Liberal and Conservative

[Socrates]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Aug 21 2005, 01:45 PM']Debating a label without defining the term is an exercise in futility - as one Supreme Court justice said in an obscenity case many moons ago . . .  "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."  and despite the attempt to get rid of it, I'll be darned if it doesn't seem to still be around today

Identify a practice - then define why it falls within the label - and why it remains deserving of condemnation
Are the following "liberal" concepts? or "traditional"

I took a stab at suggesting popularly discussed litmus tests for some -- litmus tests where arguments tend to fall along "liberal"/"conservative" lines

1. 

Dignity of the Human Person
    Belief in the inherent dignity of the human person is the foundation of all Catholic social teaching. Human life is sacred, and the dignity of the human person is the starting point for a moral vision for society. This principle is grounded in the idea that the person is made in the image of God. The person is the clearest reflection of God among us. 

[color=blue]litmus tests:  contraception, abortion, stem cell research, cloning, death penalty, euthanasia[/color]
2. 

Common Good and Community
    The human person is both sacred and social. We realize our dignity and rights in relationship with others, in community. Human beings grow and achieve fulfillment in community. Human dignity can only be realized and protected in the context of relationships with the wider society. 
     
    How we organize our society -- in economics and politics, in law and policy -- directly affects human dignity and the capacity of individuals to grow in community. The obligation to "love our neighbor" has an individual dimension, but it also requires a broader social commitment. Everyone has a responsibility to contribute to the good of the whole society, to the common good.
[color=blue]litmus tests:  equal protection of law; racial; gender; sexual orientation[/color]
3. 

Option for the Poor
    The moral test of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable members. The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience of the nation. We are called to look at public policy decisions in terms of how they affect the poor. The "option for the poor," is not an adversarial slogan that pits one group or class against another. Rather it states that the deprivation and powerlessness of the poor wounds the whole community.
   
    The option for the poor is an essential part of society's effort to achieve the common good. A healthy community can be achieved only if its members give special attention to those with special needs, to those who are poor and on the margins of society.

[color=blue]litmus tests:  rent control; public housing; welfare reform; levels of income subject to taxation; income taxation in general; flat tax; sales tax; government health care[/color]
4. 

Rights and Responsibilities
    Human dignity can be protected and a healthy community can be achieved only if human rights are protected and responsibilities are met. Every person has a fundamental right to life and a right to those things required for human decency – starting with food, shelter and clothing, employment, health care, and education. Corresponding to these rights are duties and responsibilities -- to one another, to our families, and to the larger society.

[color=blue]litmus test:  second hand smoke; items under #3[/color]

5. 

Role of Government and Subsidiarity
    The state has a positive moral function. It is an instrument to promote human dignity, protect human rights, and build the common good. All people have a right and a responsibility to participate in political institutions so that government can achieve its proper goals.
   
    The principle of subsidiarity holds that the functions of government should be performed at the lowest level possible, as long as they can be performed adequately. When the needs in question cannot adequately be met at the lower level, then it is not only necessary, but imperative that higher levels of government intervene. 

[color=blue]litmus test:  federal premption of state law; federal, state, local or citizen's choice entitled to primacy in education[/color]

6. 

Economic Justice
    The economy must serve people, not the other way around. All workers have a right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, and to safe working conditions. They also have a fundamental right to organize and join unions. People have a right to economic initiative and private property, but these rights have limits. No one is allowed to amass excessive wealth when others lack the basic necessities of life.

    Catholic teaching opposes collectivist and statist economic approaches. But it also rejects the notion that a free market automatically produces justice. Distributive justice, for example, cannot be achieved by relying entirely on free market forces. Competition and free markets are useful elements of economic systems. However, markets must be kept within limits, because there are many needs and goods that cannot be satisfied by the market system. It is the task of the state and of all society to intervene and ensure that these needs are met.

[color=blue]litmus test:  collective bargaining; right to unionize; taxation; tariffs; free trade; international trade organizations[/color]


7. 

Stewardship of God's Creation
    The goods of the earth are gifts from God, and they are intended by God for the benefit of everyone. There is a "social mortgage" that guides our use of the world's goods, and we have a responsibility to care for these goods as stewards and trustees, not as mere consumers and users. How we treat the environment is a measure of our stewardship, a sign of our respect for the Creator. 

[color=blue]litmus tests: global warming; pollution controls; endangered species act[/color]

8. 

Promotion of Peace and Disarmament
    Catholic teaching promotes peace as a positive, action-oriented concept. In the words of Pope John Paul II, "Peace is not just the absence of war. It involves mutual respect and confidence between peoples and nations. It involves collaboration and binding agreements.” There is a close relationship in Catholic teaching between peace and justice. Peace is the fruit of justice and is dependent upon right order among human beings.

[color=blue]litmus tests: terrorism; defense spending; foreign aid[/color]

9. 

Participation
    All people have a right to participate in the economic, political, and cultural life of society. It is a fundamental demand of justice and a requirement for human dignity that all people be assured a minimum level of participation in the community. It is wrong for a person or a group to be excluded unfairly or to be unable to participate in society.

[color=blue]litmus tests:  voting rights acts; gerrymandering[/color]


10. 

Global Solidarity and Development
    We are one human family. Our responsibilities to each other cross national, racial, economic and ideological differences. We are called to work globally for justice. Authentic development must be full human development. It must respect and promote personal, social, economic, and political rights, including the rights of nations and of peoples It must avoid the extremists of underdevelopment on the one hand, and "superdevelopment" on the other. Accumulating material goods, and technical resources will be unsatisfactory and debasing if there is no respect for the moral, cultural, and spiritual dimensions of the person.

[color=blue]litmus tests:  the United Nataions; EU; NATO[/color]

list comes from [url="http://www.osjspm.org/cst/themes.htm"]http://www.osjspm.org/cst/themes.htm[/url]
Office of Social Justice - Diocese of St Paul & Minneapolis
[right][snapback]693124[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Journeyman, while you've said these labels and issues need to be clarified for effective debate, in reality, this post just confuses issues more.
What you have quoted is from an obviously left-wing diocesan "Office of Social Justice" -that while admitting that a Catholic must vote pro-life - implies that he should vote Left on every other issue (thus fostering the whole "seemless garment" confusion, by which serious life issues (abortion, euthanasia, and the like) are weighed alongside issues of much lesser moral significance and clarity (e.g. global warming, taxation, welfare, etc.).

I find many of the so-called "litmus test" listed here extremely problematic.

For instance, it seems to promote "anti-discriminatory" laws based on "sexual orientation" which has led to much anti-Christian and unjust laws and litigation.

It also implies that we must support the U.N. -which I have a huge problem with - as this weakens national sovereignity, and the U.N. often pursues a godless agenda.

And does an exspansion of the welfare state and higher taxes actually help the poor, or do government beauracracies breed a system of abuse, dependency, and personal irresponsibility, in the long run helping to perpetuate poverty?

And does legislation aimed at fighting "global warming" and other perceived threats to the "environment" really do anything substantial to help the environment (especially when the exact nature, causes, and solutions to such problems is in fact very little understood), or does such legisaltion do much greater harm to human beings (especially the poor), than it does to "save the planet"? Many plans are extremely costly, and of very dubious actual benefit to the environment.

I could go on and on with this, but I've got to run now.
I just wanted to point out that what is cited here is largely Left-wing propaganda, rather than an actual clarification of the Catholic position on "social issues."

[avemaria40]

when i say im pro gun control, im ok w/ppl owning guns u use in hunting like rifles, and such, but i don't think ppl should own guns that are meant to be as weapons (semi-automatics,etc) unless they work in jobs that demand that they have them ,like military, police force, FBI, CIA, watever.

[journeyman]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Aug 21 2005, 02:24 PM']Journeyman, while you've said these labels and issues need to be clarified for effective debate, in reality, this post just confuses issues more. 
What you have quoted is from an obviously left-wing diocesan "Office of Social Justice"

<snip> his post is just upstream

I find many of the so-called "litmus test" listed here extremely problematic.

<snipped again>

I could go on and on with this, but I've got to run now.
I just wanted to point out that what is cited here is largely Left-wing propaganda, rather than an actual clarification of the Catholic position on "social issues."
[right][snapback]693142[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


[color=blue]the litmus tests were my additions . . . and were not intended to illustrate Catholic social justice positions . . . but secular issues that tend to divide people along liberal/conservative . . . or as you stated left/right wing . . . labels[/color]

my point is simply that attacking or even using the broad label is not helpful . . . because the label carries excess baggage that obscures the issue . . . the issue should be the issue and not whether or not it is a plank in the "liberal" or "conservative" platform.

[color=red][b]you can't clarify mush[/b][/color]

I have no idea of the political leanings of St Paul/Minneapolis - it was just the first bullet list I found in a quick google search

from Arlington, VA, considered a conservative diocese here in what is usually considered a liberal diocese (Richmond) - but considered politically liberal by conservative southeast Virginia, comes the following:

There are seven themes at the heart of Catholic social teaching: life and dignity of the human person, the call to promote family life, community and participation, rights and responsibilities, option for the poor and the vulnerable, the dignity of work and the rights of workers, solidarity and care for God's creation. The Catholic approach to faithful citizenship begins with these essential Catholic moral principles, not with a party platform.

I ask you to consider the full range of issues facing us in Virginia in the light of the foundational principles of the sacredness of human life and the dignity of the human person who has been created in the image and likeness of God. I urge you to assess the positions of candidates on critical questions where human life and human dignity are threatened, especially in the following areas:

* abortion
* capital punishment
* family, children and at risk youth
* health care
* housing and homelessness
* immigration
* living wage
* poverty and the working poor


From Raleigh to the south - quoting the US Bishops

Social Mission of the Church

From the U.S. Bishops' Conference, 1994

The social mission of the Church belongs to every baptized person, and is the call to serve "the least of these," to "hunger and thirst for justice," to be a "peacemaker." Catholics are called by God to project human life, to promote human dignity, to defend those who are poor, and to seek the common good.

The parish is the heart of Catholic life and the most important setting for sharing and acting on our faith. This faith calls us to live the social mission of the Church, a mission rooted in Scripture and handed down through the centuries in the life and tradition of the Church. It is in the parish community that the Word of God and the Sacraments empower every person to take on the task to live the social mission of the Church in her / his particular daily life. This mission connects us to self, family, parish community, local community, nation and world. That is: "walking with the Lord, doing justice, loving kindness, and living peaceably among all people." The call and challenge to charity, justice and peace are rooted in Scripture, especially in Genesis, the Hebrew prophets, and the life and words of Jesus. In the Gospel according to Luke (4:18), Jesus began his public life by reading from the prophet Isaiah, introducing his ministry and the mission of every parish. The parish must proclaim the message of the gospel and help:

* Bring "Good News to the poor" in society where millions lack the necessities of life;
* Bring "liberty to captives" when so many are enslaved by poverty, addiction, ignorance, discrimination, violence or disabling conditions;
* Bring "new sight to the blind" in a culture where the excessive pursuit of power or pleasure can spiritually blind us to the dignity and rights of others; and
* "Set the downtrodden free" in communities where crime, racism, family disintegration, and economic and moral forces leave people without real hope.

The biblical call to charity, justice and peace claims not only each believer, but also each parish community. This tradition has led the Church to stand with the poor and vulnerable against the strong and powerful. It brings occasional controversy and conflict, but it also brings life and vitality to the People of God. Our Holy Father, John Paul II along with the U.S. Bishops' Conference carries forward this challenge and call, stating "for Catholics, social mission takes on special meaning today." Thus, over the centuries these biblical mandates have been explored, and expressed in a special way in Catholic Social Teaching for our understanding, formation and putting the Gospel message to practice.

Our parish communities are measured by how they serve "the least of these" in the parish and beyond its boundaries - the hungry, the homeless, the sick, those in prison, the stranger (cf. Mt. 25:31).



The US Bishops have issued some pastoral letters on social justice issues (and I think they have a comprehensive publication I haven't looked for yet), and some dioceses have issued letters on specific issues . . .

push comes to shove, the Church has "traditionally" taught in the social area things which run counter to my economic and political beliefs (which I've had a lot longer than my awareness of Catholic teaching) . . . if a debate in this area is going to be at all helpful, it should be framed in terms that don't immediately trigger a "knee jerk" reaction - but rather in terms or concepts that identify a need - identify a Catholic teaching - identify contrary (or contradictory) needs - and identify teachings that counter the initial . . . when it's all said and done, it may appear that from the Church's point of view, both sides of a political or economic debate may have merit . . . or both may be morally bankrupt

[journeyman]

your comments about environmental matters opens the debate to several points
1. Is the science any good to begin with? Is there really a problem?
2. Regardless of the current state of the science, are there any limits on what we do to the environment in the pursuit of economic gain? If so what are they? If not, should there be? If so, what should they be?
3. Regardless of the current state of the science, are there things we should do to restore portions of the environment? How d we decide what needs fixing? How do we fix it when we don't know if it's broken, or how it got broken? 4. What are the costs of the proposal? What are the benefits?
5. How does the proposal interact with/impact other concerns/issues/initiatives?

Let's take a historical example: Love Canal. Is it appropriate to oppose that sort of chemical contamination because the Church is pro-life, and it appeared that business practice was killing people? Is it appropriate to oppose it because it makes the world God created "less good" than the way it was created?

Now let's take a modern (less fatal as far as I know) example. NYSE Traded Fortune 500 company owns processing facilities on a small tributary to a river that leads into a bay and then into the Atlantic Ocean. Effluent from the plant exceeds EPA guidelines in at least one, and maybe more categories. Company and plant are fined millions of dollars annually until they finally tied into a regional storm water/waste water disposal system. Company then sues for refund of the fines, claiming that the state and federal regulators applied different sets of standards and how could it possibly keep this all straight?

a. does it matter what the effluent was?
b. should it matter what the effluent was?
c. or should we wait until the lawyers can "prove" someone was harmed?

d. and what impact, if any, does this have on the homeless shelter just downstream? the seafood industries in the bay?

and so on

it isn't global warming, but it is a real situation . . . and one that is repeated at millions of workplaces across America . . . and hundreds of millions around the globe

[Socrates]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Aug 21 2005, 10:38 PM'][color=blue]the litmus tests were my additions . . . and were not intended to illustrate Catholic social justice positions . . . but secular issues that tend to divide people along liberal/conservative . . . or as you stated left/right wing . . . labels[/color]

my point is simply that attacking or even using the broad label is not helpful . . . because the label carries excess baggage that obscures the issue . . . the issue should be the issue and not whether or not it is a plank in the "liberal" or "conservative" platform.

[color=red][b]you can't clarify mush[/b][/color]

I have no idea of the political leanings of St Paul/Minneapolis - it was just the first bullet list I found in a quick google search

from Arlington, VA, considered a conservative diocese here in what is usually considered a liberal diocese (Richmond) - but considered politically liberal by conservative southeast Virginia, comes the following:

There are seven themes at the heart of Catholic social teaching: life and dignity of the human person, the call to promote family life, community and participation, rights and responsibilities, option for the poor and the vulnerable, the dignity of work and the rights of workers, solidarity and care for God's creation. The Catholic approach to faithful citizenship begins with these essential Catholic moral principles, not with a party platform.

I ask you to consider the full range of issues facing us in Virginia in the light of the foundational principles of the sacredness of human life and the dignity of the human person who has been created in the image and likeness of God. I urge you to assess the positions of candidates on critical questions where human life and human dignity are threatened, especially in the following areas:

    * abortion
    * capital punishment
    * family, children and at risk youth
    * health care
    * housing and homelessness
    * immigration
    * living wage
    * poverty and the working poor
From Raleigh to the south - quoting the US Bishops

Social Mission of the Church

From the U.S. Bishops' Conference, 1994

The social mission of the Church belongs to every baptized person, and is the call to serve "the least of these," to "hunger and thirst for justice," to be a "peacemaker." Catholics are called by God to project human life, to promote human dignity, to defend those who are poor, and to seek the common good.

The parish is the heart of Catholic life and the most important setting for sharing and acting on our faith. This faith calls us to live the social mission of the Church, a mission rooted in Scripture and handed down through the centuries in the life and tradition of the Church. It is in the parish community that the Word of God and the Sacraments empower every person to take on the task to live the social mission of the Church in her / his particular daily life. This mission connects us to self, family, parish community, local community, nation and world. That is: "walking with the Lord, doing justice, loving kindness, and living peaceably among all people." The call and challenge to charity, justice and peace are rooted in Scripture, especially in Genesis, the Hebrew prophets, and the life and words of Jesus. In the Gospel according to Luke (4:18), Jesus began his public life by reading from the prophet Isaiah, introducing his ministry and the mission of every parish. The parish must proclaim the message of the gospel and help:

    * Bring "Good News to the poor" in society where millions lack the necessities of life;
    * Bring "liberty to captives" when so many are enslaved by poverty, addiction, ignorance, discrimination, violence or disabling conditions;
    * Bring "new sight to the blind" in a culture where the excessive pursuit of power or pleasure can spiritually blind us to the dignity and rights of others; and
    * "Set the downtrodden free" in communities where crime, racism, family disintegration, and economic and moral forces leave people without real hope.

The biblical call to charity, justice and peace claims not only each believer, but also each parish community. This tradition has led the Church to stand with the poor and vulnerable against the strong and powerful. It brings occasional controversy and conflict, but it also brings life and vitality to the People of God. Our Holy Father, John Paul II along with the U.S. Bishops' Conference carries forward this challenge and call, stating "for Catholics, social mission takes on special meaning today." Thus, over the centuries these biblical mandates have been explored, and expressed in a special way in Catholic Social Teaching for our understanding, formation and putting the Gospel message to practice.

Our parish communities are measured by how they serve "the least of these" in the parish and beyond its boundaries - the hungry, the homeless, the sick, those in prison, the stranger (cf. Mt. 25:31).
The US Bishops have issued some pastoral letters on social justice issues (and I think they have a comprehensive publication I haven't looked for yet), and some dioceses have issued letters on specific issues . . .

push comes to shove, the Church has "traditionally" taught in the social area things which run counter to my economic and political beliefs (which I've had a lot longer than my awareness of Catholic teaching) . . . if a debate in this area is going to be at all helpful, it should be framed in terms that don't immediately trigger a "knee jerk" reaction - but rather in terms or concepts that identify a need - identify a Catholic teaching - identify contrary (or contradictory) needs - and identify teachings that counter the initial . . . when it's all said and done, it may appear that from the Church's point of view, both sides of a political or economic debate may have merit . . . or both may be morally bankrupt
[right][snapback]693744[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

My apologies - I wrote my post while in something of a rush - I had to leave shortly to pick someone up, and I now see I didn't adequately read over your posts - I found some other of the bishops issues I bascially agreed with -solidarity and the like - which were not knee-jerk liberal answers. This will teach me to post when not having adequate time to digest the information!

However, I think the U.S. Bishops conference (nationwide) does tend toward political liberalism - and much of its statements are opinion and interpretation rather than infallible teaching of the magisterium.

As (then) Card. Ratzinger has recently said (before becoming Pope), Catholics may legitimately disagree on particulars of economic or foreign policy, and these issues do not have the same weight as abortion and euthanasia. (These things are inherantly seriously wrong and must always be opposed).

For instance, while Catholics beleive in helping the poor, they may disagree as to which policies actually do this best.

And I do find your so-called "litmus tests' confusing and misleading.
A "litmus test" implies something that one must have one position on or the other in order to be in accord with the Church's teachings.
Most of what you listed does not fall in this category.
For instance, what is Catholic "litmus test" position on: welfare reform, income taxation, global warming, free trade, U.N. membership?

I don't beleive there really are any. Most of these issues are very much open to debate. (And I do not beleive Catholics should support legislation giving legal protection to homosexuals as a distinct class of citizens. - other debate, though)

The main thing that gets me upset about such "social teaching" policy lists is they are often used by left-leaning Catholics to justify voting for blatently pro-abortion candidates, on the (false) grounds that they are "closer to the Church" on every other issue.

[Socrates]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Aug 21 2005, 10:41 PM']your comments about environmental matters opens the debate to several points
1.  Is the science any good to begin with?  Is there really a problem?
2.  Regardless of the current state of the science, are there any limits on what we do to the environment in the pursuit of economic gain?  If so what are they?  If not, should there be?  If so, what should they be?
3.  Regardless of the current state of the science, are there things we should do to restore portions of the environment?  How d we decide what needs fixing?  How do we fix it when we don't know if it's broken, or how it got broken?  4.  What are the costs of the proposal?  What are the benefits?
5.  How does the proposal interact with/impact other concerns/issues/initiatives?

Let's take a historical example:  Love Canal.  Is it appropriate to oppose that sort of chemical contamination because the Church is pro-life, and it appeared that business practice was killing people?  Is it appropriate to oppose it because it makes the world God created "less good" than the way it was created? 

Now let's take a modern (less fatal as far as I know) example.  NYSE Traded Fortune 500 company owns processing facilities on a small tributary to a river that leads into a bay and then into the Atlantic Ocean.  Effluent from the plant exceeds EPA guidelines in at least one, and maybe more categories.  Company and plant are fined millions of dollars annually until they finally tied into a regional storm water/waste water disposal system.  Company then sues for refund of the fines, claiming that the state and federal regulators applied different sets of standards and how could it possibly keep this all straight?

a.  does it matter what the effluent was?
b.  should it matter what the effluent was?
c.  or should we wait until the lawyers can "prove" someone was harmed?

d.  and what impact, if any, does this have on the homeless shelter just downstream?  the seafood industries in the bay? 

and so on

it isn't global warming, but it is a real situation . . . and one that is repeated at millions of workplaces across America . . . and hundreds of millions around the globe
[right][snapback]693748[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that any and all legislation to protect the environment should be opposed by Catholics (or even conservatives).

My point is simply that I don't think this is a Catholic "litmus test" issue, and that legislation should be investigated on a case-by-case basis. And also not every thing done in the name of "helping the environment" is necessarily good.

In each case, the actual or probable benefit to the environment must be wayed against whether this helps or hurts human beings.

A case in point is the treaty called for in the Kyoto Conference to limit global warming. The truth is very little is actually understood about global warming and its causes. And even scientists convinced "greenhouse gases" are seriously harming the global climate admit that the restrictions placed by the Kyoto treaty would really have almost no measurable effect on global warming. What they would effect is the American economy, which would be crippled, hurting not only the corporate fat-cats, but the poor as well.
It is really an attempt by foreign beaurocrats to "level the global economic playing field" dressed up in bad science.

This is really hardly a litmus test issue.

Edited August 22, 2005 by Socrates

[journeyman]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Aug 21 2005, 11:11 PM']My apologies - I wrote my post while in something of a rush - I had to leave shortly to pick someone up, and I now see I didn't adequately read over your posts - I found some other of the bishops issues I bascially agreed with -solidarity and the like - which were not knee-jerk liberal answers.  This will teach me to post when not having adequate time to digest the information!

However, I think the U.S. Bishops conference (nationwide) does tend toward political liberalism - and much of its statements are opinion and interpretation rather than infallible teaching of the magisterium.  [color=blue]I don't think I disagree there, since the conference is a collegial advisory body - we don't have a "national" church, which might change the canonical impact of the conferences teachings[/color]

As (then) Card. Ratzinger has recently said (before becoming Pope), Catholics may legitimately disagree on particulars of economic or foreign policy, and these issues do not have the same weight as abortion and euthanasia.  (These things are inherantly seriously wrong and must always be opposed).

For instance, while Catholics beleive in helping the poor, they may disagree as to which policies actually do this best.

And I do find your so-called "litmus tests' confusing and misleading.
A "litmus test" implies something that one must have one position on or the other in order to be in accord with the Church's teachings.  [color=blue]I was trying to use the issues from secular litmus tests as possible topics to weigh against Church teachings[/color]
Most of what you listed does not fall in this category.
For instance, what is Catholic "litmus test" position on: welfare reform, income taxation, global warming, free trade, U.N. membership?

I don't beleive there really are any.  Most of these issues are very much open to debate.  (And I do not beleive Catholics should support legislation giving legal protection to homosexuals as a distinct class of citizens. - other debate, though) [color=blue]yes it would be - but it fits well within the theme of political issues that get knee-jerk responses[/color]

The main thing that gets me upset about such "social teaching" policy lists is they are often used by left-leaning Catholics to justify voting for blatently pro-abortion candidates, on the (false) grounds that they are "closer to the Church" on every other issue.
[right][snapback]693764[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

no apology necessary - I threw a lot of text up in a hurry - and didn't comment on all of it - and I have a sneaking suspicion that we are not that far apart (politically speaking) . . . again, those are not church teaching litmus tests, but liberal/conservative--left wing/right wing litmus tests - the sort of thing people look at when trying to guess how a nominee for the supreme court might vote - the sort of thing newspapers and network TV might use in their "commentary" . . . or bishop's conferences, for that matter

I don't like litmus tests at all - because personal beliefs, whether political, ethical or moral, tend to wander all over the map, don't have the precision of chemical reactions, and often don't accurately predict a response to a different inquiry

tripped over this thread in open mic that touches on the same theme
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=38209"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=38209[/url]

[|gnat|]

[quote]It also implies that we must support the U.N. -which I have a huge problem with - as this weakens national sovereignity, and the U.N. often pursues a godless agenda.[/quote]

What is wrong with weakened national sovereignty? Nationalism and Christianity don't mix very well anyways.

And the UN often pursues a godless agenda? Why is then that they feed starving people and try to keep the peace?

And stop puting the word "liberal" into a little box. It means many, many different things. Am I sinning by taking a liberal stance on the death penalty and saying it is wrong? Am I sinning because I don't want a giant military?

Edited August 22, 2005 by |gnat|

[Socrates]

[quote name='|gnat|' date='Aug 21 2005, 11:34 PM']What is wrong with weakened national sovereignty?  Nationalism and Christianity don't mix very well anyways.[/quote]

Giving a global beaurocracy power over a soveriegn nation's affairs goes directly against the principal of subsidiarity (that things should be handled at the local level) which was mentioned earlier in this thread. And the U.N. hasn't proven to mix well with Christianity either.

[quote]And the UN often pursues a godless agenda?  Why is then that they feed starving people and try to keep the peace?[/quote]

The U.N. also aggressively pushes abortion, contraception, and "population control" programs, among other things.

[quote]And stop puting the word "liberal" into a little box.  It means many, many different things.  Am I sinning by taking a liberal stance on the death penalty and saying it is wrong?  Am I sinning because I don't want a giant military?
[right][snapback]693795[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No one claimed you were [b]sinning[/b] by taking these stances. Please, lets deal with what was actually stated.