cgz

do you mean jobs as church musicians or something else?

The party that I believe most of us are basically against has already impacted our jobs. Since the regulation of Obamacare has been put into the very capable hands of the IRS (aka the American KGB!) the chancery offices have been circling the wagons. I think most Dioceses are like ours - payroll has been out-sourced to one company universally in each Diocese so that the bean-counters at the "Corporation Sole" have immediate information on pay, deductions, and benefits of all employees throughout the Diocese. If y'all are not aware, the USCCB holds the one and only IRS "non-profit" determination for the Catholic Church in the USA. This letter, plus pages from the Kennedy Directory, are used for your parish's non-profit purposes. Arch/Bishops i.e. the Corporation Soles, are already running scared. Enforcement of the arcane, burdensome, confiscatory, US tax code has historically depended on which party was in charge of the IRS, i.e. POTUS.

Clinton is for all religions changing their stances on certain subjects, "or else".

Trump is for less burdensome tax regulations for business and personal income growth, and in this case, we can clearly consider the Catholic Church a business.

well, modernism INSIDE the church has decimated the liturgy, and the politicians will continue to strip it of its moral compass until it's reduced to nothing. I don't see much of a job left to go to... at least not on an official level (title, pay, career). I believe the authentic church has been digging it's way 'underground' for decades and we all met in a large cavern down there. that is where "church" is now. (see Bxvi "the church must become small")

The two party system is broken. I'm protest voting for Gary Johnson. If a third party can get big enough, perhaps it will start to dismantle the dangerous monopoly of the two party system. I might not get the Catholic Monarchy I want, but I know the two-party system needs to be stopped.

[I don't know why the picture is rotated. It's not like that on my desktop…]

Two sides of the same corrupt coin is how I'd put it, so option one. Good catch :D

It's not just abortion. She knowingly and willingly allowed the deaths of our men at Benghazi, knowingly and willingly placed top-secret/compartentalized intel over public networks, and knowingly and willingly used her influence to benefit herself and her friends and relatives--that is to say, sold her office and trust to high bidders.

Why does the lesser of two evils scenario only seem to be employed with politics? What about people's personal lives?

If someone were to say, "I can either have an affair with someone, or I can watch pornography and fantasize about having an affair, which is the lesser of two evils? Well, watching pornography, obviously." We'd scoff at their assertion, and say, "You dolt! You can't do either; they're both sins, they're both evils!" Some may laugh at this scenario, and say, "But it's not the same thing!"; but it is.

Evil is evil: you can debate relative evils all you want to (perhaps Mao wasn't as bad as Hitler), but in the end choosing one evil over another is still choosing evil.

And democracy doesn't work.

I support electoral reform in the UK because the two-party system is clearly breaking apart and our electoral system can’t support the shift: indeed, why on earth should it? People can’t be divided into two neat categories, and even if they could, one side isn’t worth more than the other if they get more votes. It doesn’t seem to be doing you much good in the US either, but I didn’t hear much about any desire to change it before Vilyanor’s comment.

Why does the lesser of two evils scenario only seem to be employed with politics? What about people's personal lives?

If someone were to say, "I can either have an affair with someone, or I can watch pornography and fantasize about having an affair, which is the lesser of two evils? Well, watching pornography, obviously."

It's an issue of certainty. We know one of the two evils will get into office, but in your hypothetical, neither of those things has to happen. But if you know something evil will happen but can't stop it, and you have a chance to try to lessen the damage, it's reasonable to try to do so.

True. But then you have the tricky business of defining sin. I'm pretty sure those voting themselves entitlements don't think they are sinning.

those voting themselves entitlements

No. But the 7th Commandment might indict them.

Allow me to second tomjaw, and then some -

We should be so lucky as to have a royal family, or just about anything other than what we have for leadership. The American president has more real power than any emperor, absolute monarch, or 'enlightened despot' ever dreamed of having. And what has this one done with it besides erode our freedoms and sit still and do nothing whilst our enemies have a field day? And, the US Congress is a cesspool of political hacks, moral depravity, self interest, and corruption. Our holocaust is responsible for more deaths (of waiting-to-be-born infants!, not to mention the Amerind) than those of all the tyrant-murderers of the XXth century combined. We haven't a single genuine statesman of historic stature at a time when our need for one is critical. But, fear not - we, like veritable bumpkins, can snigger at the British monarchy and gloat that we have what passes for a democracy (which is really an elective aristocracy and not a democracy at all). It's bad enough that less than 10% (how's that for 'democracy'?) of the colonial population fought in or for, or materially supported that celebrated rebellion against their king, the darling of rich southern planters and rich northern merchants, which left them free to murder and plunder their way to the Pacific. Not happy with that, they even tried to snatch Canada, and did snatch half of Mexico. This 'land of the free' was the last of the great powers to abolish slavery - and did so only as a result of a vicious civil war. How is this better than a monarchy? Still, it's my country and my home, I love it and I am sore troubled at what it has come to. Aside from, in spite of, its ills and inner contradictions it has done probably more objective good in the world than was done by any other great power in all of history - except maybe that British lion. Let us pray that its days are not numbered. Who will deliver us from the folly and evil stench of this election? Who will make this land again a nation of promise?

Let us pray that its days are not numbered. Who will deliver us from the folly and evil stench of this election? Who will make this land again a nation of promise?

I did pray that God would send us a godly man who would restore order and decency to the U.S. You see how far that prayer went, don't you. I don't know who will win the election but I know who will lose - all of us!

Yes, but we can be rid of presidents in 4 to 8 years, depending on whether or not they are reelected. I suspect you may not care as much for your next monarch as you do for the current one.

As some of you may know, I am a subject of Her Majesty the Queen, although I am no fan of low church german protestants, and would much prefer a Stuart back from over the water!
Our Parliament has also managed to rid themselves of monarchs that they did not like, not that it did the people any good.
I don't see how Charles can be any worse than Elizabeth, he does seem to be more like his grandfather and intend to take a closer and more vocal role... But if we wanted a president... hmm just look at the candidates... Tony Blair! other failed politicians, no thanks!
Anyway most of the power is held by our Prime Minister, so the monarch does not have too much power.

And for all the faults of all the monarchs overs the last 1000 years in Europe, Presidents, and Prime Ministers have caused far greater harm and caused greater damage. In addition the better individuals have not produced the lasting good of the best monarchs!

Anyway I have no interest in how other Peoples rule themselves, but I would not have your system for anything!
Sadly people get the form of government they deserve.

Gregorian chant, organ, Latin have pride of place, but...

My ancestors actively fought in the war to be rid of European royalty, class distinctions, and inherited privilege

So, you're sympathetic with the Jacobins, Jefferson, Luther, Annibale Bugnini and Hillary Clinton?

Liam,

Perhaps this is why I find myself uncomfortable in America?

Annibale Bugnini and Hillary Clinton?

They were not even alive then. Sheesh. What a tendency to link unrelated events and persons together. I doubt Jefferson had much of a link with Luther, either. More feelings rather than facts from an hysterical source.

Perhaps this is why I find myself uncomfortable in America?

So where could you be comfortable?

royalty, class distinctions, and inherited privilege.

And obviously none of these traits are present in the American classe politique.

These politicians have abused their power even more than the holder of any inherited title since they got the same from a perceived "mandate from the people", rather than by the simple happenstance be being born in the right place at the right time to the right people. They view that "mandate" as carte blanche to push through whatever they want.

"America's founding culture was overwhelmingly sympathetic to Luther."

Interesting - very interesting - since we've had a number of Catholics (CINO) involved in politics, even a President. But there have never been any Lutherans anywhere near the top of government, to my knowledge!

And Americans burned books that were in German during WWI, including Bibles!

Being sympathetic to Luther =/= Lutheran. Anglicans and Calvinists had bitter disagreements with Luther, and vice versa, but American Anglicans and Calvinists were on his side when it came to Protestantism vs Catholicism.

"Portions of America's founding culture was overwhelmingly sympathetic to LutherCalvin ."

*fixed

cf. Albion's Seed (tl;dr in-depth review here). The major religious influences of the Founders seem to be:
- Puritan (New England)
- Anglican (Genteel South)
- Quaker (Pennsylvania)
- Calvinist/Presbyterian, with a good dose of down-home superstition (Poor White Folk, mostly in Appalachia)

Since Appalachia is largely Scots-Irish ethnic, that would point to another Anglican branch, no?

Since the Church of Scotland is Presbetyrian, I wouldn't think so; but I could be wrong.

And IIRC, Puritans and Anglicans shared a root. Since Appalachia is largely Scots-Irish ethnic, that would point to another Anglican branch, no?

In my area, the early settles were mostly Presbyterian. The earliest church in town, First Presbyterian, dates from 1793. The founders of the city are buried in the church yard. The Anglicans were the second group to arrive. There were some intermarriages between the two groups and a daughter of the city founder is memorialized in a window at the Episcopal cathedral.

My ancestors actively fought in the war to be rid of European royalty, class distinctions, and inherited privilege. Were it necessary, I would do the same again.

And we still have European royalty, class distinctions and inherited privilege... Our party of the workers (Labour) has all sorts of horrors that have only gained there position thanks to who their father was. I see you have the Clintons, Kennedys and Bush families following some sort of hereditary principle...

almost totally Scottish - speaking of another unhappy province. I expect them to leave one of these days.

Scotland has undoubtedly been treated unfairly, although their king came to rule over the English, their men have provided the backbone of the British army, and their scientists and engineers have built the modern world... They won't leave as long as the money keeps flowing northwards as it still continues to do. The Scots spent a lot of time and effort creating an Athens of the North, their descendants have not yet fallen so far as to turn Edinburgh into a modern Athens...

the UK has gone from a world power, to a small island nation in a rather short period of time.

All through its own choice...or at least the ruling class of politicians that seem to hate the best traits in the British peoples.

And we still have European royalty, class distinctions and inherited privilege

Yes you do, but royalty in general was greatly diminished by WWI when the European empires fell. Those royals left attend weddings, funerals, serve on Olympic committees and do other mostly useless things.

All through its own choice...or at least the ruling class of politicians that seem to hate the best traits in the British peoples.

When they do themselves in, please ship the organ at Coventry to me. Amazing instrument.