And if women base their votes on the quality of looks (which, I can tell you, is never a uniform perception - beauty being, as it is, in the eye of the beholder), what do you opine is the basis for the male vote? Athletic ability? Deeper voice? Height? Firmness of the handshake?
I would be fascinated to read the study on which you have based your general argument regarding women and national elections.
A few points in response.
Catholics can have liberal political views. Most political views of any kind are not incompatible with Catholicism. However some political views are. A person really can not be Catholic and be pro-abortion, pro-active euthanasia, pro-human cloning, against defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, or against religious freedom for Catholics. These are foundational issues. For whatever reason, at least in the U.S., if a person subscribes to these views, they are going to be labeled "right wing" or "conservative" even if they are liberal on other issues.
The separation of church and state, until the late twentieth century, was not considered to mean the separation of religious based morality from law. Laws were openly based on religious based morality when most people were religious and few people considered it a violation of the Constitution. As a matter of history, the Constitution was never intended to give people who subscribe to secular philosophy a "veto" over those people whose view of life is religious. In many cases that's the way the Constitution has been interpreted over the last 50 years or so. But that has been wrong.
Whether or not one is in union with the Catholic Church depends on (among other things) whether their position on issues of moral significance are or are not in accord with the teaching of the Church on each issue, regardless of what labels one might apply to each position.
Moreover, prior to the Reagan administration, the majority of Catholics were "liberals" - even Democrats, if you will. For instance, the Church teaches that whatsoever one does for the least of their brothers, it is entirely the same as if one were doing the same to Christ; the debate over "entitlements" (a misnomer if ever there was one) is primarily divided to the left and right of the aisles of the legislative branch. Conservatives who insist on labeling those who are Pro-Choice, as Pro-Abortion is entirely unreasonable; I am very much against abortion, but I believe that the issue is between the woman and God, who, after all, we believe to be the only personage entitled to pass judgment without restriction; I do not believe that the government should be in the business of legislating either for or against abortion. Likewise, I do not believe that the government has any right to determine whether a particular person should be systematically murdered under the death sentence. (By the way, the State of Texas ranks first in executions under the death penalty, and yet conservative, 7/7 Catholics found no conflict in voting for George W. Bush, the former Governor of Texas - after all he was Pro-Life, and wanted America to focus on "family values".) The basic disagreement between Democrats and Republicans is the role of the government in assuming responsibility for the health, education, and welfare of the poor - and yet, the Church leads the world in missionary work, recognizing that there are truly many people who are so desperately underprivileged that the evangelization of most missionaries comes second, third, or fourth behind clean water, enough food to ward off starvation, and basic healthcare where there otherwise is none to be found. Apparently, however, charity does not begin at home for most missionary work.
And I thank you for your encouragement that somewhere there is a man who will accept me regardless of all my flaws. In point of fact, my late husband was the perfect example of that potential; I shrink from expecting another gift from God, as my marriage to Phillip was. We were truly joined heart and soul, an exclusive union in which we were as Christ to one another. I tend to believe that I will survive the rest of my time here on earth by focusing on our gratitude for having received such a gift by the Grace of God, and by doing my best to live a life that exemplifies the core of Christ's teachings. I find Pope Francis to be a truly inspiring leader of the Church, as much by his actions as by his focus on what "faith" really means. You can find a fantastically succinct explanation of the Church's position regarding faith in Pope Francis' first Encyclical "Lumen Fidei" - which is translated "The Light of Faith", for those who do not attend the Latin Mass, and for the rest of us who don't speak Latin.
[Roystan, I expect a comment from you concerning the final thoughts in this post]
Hi, I'm James, the local wizard who causes violence and mayhem in STM. Nice to meet you.
Okay, that's enough small talk.
I find myself wondering why you got into trouble over your observation and wonderment over the fact that there are a lot of men here over the age of 45 who have never been married. I'm not sure what the trouble was. Just ask us, and we will answer. Except for me, most guys here are pretty cool.
As my friend the distinguished wizard Jerry has pointed out, your weltanschauung needs to be in accord with the teachings of the Catholic faith, regardless of what label you put on your political views. There are far-right conservatives who are not pro-life, and there are liberals who are pro-life (if you assume Democrats are "liberal").
Re your self-description as a local wizard, I would note that your photo endorses that quite well.
With regard to your perplexity concerning my forum encounters following my observation, it is demonstrable in that particular Forum Topic, the specifics of which I cannot recall at the moment.
And, as for your final comment, res ipse loquitur - you have made my point for me.
Very truly yours,
Maura, as yet unpossessed with the powers of necromancy
I enjoyed reading your post, and I also noticed that only guys responded, but I wanted
to add my take on your topic.
Most people on STM know that I am conservative, and very much so. In response
to your question of views vs. religion, I feel that on many levels, it is not religion, but
love of what we call "America," that dictates one's political position. The catholic
church does not care about what happens to America, nor do liberals or
America is not only a nation, but it is a concept. It exists because many, who came
before us, wanted a land where the little person was important, as important as
royalty and/or dictators. So, it was founded as a land where men were free to
pursue their life's dreams and work hard or not, and build up their own earned
wealth and break social barriers because there were no social barriers
in this new country.
That lack of barriers and the concept of achieving wealth for anyone who wanted
to work for it was a new concept and came from the minds of great men. Today,
the idea of being able to have wealth or to have anything that one has not
worked for, is a false and manipulative meaning of what America is about.
At the same time, the preciousness of what we call America, has become
threatened, and its sovereignty pulled apart because it is being taken over
by a mindset born of socialism. And that mindset has no regard for protecting
our country's borders or balancing its books or having a common language or
being able to say things without being belittled by the manipulative PC police.
It is my goal, as someone who loves America, to protect it. And anyone who
cares about our country and appreciates the tenets of its founders, can be
of any religion, but cannot be an American-hating liberal.
Being Catholic and openly practicing it is a privilege afforded to us by living here.
Yet, I cannot stand by and watch our country go down because religion preaches
otherwise. Religion is in my heart, yet America is where I reside.
So, Maura, you can be Catholic, or not Catholic and you can be Liberal or
Conservative, but we have to realize that protecting America should be
an important concern.
I enjoyed your post tremendously, although most likely not for the usual reason.
As I understand you, America, the nation and the concept, stands to be destroyed by "socialism", the greatest danger we face and regardless of the Catholic Church's position on any particular issue. This threat is the direct result of "American-hating liberals". Correct me if I have misunderstood your point.
I have no further questions for you, Marianne. I just wanted to clarify for myself your thoughts on the topic at hand.
Subsidiarity distributes the love of the Church for the proper stewardship of talents, for stewardship between the individual, the collectivities that are local, regional, national or international, and the cosmic. It renders to John and Jane Q. Citizen what is his or hers, to each Caesar (or Leviathan) what is its, and to God what is his.
The wheat and tares, or the dressing of a nonperforming fig tree for another year, are pictures of the Church's love for orderly governance, the Holy Spirit being a spirit of order, a feature of which is know when to fix something that is 'broke'.
Debate becomes shouting past each other when the opposing sides do not stream their views at each other through the same channel. It's no good if liberals and conservatives wrap themselves in their own conceptions of the flag before shouting at each other. They have to wrap themselves in the same flag before shouting at each other because then they will be speaking to the same fundamentals. But the same flag isn't the Stars and Stripes: who knows what the Stars and Stripes means, unless somebody tells you? Who knows what the Scriptures mean, if you're not told, as the Ethiopian eunuch said?
To start with a big and meaty issue, the 'protection of borders', as relevant in Australia as in the US, what can subsidiarity say about the large-scale unauthorised movement of incarnated images of Christ, seeking relief from worries at home, into your home?
Thus, the emoticons:
You have established the center of my inquiry; there is no opportunity to explain one's answer, nor are we given definitions for the labels we are to assume in our Profiles.
You have, however, ducked the real question (and you exposed yourself by your positive review of President Obama - something I have not quite had the courage to do as yet). If supporting the current Administration were to constitute holding liberal political views, would you "qualify" as a Catholic? Of course, the answer to that is obvious, at least within this rarified community of those who gave "correct" answers, and who have, it appears, an unusually exact comprehension of the Church's 7 primary tenets.
Fear thee not, however: as far as I know, there are no multiple choice questions required in order to attend Mass, although there may indeed be a 9th Circle of Hell, as Dante envisioned it.