Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics (and for Serious Christians in General)
In a comment under the "It's the Values, Stupid" thread, Russell mentioned that he saw a flyer and that he would post it if he could figure out how.
I'll wager that he saw the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics (PDF file). There's also an HTML version, and even version for non-Catholic Christians.
The Voter's Guide originated at catholic.com, a Catholic apologetics organization. Karl Keating, a noted Catholic apologist, runs catholic.com, which is a good source for authentic Catholic teaching (books, and other paraphernalia).
Another good resource for anyone who is interested in knowing what the Church actually teaches is the Catholic Encyclopedia. Although the on-line version corresponds to the 1913 edition, it is still a good resource because the Church's doctrine---the subset of Church teaching that is promulgated infallibly---doesn't change. For example, see the article on evolution, in which one finds that the Church has at least as far back as Augustine in the fourth century advocated that the evolution of the human body is a serious possibility. Remember, this article was written before the Scopes "Monkey Trial"! Certainly, the Church does not demand (and never has) the teaching of creation "science" in the public schools. It was this very article (the Encyclopedia article on evolution), in fact, that about ten years ago started me down the path of taking the authority of Church teaching seriously.
I'll wager that he saw the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics (PDF file). There's also an HTML version, and even version for non-Catholic Christians.
The Voter's Guide originated at catholic.com, a Catholic apologetics organization. Karl Keating, a noted Catholic apologist, runs catholic.com, which is a good source for authentic Catholic teaching (books, and other paraphernalia).
Another good resource for anyone who is interested in knowing what the Church actually teaches is the Catholic Encyclopedia. Although the on-line version corresponds to the 1913 edition, it is still a good resource because the Church's doctrine---the subset of Church teaching that is promulgated infallibly---doesn't change. For example, see the article on evolution, in which one finds that the Church has at least as far back as Augustine in the fourth century advocated that the evolution of the human body is a serious possibility. Remember, this article was written before the Scopes "Monkey Trial"! Certainly, the Church does not demand (and never has) the teaching of creation "science" in the public schools. It was this very article (the Encyclopedia article on evolution), in fact, that about ten years ago started me down the path of taking the authority of Church teaching seriously.
posted by Unknown @ 7:35 PM
4 Comments:
At 8:02 PM,
Unknown said…
I should also like to claim that Russell's statement, "Truth is unknowable to us mere mortals," is a bold and false assertion of nihilism (or at least of relativism). You can in reading my message, for example, know the truth that I exist (and that truth is the same absolute truth known by me, not just relatively by you). Even the nihilist contradictorily the believes in the "truth" of nihilism itself, and even the relativist contradictorily believes in the "absoluteness" of relativism itself.
The Church's position is that there are truths accessible to the mind of man via natural reason and that there other truths (revealed truths) injected by God directly into the mind of man in history. Even if one does not accept the veracity of what the Church claims to be revealed by God, one can hopefully at least agree that the human mind is a great thing precisely and chiefly because it can grasp the truth.
At 6:21 AM,
R said…
nihilism
\Ni"hil*ism\, n. [L. nihil nothing: cf. F. nihilisme. See Annihilate.] 1. Nothingness; nihility.
2. The doctrine that nothing can be known; scepticism as to all knowledge and all reality.
3. (Politics) The theories and practices of the Nihilists.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
nihilism
n 1: a revolutionary doctrine that advocates destruction of the social system for its own sake 2: the delusion that things (or everything, including the self) do not exist; a sense that everything is unreal [syn: nihilistic delusion] 3: complete denial of all established authority and institutions
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
Definition 2 of the first entry is I guess what Tom has in mind in his comment. I don't think that is what I wrote about, and certainly not what I had in mind, nor did I have relativism in mind. Incrementalism, maybe, is the right word; I do believe that we can get closer to the truth of more and more of what we experience.
The voter's guide I saw was a much simpler bulletized version (except they used little crosses instead of bullets) of the guides in the links that Tom posted. Since posting it was even more complicated for Mac users than for PC users, I just sent it to Curtis. I don't see any need for him to post it anymore.
It seems that what started as a dialogue about how our views have evolved over the years has devolved into a point/counterpoint between Tom and me. I don't see the value of continuing this.
At 7:04 AM,
Unknown said…
I apologize for dragging us toward a pointless and narrow conversation.
So I ask, Does anyone here besides me believe that truth can in fact be known by us mere mortals?
Surely, it is an interesting and valid question.
A thing is either known with certainty to be true or not. Incremental progression of an idea implies that the idea is always false, and that we never know the truth.
At 2:12 PM,
Michelle said…
I for one have enjoyed the dialogue between you two, as it has been interesting to read two very educated but differing view points on several matters in this blog, I hope you don't quit. I would comment more, but half the time I am nursing while reading (makes typing tough), and sometimes you both just have more knowledge on a subject which can make it interesting to read, but not always something to join in. As far as knowing Truth, I believe it can be revealed to mere mortals through the Holy Spirit as God deems it can be handled and according to his will. The evangelicals had similar fliers to the Catholics it sounds like. There were also websites mentioned such as ivotevalues.com and other references in to utilize for church members without endorsing a candidate. The church did make a true effort to get their congregations to vote this elections. We are at an interesting crossroad for the Democrat Party as well as the country as a whole I think. Has anyone read Zell Miller's book: A National Party No More? Though a bit self-eulogizing, I found that it did a good job describing where the Party had come from, where it has gone, and why he no longer feels he has a place. I feel that some Republicans who are not happy with "all things Republican" would vote Democrat if the party would go back to its roots, however it would probably be a wash with many of the more liberal group. 2008 should be interesting.
Post a Comment
<< Home