07:07 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  And you also think this logic applies in heaven? You think that God will have to comply with the will of the people?

No. Again, my mind changed over these past few years. I am no longer interested in the will of the people. I am interested in the Will of God. In Heaven, the people will have to comply with God's Will, and that is what I want to ultimately see.

Then it is clear you did not watch the video you posted here. The argument in the video was clear: Revolutions don't benefit the ordinary man, so are bad... and Kings make better rulers than presidents because having gone through the ritual of voting we'll accept any behaviour from a president but a King will always be fearful of the populace and do what they want because his position is more tenuous.

Are you seriously telling me here that I sat through that bullshit video of an buffon spouting non-stop lunatic wankery to make an argument that you disagree with? You idiot.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Hafnof's post
07-01-2014, 01:44 AM (This post was last modified: 07-01-2014 02:12 AM by LaramieHirsch.)
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
The Germans are coming, thanks for your reply, I hope to respond at some point soon. Time is short today.

- - - - -
(05-01-2014 06:39 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  So you have dramatically shifted your political view but yet don't even know how you would prefer your "Perfect" system to be set up? I asked this of you because I figured you might have some kind of reason but it appears you don't.

I have many reasons I shifted my view. Charles Coulombe was one inspiration for the change in thought, his discussions served to open my mind to the concept of returning to that tradition.

There are other things that helped me accept the idea more fully. But like you and 99% of the rest of people, I don't post encyclopedic descriptions of what goes through my mind in a year. Do you begin conversations with launching everything you have to say at people?

Another influence that convinced me of the Catholic Monarch position was how the Church lifted Europe out of the previous collapse of the Roman Empire. I'm a fan of the Middle Ages.
- - - - -

(06-01-2014 07:48 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Are you seriously telling me here that I sat through that bullshit video of an buffon spouting non-stop lunatic wankery to make an argument that you disagree with? You idiot.

No, fool.

His arguments do not contradict what I've stated.

(06-01-2014 07:48 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  The argument in the video was clear: Revolutions don't benefit the ordinary man, so are bad...

I said:

(05-01-2014 06:19 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  Revolutions? I never stated I wanted a king through revolution. Revolutions have typically ended up badly. We were fortunate here in America, I suppose. For the most part, I view revolutions as a satanic thing.

You continued...

(06-01-2014 07:48 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  and Kings make better rulers than presidents because having gone through the ritual of voting we'll accept any behaviour from a president but a King will always be fearful of the populace and do what they want because his position is more tenuous.

Yes. I agree that we have both concluded the same thing from the video. Kings make better rulers than presidents for the reasons you just summarized from Coulombe. I agree with Coulombe.


(06-01-2014 07:48 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  it is clear you did not watch the video you posted here.

It is clear that we both have.


- - - - -

-

Excl On the ignore list: Taqiyya Mockingbird, Hafnof, Bucky Ball, Minimalist, and DemonicLemon
-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 01:58 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(07-01-2014 01:44 AM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  ...
Another influence that convinced me of the Catholic Monarch position was how the Church lifted Europe out of the previous collapse of the Roman Empire. I'm a fan of the Middle Ages.
...

Ah! Got it. Nostalgia. All is explained.




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
07-01-2014, 06:59 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
LaramieHirsch,

Let's go through this again.
1. You posted a video that you said represented your argument for why a monarchy is superior. "In short, I quickly adopted the pro-monarchy stance because of Charles Coulombe.".
2. The content of the video contained two significant points:
2a. That revolutions generally don't benefit the people. This is an irrelevant argument to the question, but I included it in my summary because so much time was dedicated to this point.
2b. That monarchies are superior to democracies because the ritual of voting means people will accept anything from a democratic government (funny, I see democratic governments being overthrown usually every 8 years or so), while a monarch must always obey the will of the people because the lack of ritual involved in their coming to power (we'd never expect a coronation for example) means that their position is much more tenuous than that of say, an elected president.
3. Further, you said "In addition to this, it seems to me that a monarchy on earth is what closest represents the hierarchy one can expect in Heaven."
4. I summarised the points under (2), and your response to the significant point 2(a) was: "The people might rebel more. Who knows? A Catholic monarch on this continent will never happen in my lifetime, and I cannot predict that scenario. But no, the king would not have to comply with the will of the people.".
5. Your response in (4) directly contradicted the content of the video you posted, invalidating your claim in (1) that the video represented your argument for a monarchy. Moreover you rejected any similarity with Coulombe's monarchy with your view of heaven in (3) . At this point in the discussion you have put forward the video and similarity of Coulombe's monarchy with that of heaven as your primary arguments, and then entirely rejected the content of the video on these subjects. You have entirely withdrawn every argument you have put forward in support of a monarchy. So what was the point of this whole discussion?
6. Now that I have pointed out your blanket contradiction of your own argument you double down: "Yes. I agree that we have both concluded the same thing from the video. Kings make better rulers than presidents for the reasons you just summarized from Coulombe. I agree with Coulombe."

So I'm left with the conclusion that you don't have an argument to make for a monarchy. You disagree with Coulombe's argument, but you agree with Coulombe's conclusion.

Why do you agree with his conclusion? Is it because you like his dapper looks? Can you make an argument in support of your conclusion?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Hafnof's post
07-01-2014, 06:04 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(07-01-2014 01:44 AM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  The Germans are coming, thanks for your reply, I hope to respond at some point soon. Time is short today.

No problem. I will wait.

On the other hand, if you want me to make shorter replies in the future, just say so. But then I will expect you to do so aswell.

(22-05-2014 06:23 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I abstain from all forms of sexual acts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2014, 10:45 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
Just a quick question. What do you mean by a catholic monarch. I also enjoy the idea of a catholic monarch however I still believe the institutions should be seperate. Would your monarch be under the direct command of the pope or would he just use catholic teaching as a basis for running the government.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

Up to the heretic, smack, smack, smack!
Down to the jail went Good St. Nick!

When people say WWJD just remember that flipping tables and whipping people is still a valid option.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TarzanSmith's post
16-01-2014, 01:58 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(05-01-2014 06:44 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  What would prevent any monarchy from becoming corrupt?

I would say that a monarchy is almost always corrupt by definition. At the least the odds are so far against it being otherwise...but anyway, yeah I'd call the Christian god corrupt, so hell, why not? If that's what the new guy wants, it's what he wants. He is alleged to rule with an iron fist, he takes out any potential competitors, he demands everyone worship him and grants special favors, and condemns all who are not willing to do anything he requests no matter how insane the requirement may be. God is what Kim Jong Un aspired to be.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 04:16 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
@ Hafnof

I think there is a misunderstanding here.

When I say "people might rebel more" does not mean "people will create revolutions more."

A people rebelling against an authority is different from a full on revolution.

Now that I think of it, is there not a difference between the three words: rebel, revolt, and revolution?

Anyway, there have probably always been groups rebelling against their kings, and they've probably either been ignored, went to bed that night, or been quashed. A revolution is a different thing altogether.

You said the following:

(07-01-2014 06:59 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  1. You posted a video that you said represented your argument for why a monarchy is superior…

… you have put forward the video and similarity of Coulombe's monarchy with that of heaven as your primary arguments, and then entirely rejected the content of the video on these subjects. You have entirely withdrawn every argument you have put forward in support of a monarchy…

…Now that I have pointed out your blanket contradiction of your own argument

…So I'm left with the conclusion that you don't have an argument to make for a monarchy

… Can you make an argument in support of your conclusion?

Again, I think there's a misunderstanding here. I'm not making an argument—that is to say, I'm not trying to convince anyone or defend my case or any such thing.
I'm explaining why I like Catholic Monarchy.

- - - - -

(09-01-2014 10:45 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Just a quick question. What do you mean by a catholic monarch. I also enjoy the idea of a catholic monarch however I still believe the institutions should be seperate. Would your monarch be under the direct command of the pope or would he just use catholic teaching as a basis for running the government.

A Catholic Monarch would be a king who inherited a throne from his father, and has an heir to inherit it from him, and their family would be Catholic and subject to the Holy Father in Rome. This monarch would be properly anointed by a bishop or some high clergy in a coronation ceremony.

I do not like the idea of separation of church and state. I believe it to be a freemasonic ideal that leaves a nation with no moral ground whatsoever. And should such a state survive long enough, its people become so culturally and morally vacant, that greed is the only thing left in the dry husk that is such a state. But to be able to turn to the Catholic Church for moral direction in policy and culture would give a nation great strength.

But you ask, would the monarch be under the direct command of the pope? I'm not sure. I don't think it was ever that way, though I could be wrong. I'm under the impression that past popes allowed kings to rule their domains, so long as they did not go against the Church. Catholic teaching would definitely be a basis for running the government, and if a monarch were to go against such teaching, ideally he would be excommunicated. Not only is it important in such a system for the nation's monarch to be strong, but the clergy also should be strong. (Clergy do not appear strong these days).


- - - - -


(05-01-2014 06:44 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  What would prevent any monarchy from becoming corrupt?

Nothing. Especially considering that it is an institution run by human beings. Just as we can see nothing has prevented the Church from becoming corrupted.
Here is a quotation from one of Coulombe's recent articles:

"Lasting from whenever a given area was Christianised until the Reformation, this period had any number of horrors and mishaps occurring during its sway – as every time does. But the institutions of society were expected to reflect to the highest possible degree the Divine order as revealed by the Church."

http://catholicism.org/what-is-christendom.html

- - - - -

@ The Germans are coming:

Yes, again, I have no idea how a monarch would be ideally chosen. I'd like to look at how the earliest kings were chosen. Say, around Charlemagne's era or before. If, in this hypothetical future, society decided to return to Catholic Monarchy, how would this individual be chosen? Were earlier leaders picked by leaders in the Church? Or were they simply the men in the right place at the right time?

You asked:

Quote: Are you saying you would want to have it despite opposition if it were possible?

Yes.

I am not of the opinion that the majority of people know what is best for themselves.

But, on the other hand, if 40-100 percent of the people were in opposition to a Catholic Monarch, then I'd also say "why bother?" Such a society would destroy its monarchical paradigm in one to three generations. Obviously, such a population would neither want nor deserve a Catholic king, and they'd rip his head off.

Quote: Ok. How will you ensure that interducing strict catholic laws will not cause discontent and protests amongst protestant?

It would. Introducing strict Catholic laws would cause discontent and protest from protestants. One more reason on top of thousands of others that Catholic Monarchy is unlikely.

Implementing a Catholic Monarchy utopia on this current population of Americans would not work for five minutes.

Preventing discontent and protests is out of the question. The people in America are much much more different from the European of 600+ years ago.

Quote: And how do you interpret the 30 years war and others?

Dunno. I don't have the time right now.

I thank you kindly for all the historical references, though.

I think a European's approach to this kind of history is much more different and more open-minded than an American knee-jerk reaction.

-

Excl On the ignore list: Taqiyya Mockingbird, Hafnof, Bucky Ball, Minimalist, and DemonicLemon
-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 04:50 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(16-01-2014 04:16 AM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  Yes, again, I have no idea how a monarch would be ideally chosen. I'd like to look at how the earliest kings were chosen. Say, around Charlemagne's era or before. If, in this hypothetical future, society decided to return to Catholic Monarchy, how would this individual be chosen? Were earlier leaders picked by leaders in the Church? Or were they simply the men in the right place at the right time?

The first kings were chosen through bloodshed in war.


Quote:Yes.

I am not of the opinion that the majority of people know what is best for themselves.

Nore does a republic believe that, which is why it is governd by representatives.

Quote:But, on the other hand, if 40-100 percent of the people were in opposition to a Catholic Monarch, then I'd also say "why bother?" Such a society would destroy its monarchical paradigm in one to three generations. Obviously, such a population would neither want nor deserve a Catholic king, and they'd rip his head off.

Dont you see the irony, considering what already happend to absolute monarchs in the past?



Quote:It would. Introducing strict Catholic laws would cause discontent and protest from protestants. One more reason on top of thousands of others that Catholic Monarchy is unlikely.

Implementing a Catholic Monarchy utopia on this current population of Americans would not work for five minutes.

The likelyhood isnt exatly a argument you can give.

We argue over the asumption that it is infact possible.

Quote:Preventing discontent and protests is out of the question. The people in America are much much more different from the European of 600+ years ago.

That is simply not true. The US was founded through revolution and it`s people slaughterd each ther frequently.

Quote:Dunno. I don't have the time right now.

I thank you kindly for all the historical references, though.

I think a European's approach to this kind of history is much more different and more open-minded than an American knee-jerk reaction.

So you have nothing to say about the secterian violence caused through specific secterian dominance and you dont have an argument on how to prevent it during specific secterian dominance?

(22-05-2014 06:23 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I abstain from all forms of sexual acts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Catholic lawsuit against HHS mandate Vosur 11 344 31-01-2014 11:59 AM
Last Post: RobbyPants
  Mormon and Catholic in the White House Denicio 19 672 02-11-2012 12:12 AM
Last Post: Birdguy1979
  The Mormon and the Catholic Buddy Christ 1 176 25-08-2012 12:51 PM
Last Post: Oxiate
  Guess where the Catholic church wants more power samthepcman 2 287 28-03-2012 07:57 PM
Last Post: ClydeLee
Forum Jump: