i am a political liberal - and i prove it

[Lounge Daddy]

hack away - i am really interested in the results

[Dust's Sister]

I'm other, but I vote for whoever is Aint-Abortion.

[Aloysius]

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives [liberals]. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." -GK Chesterton.

political liberals give me the willies.

[Lounge Daddy]

i will never understand or agree with a fool who will vote for a forward pro-abort candidate on self-proclaimed anti-war grounds

ok - i will shut my my mouth and see this play out ---- if it does now...

[MC Just]

liberalism is a sin-i will proclaim this even on my death bed. Previous popes have condemned liberalism. I will not have catholics tell me different.

[Era Might]

I'm a political illiterate. I know nothing about economics, national security, tax issues, etc. I have to evaluate political candidates on moral grounds, because I have nothing else to go on.

I'll vote for whoever will advance the common good. I don't care if he's politically liberal or whatever. So long as his principles are fundamentally compatible with Catholic moral truth.

[Ziggamafu]

like Era, i know next to nothing about politics. even current events in politics, unless they have huge ramifications, i stay fairly oblivious to.

politicians represent sides but are usually only "face-men", so far as i can tell. for example, i voted for bush because he was supposed to do some major things to stop abortion. he really hasn't...neither has any other republican candidate i've voted for.

honestly, the republican party sometimes digusts me (although that's usually a result of generalizations) because *most* of the republicans i know seem to represent all the bad things about Capitalism and the far right (namely: pride, consumerism, and self-righteousness).

however, because it seems to me that even when taking poverty, disease, war, and social issues into consideration, more lives are lost or ruined by abortion (plus, abortion on a gut-level sometimes seems a little more intrinsically evil - certainly far more evil in cases where such a decision is NOT motivated by fear or the good intentions of "playing god" and thinking it might spare the child of future pain). so i vote republican, though it doesn't seem to do much good.

i'm die-hard conservative and obsessive about orthodoxy - radically Right - when it comes to the Church; but it seems i am a flaming, bleeding-heart, Liberal when it comes to the State. For instance, i think Prostitution and Drugs should be legalized, taxed, and monitered like crazy. and i think the Church should do everything in her power to stop people from making those kinds of terrible, condemnable, choices. i'm all for group rosaries in front of planned parenthood or on the corners where prostitutes gather.

to me, it is either that or a theocracy (which is admittably preferrable). i've often dreamed of a new country where the Church was the Law and the Laws of God were the State. but we don't live in that country. we live in america, where religious freedom and individual freedom is supposed to reign in a democracy of greed-driven consumerism and materialistic pop-culture.

Edited October 16, 2005 by Ziggamafu

[Veridicus]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Oct 16 2005, 08:33 AM']liberalism is a sin-i will proclaim this even on my death bed. Previous popes have condemned liberalism. I will not have catholics tell me different.
[right][snapback]760132[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Doesn't the definition of what's liberal in politics change over time? I mean 100 years ago, racial integration was probably a 'liberal' standpoint. That stated, I agree current liberalism seems to be pretty aweful to me...I can't stand liberals...but I don't know that liberalism 'is' and 'has always been' a sin...that seems kinda dramatic to me.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='Oct 16 2005, 10:48 AM']Doesn't the definition of what's liberal in politics change over time?  I mean 100 years ago, racial integration was probably a 'liberal' standpoint.  That stated, I agree current liberalism seems to be pretty aweful to me...I can't stand liberals...but I don't know that liberalism 'is' and 'has always been' a sin...that seems kinda dramatic to me.
[right][snapback]760187[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree.

Liberalism is [b]NOT[/b] a sin, we had a debate about this in the Debate Table. Liberalism is simply a view of progression, which in some cases it's benefical, while in others, it's destructive (abortion for example). Pope John Paul II was considered a liberal in [b]some aspects[/b], yet he's one of the greatest popes that ever lived.

To say liberalism, in and of itself is sinful, is to insult many of the very devout, and orthodox Catholics in this very community.

Since I'm for the enviroment (not a hippy), does this mean I'm in sin, because in [b]today's world[/b], it's more of a liberal position? Even though I'm mostly a conservative?

[philothea]

Why did you put this topic in Open Mic, and then post such inflammatory statements in it?

Anyway, I am not "anti-war", I'm opposed to unjust wars. I assume we all are.

I guess, in weighing abortion/war I'm trying to be realistic. Is abortion bad? Absolutely, 100%. I personally spend time and money to try to prevent women from having abortions. Is a president likely somehow cause abortion to be illegal? Very unlikely; that's not really their call, and it would be political suicide. If somehow abortion was illegal, would that stop women who want one from having it? No; they'd go to Canada, or OD on abortifacent prescription drugs, or go someplace illegal.

Just because something is legal [b]doesn't mean you have to do it[/b]. We need a cultural change more than laws (though having abortion illegal would be nice too!). There has been a lot of progress, culturally.

On the other side, if a president declares an unjust war, who can avoid being involved? Can I skip paying taxes this year? Can the people in the armed forces quit? Can the people who are being bombed go somewhere else? Nope.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='philothea' date='Oct 16 2005, 10:05 AM']Just because something is legal [b]doesn't mean you have to do it[/b]. We need a cultural change more than laws (though having abortion illegal would be nice too!).[right][snapback]760239[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That, sir, is exactly what I think. And what I would rather see happen.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I think there are two different definitions of liberalism.

One is a matter of attitude: "I can do whatever I want and no one has the authority to tell me otherwise." In this case, liberalism is the same as modernism, relativism, secularism, etc.

The other is a matter of politics: "I propose new ideas suited to our current needs based on the principles of liberty."

The second is not intrinsically wrong. The problem, however, is that in our society, they are often not separated. It's a problem with the understanding of "the principles of liberty." People think that the definition of liberty is the right to hold to the former definition of liberalism.

Human liberty, however, is the ability to choose good and to live responsibly with the results. This, however, also makes possible the abuse of human liberty, which is sin. Sin is choosing an evil. Since we don't like to take responsibility for evil (the natural consequences), then we often try to use the former definition of liberalism as our defense.

However, if we came out with progressive laws to suit the needs of our times...and these laws were based on a proper understanding of human liberty (the Christian one), then one could not argue that the second definition would not be proper and correct. As times change, new situations undoubtedly arise and I see no reason to deny that. Therefore, new laws are needed--liberalism is needed--but only when we return to a true idea of human liberty (as opposed to the former definition of liberalism) will we have proper liberalism, Christian liberalism, which is based on a Christian understanding of human liberty, rather than on the former definition which our society seeks to advance.

The former is sin. The latter is not.

We must remember that Latin has different vocabulary...we use "liberalism" for a variety of applications, but any papal documents most likely would distinguish [i]liberalitas electionis[/i] ("liberalism of choice") and [i]liberalitas libertatis[/i] or [i]liberalitas juris[/i] ("liberalism of liberty" or "liberalism of law"). The former would be the first definition I gave, one of a freedom of choice (which implies the freedom and right to choose good or evil without any moral distinction). The latter would be the second definition, which points merely to the fact that laws should be based on the liberty and freedom of the human person. The problem in our society lies in the fact that we fail to make this distinction--we act like liberalism of choice is the basis for liberalism of law. Rather, true human liberty is the basis for liberalism of law, which means nothing malicious or against God, but merely that laws must be conducive to the workings of true human freedom, which is the ability, right, and duty to choose the good and avoid the evil.

[Thumper]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 16 2005, 03:02 AM']"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives [liberals]. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." -GK Chesterton.

political liberals give me the willies.
[right][snapback]760058[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

LOL, Al, did you read the second half othe quote? That's why political conservatives give me the willies.

[cathoholic]

:

[philothea]

[quote name='Light and Truth' date='Oct 16 2005, 11:12 AM']That, sir, is exactly what I think.  And what I would rather see happen.
[right][snapback]760244[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Madam, actually.

Thanks. I guess, for me, the choice gets down to do I personally force someone to do evil, and partake in it myself, or not. A pro-(unjust) war president forces participation in evil. A pro-abortion one -- though I'd prefer otherwise!! -- does not.