Saturday, October 29, 2016

INCULTURATION--BAPTIZING NON CATHOLIC, NON CHRISTIAN, NON BELIEIVING PRACTICES AND GIVING THEM A CATHOLIC MEANING: HOW BAD CAN THAT BE?


Fundamentalist Protestants accuse Catholics of being a Satanic cult. The many examples they use to prove their point fall on the major religious holy days of the Catholic Church's calendar and liturgical life, not to mention popular piety.

For example, Halloween (All Hallows' Eve) is decried as the pagan Druids festival that the Catholic Church perpetuates to this day. The date of Christmas originates from pagan celebrations in the pre-Christian Roman Empire as does the date of Easter.

In all of this our Fundamentalist detractors are correct! The Catholic Church, where possible, has been willing to bring into the liturgical, spiritual and pious life the the Church pagan practices, not as such, but by transforming them, baptizing them and giving them a Catholic meaning that resonates with the culture in which they developed.

But this inculturation can go bad. Think of Santeria.
 
(Wikipedia)Santería is a system of beliefs that merges aspects of Yoruba mythology that were brought to the New World by enslaved Yoruba people, along with Christianity and Indigenous American traditions.[2] The Yoruba people carried with them various religious customs, including a trance and divination system for communicating with their ancestors and deities, animal sacrifice, and sacred drumming and dance.[3][4] The need to preserve their traditions and belief systems in a hostile cultural environment prompted those enslaved in Cuba, starting from as early as 1515, to merge their customs with aspects of Roman Catholicism.[4]

This religious tradition evolved into what is now recognized as Santería. Voodoo is closely related to it and incorporates Catholic pious images and many Catholics practice it.

The greatest liturgical battle today and in the future now, with the purge of the Congregation of Worship (except, oddly enough for its Prefect) is going to be inculturation in the Catholic Mass. John Allen of Crux highlights what could be as the 1970's reappear in Rome under the current pontiff.

Going backwards to a dark part of our post Vatican II history seems ill advised to me  because it caused such strife in the Church and pushed so many people out of the Church to the point today that in some places only 12 % of Catholics actually attend Mass because they see nothing worth attending.

The Liturgy celebrated poorly ( and I am not calling for an exclusive return to the EF Mass) is what has in part caused this loss of faith and move toward nothingness. I am speaking of the manner in which the Ordinary Form is celebrated in 90% or so, give or take, of parishes worldwide. It is a fiasco. However, it has more to do with corrupting the 1970 Missal and its new edition rather than the missal itself being corrupt although it could use some more tweaking to improve it.

But with that said, here is John Allen's take on  a pariah of the 1970's mentality coming back like Jason of Friday the 13th when you last expect it: THE OTHER MARINI! 

I’d like to suggest a new parlor game to amuse all those who enjoy reading Vatican tea leaves: Debating the greatest ecclesiastical “resurrections” under Pope Francis, i.e., figures in the Church whose careers appeared to be effectively over before March 13, 2013, and who are now back in the limelight.
The thought occurs in light of the Vatican’s announcement on Friday of new members appointed by Francis for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the top office for liturgical policy, including Italian Archbishop Piero Marini.
 For anyone around during the John Paul II years, Marini is a very familiar figure, having served as the Polish pope’s Master of Liturgical Ceremonies for twenty years from 1987 to 2007.
That time overlapped with the run of Chilean Cardinal Jorge Medina Estévez as prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship from 1996 to 2002, and the tensions between the two men were the stuff of Vatican legend.
While Medina was a stickler for tradition, Marini is an innovator fired by a progressive reading of the Second Vatican Council. Legendarily, he would approve flourishes during the pope’s own Masses that would never have passed muster on Medina’s watch in a local parish.
To this day, I recall being in Mexico City with John Paul II in 2002 for the canonization Mass of Juan Diego, and watching a female Mexican shaman perform a dancing purification ritual on the pontiff with a bit of shrubbery during the Mass - in effect, the witch doctor exorcised John Paul. (Marini later explained that the ritual is part of traditional Mexican religiosity, arguing there’s a time-honored thrust in Christianity to “baptize” such expressions of popular faith.)
I couldn’t help calling a guy I knew in Medina’s office, whose thundering verdict on the whole thing as he watched it unfold with mounting horror on TV was, “Marini must go!”
By 2007, it appeared just that had happened.
There was a new pope, Benedict XVI, who brought a lifetime of reflection on the liturgy to the papacy, and who was obviously moving in a different direction. Marini was appointed to run the Vatican’s office for international Eucharistic congresses, and was seen as having no real authority anymore.
 

40 comments:

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Santeria is not an example of inculturation as practiced by the Church.

Santeria has appropriated Catholic symbolism, taking from our traditions what their practitioners think matches or parallels their beliefs and practices.

For example, the image of St. Barbara is syncretized with the Santeria god Chango. Chango (also Shango or Xango) is depicted as wearing a crown, as is Barbara. Chango is depicted as wearing red robes, as Barbara often is. Chango is imagined holding a cup or carrying a sword a la Barbara.

No, the Santeria appropriation of the image of St. Barbara is not an example of inculturation, as the Church understands and employs it, gone bad.

Gene said...

Kavanaugh, You sure seem to know a lot about Voodoo...kinda' matches your theology. LOL!

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Gene - Leave it to you to dismiss education and knowledge.

Dialogue said...

What's puzzling is how we consider something like facing a cross during Mass to be no longer culturally significant, but wearing 15th century tribal attire and dancing with feathers is somehow a legitimate incorporation of culturally significant symbolism.

TJM said...

Corrupt priests support corrupt Hillary!

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

Okay, I have had enough of this. Time for some truth telling and truth admitting.

Is Hillary Clinton corrupt? Yes, absolutely, as I have conceded several times on this Blog. I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, goodness knows.

But for Donald Trump to call Clinton corrupt is just another case of projection—as is Trump’s calling Clinton a liar, for he is a pathological one. As for Trump’s corruption—by which I mean his corrupt character which he would bring into the Oval Office—I assume you do not know about it because, if you did, surely you could not be such a fan (this said, so many of his supporters seem to be blind followers who are impervious to facts in our “post-factual world”).

So, for your edification, here is an account of Trump’s corruption, which also describes his implication in several intrinsic evils. Now you cannot say you did not know:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

As I explained on another thread, because of the judgment I have reached about the candidates as a conscientious Catholic, I voted for Rubio in the Republican primary in an effort to stop Trump. Now I must vote for Clinton as part of the same effort.

Anonymous 2 said...

For comparison and in the interest of being fair and balanced, here is the same author’s account of Clinton scandals and corruption:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

Faithful Catholic said...


Some interesting things from the Atlantic
The Atlantic on the FBI report:

According to the article, the report "portrays Clinton as generally unaware" when it came to classification and security. On the face of it this seems ludicrous to the point of being almost beyond belief. I know people who were employed by the Federal government (since retired) and were made quite aware by the nature of the area they worked in and what they did, and fundamentally by the fact that they had a security clearance in the first place, what they were expected to know and their responsibilities in this regard. These were relatively low-level employees also. For crying out loud, Hillary is a graduate of Yale Law school. She was not aware? For crying out loud. Come on. It goes on to say that she claimed to be unaware of the requirement that she turn over her emails when she left office, which she attributed possibly to a concussion she suffered in 2012. Her memory seemed to be functioning well in the debates. This is why we need to see her medical records.

Somewhere in the article it says that investigations into Whitewater led to President Clinton’s impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice. Huh? I thought his impeachment was the result of investigation and testimony in the Monica Lewinsky affair.

There are error and omissions in the Atlantic articles on both Mr Trump and Mrs Clinton.

Both Mrs Clinton and Mr Trump have had much controversy and scandal in their lives. The difference for me is that Mrs Clinton has held positions of PUBLIC trust and responsibility, which she at times has betrayed, and has also co-mingled her official responsibilities and duties with a private charity she and her husband are affiliated with, which to me is unethical, and in which there seems to have been influence peddling.

More important to me as a Catholic, which the Atlantic could care less about, is that Hillary is ardently pro-abortion and would put people in positions of power who share her philosophy.

TJM said...

Any "Catholic" be he priest or layman has forfeited any right to be called Catholic if you vote for Hillary. You have ZERO moral authority (I am channeling my inner Maureen Dowd!). If Pius XI were alive he would surely condemn the modern Democratic Party as he did the Nazis, Fascists, and Communists,for their embracing intrinsic evils. You can lie to yourself, to us, but not God. May you beg for God's mercy for promoting intrinsic evils.

Anonymous said...

Once again we are not electing a Pope or Sunday school teacher but a PRESIDENT, like you and I Trump is imperfect, but for God's sake ENOUGH of the CLINTONS!!She supports INFANTICIDE for heaven's sake and you are concerned about what a man said to another man on a bus 12 years ago when he was not even a politician, come on grow up already, this woman is a pathological liar, everything she says is a lie or somebody else is to blame. Now she and the Demoncrat party are turning their daggers on James Comey and saying he is a Russian spy, for a Roman Catholic to vote for this evil woman is a great SIN and yes millions of Roman Catholics will still vote for this evil woman and her perverted husband and her "aide" or whatever you call her Huma Abedin and linked with her pedophile husband Anthony Weiner. Is this what you really want in the White House again folks???????????? On Monday she will be either indited or sent to prison, even if the she wins it won't last long, James Comey flubbed it the first time around either from pressure from Obama or Lorreta Lynch, he is going to have to save himself, the story is he has a stack of RESIGNATIONS on his desk from disgusted FBI agents and now has NO choice but to prosecute HILLARY CLINTON once and for all!!

Anonymous said...

The border wide open, Islam sweeping the world, no jobs, no health care, no hope, racial hatred, this is what Hillary represents and anyone I say anyone who wants to continue this is absolutely sick and needs help. Look who supports her: Cher, Matt Damon, Jennifer Lopez, Jay-Z , Beyonce, Norman Lear, Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Ben Affleck, Madonna, Rosie O'Donnell, Jon Bon Jovi, Sarah Silverman, Amy Schumer yes she is related to Chuck, Demi Lovato, Roseanne Barr. Justin Timberlake, Ellen DeGeneres, Elton John, Colin Powell, Glen Beck, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, J.J. Abrams, Steven Spielberg, Eva Longoria, Jamie Foxx, Lena Dunham, Robert De Niro, George Clooney, Tim Mcgraw, all very poor average Americans of course. You see folks this is the LIBERAL ELITE RICH RICH RICH, they don't have to worry about paying the mortgage heck they have more than 5 homes each, paying the electric bill, cable, cell phone, car bill, they can jet off anywhere they would like to go and 99.9% of us can't do the same. Are these the people you look up too? Can they relate to the average American? I think not they live in their own WEALTHY ELITE WORLD. TRUMP MAY GOD BLESS HIM

Anonymous said...

The border wide open, Islam sweeping the world, no jobs, no health care, no hope, racial hatred, this is what Hillary represents and anyone I say anyone who wants to continue this is absolutely sick and needs help. Look who supports her: Cher, Matt Damon, Jennifer Lopez, Jay-Z , Beyonce, Norman Lear, Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Ben Affleck, Madonna, Rosie O'Donnell, Jon Bon Jovi, Sarah Silverman, Amy Schumer yes she is related to Chuck, Demi Lovato, Roseanne Barr. Justin Timberlake, Ellen DeGeneres, Elton John, Colin Powell, Glen Beck, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, J.J. Abrams, Steven Spielberg, Eva Longoria, Jamie Foxx, Lena Dunham, Robert De Niro, George Clooney, Tim Mcgraw, all very poor average Americans of course. You see folks this is the LIBERAL ELITE RICH RICH RICH, they don't have to worry about paying the mortgage heck they have more than 5 homes each, paying the electric bill, cable, cell phone, car bill, they can jet off anywhere they would like to go and 99.9% of us can't do the same. Are these the people you look up too? Can they relate to the average American? I think not they live in their own WEALTHY ELITE WORLD. TRUMP MAY GOD BLESS HIM

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 1:47 PM - Actually.......

While you choose to list the names of just a few rich folks, you can add to your list of those who support Secretary Clinton an AWFUL lot of average Americans.

Don't believe me? Read the polls. "Which ones?" The Donald's surrogate foolishly and defeatedly asked the news reader...

"All of them" came the answer.

Rasmussen Reports Clinton +1
IDD/TIPP Clinton +1
ABC News Tracking Clinton +9
CNN/ORC Clinton +5
NBC News/SM Clinton +5
Quinnipiac Clinton +7
Economist/YouGov Clinton +4
Fox News Clinton +6

Anonymous 2 said...

Faithful Catholic:

Thank you for your response. TJM and Anonymous are so far beyond the pale that there is no point in trying to reason with them. But I am happy to engage with you.

Clinton made a dreadful error with the email server and is paying for it dearly. It may well cost her the election. She recognizes the error and I am sure wishes she could turn the clock back. In any event, she has learned from it. I suspect there were deficiencies in the State Department technological infrastructure that make her decision and bad judgment more understandable even if not excusable.

Yes, if you read up about it, you will find that the federal investigation of Bill Clinton began with Whitewater and eventually led by a tortuous and winding road to Monica Lewinsky.

Your distinction between public service and business life is accurate, of course. But then we have to judge how Trump’s business interests and, more generally, his character may compromise his public service. Personally, my own judgment, based on what I have read about him and what I have seen of him during the campaigning, is that the Republic would be dreadfully ill served were he to become President.

We do not vote for President in a vacuum but as part of a system. As long as the Republicans are able to block judicial confirmations, Clinton will be unable to appoint anyone to the Supreme Court or other federal courts of whom they do not approve. Therefore, at least as far as judicial appointments are concerned, she will be unable to put people in those positions of power to influence abortion. Of course the Atlantic dos not address the abortion issue. But just because we care about that issue so much does not mean that we can ignore what the Atlantic has to teach us about other matters.

Anonymous said...

Whoever Anonymous is at 1:04 PM you are spot on! I for one am sick and tired of these "celebrities" and I say that lightly they have no talent expect for perversion, Hollywood was never perfect in the Golden Age as they call it, yes they had divorce, homosexuality, drugs, adultery, but it was always kept out of the public eye and not "celebrated" as it is now in Hollywood. Give me Clark Gable, Claudette Colbert, Rita Hayworth, Edward G. Robinson, Bette Davis, Jean Harlow, Burt Lancaster, Charlton Heston, Kirk Douglas, Bob Hope, Lucille Ball, the list could go on and on these were people with REAL talent not what we have today that CROOKED HILLARY HOB NOBS WITH!! Yes, those days are gone as is the America of that time, Liberals of today hated that era in America because for LIBERALISM is truly a demented ideal. Trump for me and yes millions of Americans DON'T believe the lying polls, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, REUTERS, MONMOTH, REAL CLEAR POLITICS, TRUMP IN A LANDSLIDE BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Think of it this way, Trump is up against the White House, Hillary, The Democrat Party, ALL THE NEWS NETWORKS, the UNITED NATIONS, Hollywood, and YES THE FAKE REPUBLICANS who are to SCARED AND WIMPY TO STAND UP LIKE MEN and support Trump. Remember their names my friends: ROMNEY, CHAFFITZ, FLAKE, LOVE, RUBIO, PORTMAN, BLUNT, POWELL, PRESSLER, COLEMAN AND THE WORST OF THE LOT ALL THE BUSHS!!REMEMBER THEM WELL WHEN TRUMP IS VICTORIOUS ON NOVEMBER 8TH. TRAITORS ALL TRAITORS TO THE CAUSE. AND NOBODY LIKES A TRAITOR.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

No, you are the one who cannot be reasoned with because you deny the 38 year hisotry of Hillary's "career" which show her depravity, greed and total disregard for the rule of law. The Clintoon's net worth is now reported in excess of 100 million, a tidy sum for folks who devoted themselves to "public service." She is stridently pro-abortion, stating a baby has no rights until they breath their first breath outside of the mother's womb. She has seriously undermined national security, lied to the parents and nation about the circumstances that led to the death of 4 diplomats in Benghazi, and ruthlessly persecuted women who made credible allegations of sexual abuse at the hands of her 'husband." Have you no decency, have you no morals? Harry S. Truman would spit the Clintoon's and people like you up

John Nolan said...

I don't see how Piero Marini, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are connected, apart from the fact that all three are irredeemably awful.



Anonymous 2 said...

TJM and Anonymous at 4:58 (and other times):

Let me know when you have calmed down and are prepared to discuss actual facts and arguments in a reasonable, civil manner, and we can converse further. Until then there is no point.

Anonymous 2 said...

John:

They are not, but some people insist on injecting their hatred for Hillary Clinton into a thread at every conceivable opportunity, which regrettably requires a response in the interests of innocent readers of this Blog.

I am glad you are not living over here right now. It is getting very nasty and vicious. This election is bringing out the worse angels of our nature to be sure. Please pray for all of us.

rcg said...

They are all carriers of a communicable form of insanity.

Anonymous said...

Greed? Trump claims to be a billionaire- he's not - but you get palpitations cause the Clintons are rich?

Depravity? Trump has bragged, publicly and in print, of his multiple adulteries.

Disregard for law? Trump has been a party in 3500 lawsuits, losing 38 times.

We who look forward to Clintons election are decent. More than that, we are not deluded by the misogynist rantings and racist ravings of a narcissistic buffoon as you are.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

Dodging the facts I posted. Typical.

TJM said...

Anonymous at 10:08

Greed, in the 2012 election, Romney was vilified for being rich, but the Clintoons' who made their money peddaling access get a pass. That's rich.

Depravity? Nothing compares to Bill Clintoon's blue dress, the cigar where it didn't belong, and his multiple visits to Pedophile Island. By the way, Hildabeast who recently said every rape victim should believed, did not exhibit that tendancy when the old Horndog was involved. Please explain the difference between Bill Cosby and Bill Clintoon

Disregard for the law? How in God's name is filing civil litigation a disregard for the law? As a lawyer, I find Trump's winning rate extraordinary. Trump didn't disregard the law like Hildabeast who compromised national security and he isn't running a money laundering organization like the Clinton's. By the way, the Justice Department, Obama's tool, spiked an investigation into that Clinton's slush fund Foundation. Keep up, keep up.

You last line tells me much about your callous disregard for facts. If you want textbook narcissism, look no further than Obama and the Clintoons.

Anonymous said...

Once again, any Roman Catholic who votes for that EVIL HEXE Hillary is committing a SIN: SHE SUPPORTS 8TH AND 9TH month ABORTIONS you apparently could care less about that. Do you understand that the doctor grabs the baby by the head and "SUCKS" the brain out, when you die and face Our Lord Jesus Christ how will you explain your support of this MONSTROUS AND BARBARIC EVIL?? Many people here think that there are no ramifications after we die, well guess what, there are my friends there are. How can anyone sleep at night knowing they support a woman who kills babies, I don't care if you are an atheist or a Roman Catholic, it does not matter.

Anonymous said...

Oh, those lying polls...you mean the ones that had Romney leading Obama going into the 2012 election? Maybe if you took a look at some polling in traditionally Republican areas like Buckhead and Brookhaven in Atlanta, the suburbs of Washington DC and Philadelphia, one might think otherwise. For Trump to win he would have to take every state that voted for Romney last time, and Florida and Ohio and Iowa and then would still be short. He is not going to win Pennsylvania or Virginia and things are not looking good for him in North Carolina. Even in Georgia of all places, polls show the race close. I'd just assume have the Second Coming given how bad the choices are this year...

Anonymous said...

If you look at polls from "traditionally Republican areas," then you are not looking for reliable data.

If you take a poll in a Catholic Church on a Sunday morning, asking, "How many here are Catholic?" and 99.9% of those present raise their hands, then, based on that "poll," you'd probably believe that the entire population of the USA is Catholic.

Professional poll takers know how to do their job - you don't.

TJM said...

Anonymous at 1:52, your god, Obama, just threw Hillary under the bus!

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/white-house-james-comey-clinton-fbi-230540

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM at 5:08 pm:

Really? No-one reading Josh Earnest’s words carefully and with any objectivity could read them as throwing Hillary under the bus. On the contrary. . . .

It’s a bit like reading the USCCB Guidelines “Faithful Citizenship.” They have to be read carefully and with objectivity.

But then again, perhaps Trump or one of his surrogates (or one of his panderers such as Sean Hannity) are twisting words again and saying something different.

Faithful Catholic said...


Anonymous2:
I wish I could share your confidence where you say:
"As long as the Republicans are able to block judicial confirmations, Clinton will be unable to appoint anyone to the Supreme Court or other federal courts of whom they do not approve."

I do not see at this point that it could be said with much confidence that the Republicans will retain control of the Senate. Even if they do, their legislative behavior in recent years doesn't lend itself to much confidence that they will exercise their oversight in a responsible manner, and so it will not surprise me if they all too easily roll over at the least public and/or White House pressure. The Democrats are all too good at wielding and using power to their advantage. Having the media at their backs doesn't hurt either.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2, only a proligate liar would read the USCCB Guidelines, as supporting the Abortion Party. Here is what Pope Francis said in Laetiae Amoria:

“So great is the value of a human life, and so inalienable the right to life of an innocent child growing in the mother’s womb, that no alleged right to one’s own body can justify a decision to terminate that life, which is an end in itself and which can never be considered the “property” of another human being.”

So go back to George Soros, and tell him, he's wasting his money on YOU! If you vote for Hildabeast, you will end up in hell, unless you confess your heinous crime

Anonymous said...

TJM, Obama is not my God; I did not vote for him either time. In fact, I have never backed a Democrat for president. But we can't ignore the reality that the Electoral College favors the Democrats (18 states and DC with a combined 242 electoral votes have voted Democratic in each of the last 6 presidential elections---unfortunately, including many states with a large Catholic population like New York, Massaschusetts and Illinois)---I just get the feeling Clinton would really be on the ropes if the GOP had selected Rubio or Kasich; Trump is the reason the outcome is still in doubt. I even saw a tape of Trump in 2008 praising Clinton and saying she was misunderstood; if that is the case, di Hillary go from a conservative to a liberal in the last 8 years? I think you will find she had a very liberal Senate record in New York---but unfortunately, that matches the state's liberal ideology. As I said, can we have the second coming by next week and cancel the election?

Anonymous said...

“So great is the value of a human life, and so inalienable the right to life of an innocent child growing in the mother’s womb, that no alleged right to one’s own body can justify a decision to terminate that life, which is an end in itself and which can never be considered the “property” of another human being.”

NOTE: There is nothing about voting in this passage.

To read INTO this passage anything about voting is both dishonest and deceptive.

Madison said...

"...the Electoral College favors the Democrats..." is a false statement.

The Electoral College votes for the candidate chosen by the majority of voters in a given state. If the majority of voters cast ballots for Candidate A, the electors from that state vote for Candidate A.

"In each presidential election year, a group of candidates for elector is nominated by political parties and other groupings in each state, usually at a state party convention, or by the party state committee. It is these elector-candidates, rather than the presidential and vice presidential nominees, for whom the people vote in the November election, which is held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November. In most states, voters cast a single vote for the slate of electors pledged to the party presidential and vice presidential candidates of their choice. The slate winning the most popular votes is elected; this is known as the winner-take-all, or general ticket, system."

RARELY do electors not follow the state votes. "Individual electors have sometimes not honored their commitment, voting for a different candidate or candidates than the ones to whom they were pledged; they are known as “faithless” or “unfaithful” electors. In fact, the balance of opinion by constitutional scholars is that, once electors have been chosen, they remain constitutionally free agents, able to vote for any candidate who meets the requirements for President and Vice President. Faithless electors have, however, been few in number (in the 20 century, one each in 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, and 2000), and have never influenced the outcome of a presidential election."

TJM said...

Aside from the religious aspects (which apparently mean little to some of the "catholics" posting here), why would anyone in their right mind vote for Hillary who has compromised national security in the most reckless fashion and who should not quality for a security clearance. To me, that's a HUGE issue.

Anonymous said...

"To me, that's a HUGE issue."

Ah, there's the nub of the matter, TJ. That is YOUR measure of proportionality, arrived at by your mental calculations.

Others do not agree and, while somewhat concerned about Secretary Clinton's errors in email, do not conclude that 1) national security has been compromised or 2) that Trump is the better candidate.

Faithful Catholic said...


Madison

"18 states and DC with a combined 242 electoral votes have voted Democratic in each of the last 6 presidential elections"

You say the "...Electoral College favors the Democrats..." is a false statement.

How is the above a false statement? Only 270 Electoral votes are needed to become
the next President. The 242 does not include those states that lean Democrat.

TJM said...

Anonymous,

No, that has NOTHING to do with proportionality, at all. Protecting national security is fundamental to the role of president, and your gal, is an epic fail. IF you or others disagree, they are willfully blind or lack the capacity to reason. It is beyond peradventure.

Madison said...

The Electoral College favors no one. The Electoral College reflects the votes of the many states. It is the individual voters in those states who have chosen Democratic candidates.

Anonymous said...

YJM - You are impervious to facts and reason. Alas.