i am a political liberal - and i prove it

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Oct 16 2005, 08:38 AM']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. [right][snapback]760150[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Why would an "obsessively orthodox" Catholic wish to legalize things that are intrinsically immoral??
The temporal law should reflect God's law, not be contrary to it. Legalizing these things would give implicite approval to them. (For this reason, abortion should be illegal - the law should be based on protection of every innocent human life, and not accept murder.)
And heavy taxing and monitering of these vices would not mitigate their evil. In this case, the state profits from these vices. This would simply be institutionalized corruption. If the state profits from vice, it will have little motivation to end these evils in society.

This is all particularly odd coming from one who claims to be upset by the supposed "greed" and "consumerism" of "conservatives." Liberals seem to only have a problem with private individuals or corporations making a profit. They have no problem when the government is making a profit (even from vice!) The government (at least when consisting of liberal Democrats) is somehow assumed to be incorruptible.

As for the rest of this thread, I tend to agree with Aloysius. (and this should get moved to the debate table.)

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Oct 16 2005, 12:26 PM']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.
[right][snapback]760247[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I agree!

[photosynthesis]

Liberals tend to think I'm a fascist ultra-right wing conservative. But I have some liberal views on things... I think the government should do more to protect the environment, the government needs to do more to take care of the elderly, the mentally ill, the poor and people with disabilities... We need to treat Native Americans and racial minorities like human beings... I think No Child Left Behind is a crock.

but I think in general I favor less government and less beaurocracy. I think we need to be tougher on crime, but there needs to be more rehabilitation going on within the law enforcement system. I support the war in Iraq, even though I don't see it as having a real connection with 9-11. and I also want lower taxes. and of course I'm against gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, etc.

even though I'm conservative, I feel uncomfortable calling myself a republican because I tend to see it as the "white man's party." I'm white, but I still feel like there's a lot of racism that underpins Republican policies, and I can't support that. but I don't want to live in a welfare state either.

The way I see it, humans can't solve these problems on our own. If only our culture were centered around God and not guns and abortion and homosexuality a lot of these problems would take care of themselves.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Oct 16 2005, 06:58 PM']Not at all. The government has the duty to make sure children are not abused by their family, for example. The family has its own private authority, but it is not a law unto itself.

In the same way, property is truly private, but that does not mean the government has no care over it whatsoever. If you're living in filth, the government will rightly demand you clean it up, or else it will condemn your house.
[right][snapback]760493[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

wow - i sometimes wonder at what point in history did we start expecting the Feds to look into our family life
at one time local communities and, if need be - local officials
but now we expect state and federal officials to bail - we seem to want a "nanny state"
or - some call this a "soft despotism"... we are welcoming a federal government to take care of every problem - and make every choice for us...
and i really believe modern liberalism is ushering this in

[zwergel88]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Oct 16 2005, 07:33 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]


supporting medicare, and social security, and opposing war and the death penalty is sinful? I definatly don't think my kind of liberalism is sinful.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Oct 16 2005, 08:53 PM']Why would an "obsessively orthodox" Catholic wish to legalize things that are intrinsically immoral??
The temporal law should reflect God's law, not be contrary to it.  Legalizing these things would give implicite approval to them.  (For this reason, abortion should be illegal - the law should be based on protection of every innocent human life, and not accept murder.)
And heavy taxing and monitering of these vices would not mitigate their evil.  In this case, the state profits from these vices.  This would simply be institutionalized corruption.  If the state profits from vice, it will have little motivation to end these evils in society.

This is all particularly odd coming from one who claims to be upset by the supposed "greed" and "consumerism" of "conservatives."  Liberals seem to only have a problem with private individuals or corporations making a profit.  They have no problem when the government is making a profit (even from vice!)  The government (at least when consisting of liberal Democrats) is somehow assumed to be incorruptible.

As for the rest of this thread, I tend to agree with Aloysius.  (and this should get moved to the debate table.)
[right][snapback]760628[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You misunderstood, I guess. My point is, the way America is set up, to be consistent in a capitalistic democracy that champions individual freedom, you would have to legalize everything that doesn't threaten the mortality of another individual. Abortion = against the law with a legal threat attached to scare off would-be murderers. Prostituion = legalized, watched closey, and taxed like crazy. That's why I think seatbelt and suicide laws are absurd. But it doesn't mean I don't buckle up or that I'm going to kill myself. All of these things, if legalized, would help destroy organized crime and lower all sorts of bad statistics, while helping out the economy to boot. The practices are abominable (this is where my obsessive orthodoxy comes into play) and it is the Church's place to condemn them and do everything she can to prevent the choices from being made. But unless She takes over the State and innitiates theocracy, none of these things should be illegal.

[crusader1234]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Oct 16 2005, 07:33 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]

Just wondering, but do you have a source for this? I'm unaware of any Popes making banner condemnations of a term with multiple definitions.

Anyways, while a lot of my opinions could be considered liberal, a lot of them could be considered conservative. I'm anti-abortion, anti-war, pro-environment, and so on and so forth and think both political parties are filled with idiots. I don't have a voice really, politlcally, aside from my own.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Oct 16 2005, 11:26 AM']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."
[right][snapback]760247[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This second definition really has little to do with what is known as "liberalism" in contemporary American politics.

Liberals (in the modern sense) are really not "liberal" at all. They tend to favor big-government tax-and-spend socialism as the answer to society's ills, and often oppose individual liberties (such as property rights, the right to bear arms, and the right to express one's religious believes publicly). Individual liberty is routinely suppressed by liberals if it offends "minority" groups such as homosexuals or atheists.

I think what you are describing is actually libertarianism.

[Socrates]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Oct 17 2005, 01:20 AM']even though I'm conservative, I feel uncomfortable calling myself a republican because I tend to see it as the "white man's party."  I'm white, but I still feel like there's a lot of racism that underpins Republican policies, and I can't support that.
[right][snapback]760935[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No offense, but this is a load of crock. It sounds like you've been listening to liberal Dem propoganda, rather than actually thinking about the issues. It is a standard liberal trick to avert attention from the issues by calling conservatives or Republicans "racist." It is sad that apparently even educated people are buying into the cheap liberal lie that conservatives are closet Nazis, and are motivated by racism.

What specific policies do you think are "racist"? Oppostion to "affirmative action" policies which place filling racial quotas ahead of color-blind selection based on ability? You claim to be against the welfare state, so it doesn't seem you consider opposition to keeping blacks on the "welfare plantation" racist. Opposition to the liberal and self-serving agendas of self-proclaimed "black leaders" like Jesse Jackson?

Or are you basing this merely on emotional rhetoric from the Left?

You say you oppose the Republican Party because you see it as the "white man's party." Yet isn't this itself a racially-based statement? You would probably consider someone racist who avoided the Democratic party simply because he saw it as the "black man's party."

Are black conservative Republicans like Alan Keyes also motivated by racism?

[quote]The way I see it, humans can't solve these problems on our own. If only our culture were centered around God and not guns and abortion and homosexuality a lot of these problems would take care of themselves.[/quote]
Are you saying you consider gun ownership an evil like abortion and homosexuality?

Edited October 18, 2005 by Socrates

[MC Just]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Oct 17 2005, 07:44 AM']Just wondering, but do you have a source for this?  I'm unaware of any Popes making banner condemnations of a term with multiple definitions.

Anyways, while a lot of my opinions could be considered liberal, a lot of them could be considered conservative.  I'm anti-abortion, anti-war, pro-environment, and so on and so forth and think both political parties are filled with idiots.  I don't have a voice really, politlcally, aside from my own.
[right][snapback]760979[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


In the Brief to the La Croix, a Belgium journal, on the 24th of May, 1874, the Pope expresses himself thus:

"We cannot do less than to praise the design expressed in this letter, which we know your journal will satisfactorily fulfill, the design to publish, to spread, to comment on and inculcate in all minds all that the Holy See teaches against the perverse or at least false doctrines professed in so many quarters, and particularly against Liberal Catholicism, bitterly striving to conciliate light with darkness and truth with error."

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i agree with mc just i am stand agianst liberalsim and also believe (at least if one is trying to liberalized catholicism) it is a sin.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Oct 17 2005, 06:29 AM']You misunderstood, I guess. My point is, the way America is set up, to be consistent in a capitalistic democracy that champions individual freedom, you would have to legalize everything that doesn't threaten the mortality of another individual. Abortion = against the law with a legal threat attached to scare off would-be murderers. Prostituion = legalized, watched closey, and taxed like crazy. That's why I think seatbelt and suicide laws are absurd. But it doesn't mean I don't buckle up or that I'm going to kill myself. All of these things, if legalized, would help destroy organized crime and lower all sorts of bad statistics, while helping out the economy to boot. The practices are abominable (this is where my obsessive orthodoxy comes into play) and it is the Church's place to condemn them and do everything she can to prevent the choices from being made. But unless She takes over the State and innitiates theocracy, none of these things should be illegal.
[right][snapback]760962[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This is a nonsensical argument indeed. It makes a false and silly either/or dichotomy that one has to either set up a totalitarian theocracy where verything is rigidly controlled by the government, or a complete moral anarchy where everything is legal.

The American republic was never set up specifically as a "capitalist democracy" (whatever that means), and in the early days of the republic (when there was much less federal government power), there were state laws in force against such things as fornication and sodomy, as well as state Churches.

And why a "capitalist" economy dictates that everything must be legalized is beyond me. It's hardly socialist or communist to outlaw a few criminal industries!

A government that condones and profits off of prostitution and illegal drugs becomes no better than organized crime itself. This would be institutionalized corruption at its worst. Is "helping the economy" a reason to profit off of the lives destroyed by the drug and prostition trades?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not at all socialist and am against most beaurocratical unneccesary laws. However, I believe intrinsically evil businesses should not be condoned by government. The economy and absolute freedom are not absolute gods.

(And if prostitution, etc. is to be allowed on the basis of not interfering with a free economy, why should it have all this government taxation and regulation you propose??)

By your own logic, there would be little reason to outlaw abortion.

And legalizing abortion did nothing to lessen that evil.

As a Catholic, you're completely schizoid.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Oct 17 2005, 08:36 PM']No offense, but this is a load of crock.  It sounds like you've been listening to liberal Dem propoganda, rather than actually thinking about the issues.  It is a standard liberal trick to avert attention from the issues by calling conservatives or Republicans "racist."  It is sad that apparently even educated people are buying into the cheap liberal lie that conservatives are closet Nazis, and are motivated by racism.

What specific policies do you think are "racist"?  Oppostion to "affirmative action" policies which place filling racial quotas ahead of color-blind selection based on ability?  You claim to be against the welfare state, so it doesn't seem you consider opposition to keeping blacks on the "welfare plantation" racist.  Opposition to the liberal and self-serving agendas of self-proclaimed "black leaders" like Jesse Jackson?

Or are you basing this merely on emotional rhetoric from the Left?

You say you oppose the Republican Party because you see it as the "white man's party."  Yet isn't this itself a racially-based statement?  You would probably consider someone racist who avoided the Democratic party simply because he saw it as the "black man's party." 

Are black conservative Republicans like Alan Keyes also motivated by racism?
Are you saying you consider gun ownership an evil like abortion and homosexuality?
[right][snapback]761747[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I apologize for the vagueness in that post. i haven't been sleeping. I wasn't talking about black vs. white stuff, I was talking about Republican attitudes towards Hispanic people and immigration. Most of the republicans I know have really negative attitudes towards Hispanics and talk about them like they're taking over the place. My republican uncle is forever talking about "those darned spanish people" benefiting from U.S. programs and taking all our money. He thinks they're taking over the world and that they should "stop having so many kids." As you can probably tell, he's also anti-Catholic. While most Republicans aren't as extreme as he is, a lot of Republicans want to make English our official language, and I don't want that to happen.

I used to really like welfare and tax-and-spend economics, but then I went on a missions trip to Welch, West Virginia. Practically everyone there is living off the government, and on the third of every month, there is a huge line outside the Social Security center (the biggest building in town!) that snakes all through the town. Most people in that line were white. I also did some "Upward Bound" work with high school students. I could tell that a lot of the kids were smart, but they just didn't want to try. Why not? They were saying things like, "Well, my mom does just fine with welfare and I'm sure I could get on it too." I was helping people fill out job applications, and many people didn't even want to go through the application process, they just asked me for the welfare application. I got to thinking, "maybe welfare isn't as helpful as I thought it was."

As far as the guns and abortion and homosexuality statement goes, I was basically saying that our culture revolves around violence (guns and abortion) and lust (homosexuality). sorry if i was being unclear.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='Oct 17 2005, 03:29 AM']wow - i sometimes wonder at what point in history did we start expecting the Feds to look into our family life
at one time local communities and, if need be - local officials
but now we expect state and federal officials to bail - we seem to want a "nanny state"
or - some call this a "soft despotism"...    we are welcoming a federal government to take care of every problem - and make every choice for us...
and i really believe modern liberalism is ushering this in
[right][snapback]760952[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
yeah I know what you mean

while I do support the rule of and enforcement of laws against immorality such as child abuse, I do also have to wonder at what point must it jump to the government. it should probably jump to the local governments first.

but the way it is now, local governments are panzie-governments whose main concern is whether the grass at the local municipal center should be cut once or twice a week. that's because we're so federalized it's not even funny.

[philothea]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 17 2005, 08:36 PM']but the way it is now, local governments are panzie-governments whose main concern is whether the grass at the local municipal center should be cut once or twice a week.  that's because we're so federalized it's not even funny.
[right][snapback]761810[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Dearest Al, I am sorry, but you do not have any idea what you are talking about!

One example: almost [i]all[/i] police enforcement is undertaken by local municipalities. When was the last time the FBI stopped a reckless driver near you?

Trust me, there's plenty of important governance done at the local level. (Alas...)