Whyand How I'm a "liberal"

[Snarf]

One thing that irks me in political discussion is the use of the word “liberal”. That being said, most people would call me a “liberal” in most issues; I support same-sex civil unions (reserving the appellation of marriage for strictly religious ceremonies), I believe the present economy should be more collectivistic, I would like to see greater separation of Church and State, I believe that civil liberties should not be encroached upon any minority, I opposed the Iraq war, I feel that the United States should heed more respect to the world community (it has never even paid in full its insipidly paltry dues to the United Nations, despite having been granted the honor of hosting its facilities). To the contrary, I do hold very conservative personal reservations. I believe in an active deity (particularly that corresponding to the Roman Catholic faith), I feel that financial reward should be commensurate with personal effort, and, most incongruous with my designation as a bleeding-heart liberal, I feel that abortion is an abomination against which there should be strong legislation.

I was sixteen during the 2000 elections, but had I been of age I would have voted for George W. Bush. I thought he was a moron at the time, but I conceded the possibility that maybe having a simpleton as Commander in Chief would be worthwhile if he were to instigate anti-abortion legislation. When it became clear within the first few months of his office how small a priority morality was to him, I immediately felt embarrassed for having been deceived. When it became clear that Bush was to blame for overlooking the intelligence prognosticating 11 September 2001, it made me literally ill to think I had once supported him. Popular conspiracy theory holds that Bush actually orchestrated the World Trade Center attacks, but I find such an idea juvenile. However, I find it most likely that Bush was in the same chair as Franklin Roosevelt probably was in with regards to the Pearl Harbor attacks: preemptive amelioration was avoided as to profit from tragedy.

And so, at age twenty I voted for Senator Kerry in the presidential races. I did not do this because I approved of Kerry in the least, but rather because he was the only candidate who had not already proven what a failure he would render himself in the president’s chair. Abortion was not an issue—if it had been, Bush would have worked to those ends in his first term. I simply voted because I didn’t want to carry the blame of political apathy.

The central reason for which I am “liberal” is that I have internalized the value of altruism. I cannot speak of my works as an altruist, lest I be praying loudly in the streets to be heard. However, I am perfectly free to speak of my ideals. At age fourteen I studied for Academic Team the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, and the one thing that stuck in my head from his writings was the resurrection of an old phrase by Plautus: Homo homini lupis est (Man is a wolf to other men). The upside of Hobbesian philosophy is that government is inevitable as society grows. This opens the possibility that a governing body can force people to be nice to one another. This begins with the imposition of legal sanctions for ne’er-do-wells, but it opens the possibility of imposing social equity.

I’ve read Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and Adam Smith and Emile Durkheim and an onslaught of other titans of economic thought. From this, I’ve developed varying sentiments about communism. I speak about communism because it is polar extreme of what is popularly called “liberalism”. Communism is founded on good intentions. I’ve heard that maxim many many times since high school economics, and it holds true. What I’ve never read but have personally formulated is this: the essence of communism is the idea that all things bad about capitalism should not be amended, but annihilated. The earliest modern communist that I have in my memory was a post-Revolutionary Frenchman by the name of Fourrier. To read Fourrier’s writings is to batter off the inclination to laugh hysterically at social naiveté, until one attempts to empathize with a person who just lived through the Reign of Terror. When the risibility of Fourrier’s ilk was realized, what filled the gap were national and religious-oriented socialist parties who wished not to wipe out capitalism, but to correct it.

What I have to say about Karl Marx is that he had a remarkably astute perspective on reality and a glaring deficiency in realism. Marx assumed that Europe was on the brink of revolution, and as such he not only chastised such socialist parties as the Roman Catholic socialist parties of the 1840s and other nationalistic socialist parties as being ineffectual, but he denounced them as worthless and short-sighted. Marx conceded that communism could only take root if it were to spring at the global level. He most likely realized that this would require a virtual cataclysm, but he died optimistic regardless.

According to Marx: Religion denigrates the unity of the human being—abolish it. Free enterprise tends to result in alienation (Entäuserung) between the worker and the consumer—abolish it. Accumulated wealth (Das Kapital) invariably results in disparity—abolish it. Inheritance perpetuates social inequity—abolish it… and while you’re at it, the family structure.

I point this out because few people realize how polarized communism really is. Thus, calling a socialist a communist is no more appropriate than calling a libertarian a fascist. With that clarification, I am a free-market socialist. I believe in a redistribution of wealth, but I also believe that free enterprise is the propellant of any sustainable economy. What this amounts to is essentially the popular Western European system: heavily progressive taxation and strict regulation of labor and quality standards. The central fault at present with the European system is the lack of economic mobility, but in my opinion the blame for this falls mostly upon the educational system.

I guess I should explain my use of quotes in the term “liberal”. I have no idea from whence the American political nomenclature came, but it’s diametric with common sense. Liberalism was first referred to as an economic system—perfect liberty of the market from the government. In the Old World terminology, liberal refers to an espousing of laissez-faire market ideology. Apparently, American politicians decided to apply the term to perfect liberty of everything except the market, and the inchoate Democratic Party of the late 20th Century was stuck with the misnomer.

What liberalism means to me, in the American sense of the term, is a favoring of the population at large versus total lack of imposition upon the individual. The problem is, both political parties work toward and against this ideal aggressively. The Democrats, most obviously, favor progressive taxation that suit social programs to promote economic parity. Republicans, however, are somehow associated with morality and so do not flinch away from restricting personal liberties under the guise of “family values” or other such hubristic nonsense. As an altruist, it’s obvious which party I should favor.

The Democratic Party does have the fault that it expects perfect assimilation of ideas in regards to personal liberty. This is harmless in most cases; at worst, some rich white kid would lose a scholarship to a minority student or other such non-issues. However, in the case of abortion this fault resonates deadly. So, the idea of abortion requires some exploration. The most common misconception is that liberals love abortions, as if pro-choice women simply can’t resist having sex only to destroy the consequential embryo. The vast majority of pro-choice liberals see abortion as a last-resort tragedy. Many pro-choice advocates concede that abortion often leads to downfalls such as regret or depression.

From a catholic perspective, it is sinful to be pro-choice, even if this entails personal abhorrence to the practice itself. The practice of abortion is by any face a social evil. However, the prerequisite for sin requires an awareness that one’s actions are evil. If one is disillusioned by the quip that what is aborted is simply undifferentiated tissue, then they are not deliberately sinning. (Note that a Catholic cannot possibly hold this in her defense, as it contradicts Church teaching.) So, a sin is committed when an abortion is undertaken, but the evil lies in the ignorance. To call an abortion advocate evil, then, is asinine as she is not deliberately violating her own sense of right and wrong. Historically there have been abortion advocates who could merit the label of evil in that they abused “women’s rights” as a fuel for their own gain or misguided views, (exemplia gratia, Margaret Sanger’s eugenic idealisms), but it is puerile to believe that such people represent a majority.

I would love to see abortion rendered illegal in all cases but when the mother’s life is endangered. However, quite likely this is a pipe dream. What I do consider far more probable, and incumbent upon the pro-choice alley, is the possibility of banning abortion as a market. Planned Parenthood, for example, operates with enormous profit margins. If the sad reality is that abortion shall remain legal, it is only sane that there be no capital incentive for an abortion to be undertaken. That is, abortion mills should not have the opportunity to profit from undertaking the procedure. What this likely means is an incorporation of the industry into a state function that presents the information clearly, concisely, and gravely.

[gelibeme]

Liberal, conservative, they are all labels. Stick to the status quo or detract from it, that's how I view those labels. Once I was polled on the phone and asked if liberal or conservative, I said I was liberal on some issues, but conservative on others. What I meant was that some things desperatly need to change, others need to be fought for to be upheld and protected.

[Socrates]

Snarf, do you have a particular point you wish to debate here - or do you simply wish to provide Phatmass with a lengthy manifesto of your political beliefs?

There is simply too much in your post to respond to in a single thread.
Each of the points deserves a thread in itself - and many of these topics have been debated at length on other threads here in the past.

Needless to say, I disagree with most of your opinions given here.
(Although in a lot of your post, it is rather difficult to follow exactly what you are trying to say.)

And your ideas seem to lack logical consistancy.

You seem to (rightfully) oppose abortion, and even believe it should ideally be restricted by law, yet you also seem to consider having morality even respected by law to be the "restricting of personal liberties" and "hubristic nonsense." This is contradictory.
It is unclear exactly what policies you are referring to here, but you do mention you support the state giving legal recognition to "same-sex unions" (which, btw is the state giving[i] legal benefits [/i]to perversion, not simply allowing "personal liberties").
Also, you seem quite willing to restrict peoples' liberties in economic matters in the name of "altruism."

I'm almost libertarian in economic issues, I favor a much smaller federal government, but I believe laws and legislation to be in accord with morality, not be opposed to divorced from the God's Natural Law.

[Socrates]

[quote name='gelibeme' date='Feb 4 2006, 04:00 PM']Liberal, conservative, they are all labels.  Stick to the status quo or detract from it, that's how I view those labels.  Once I was polled on the phone and asked if liberal or conservative, I said I was liberal on some issues, but conservative on others. What I meant was that some things desperatly need to change, others need to be fought for to be upheld and protected.
[right][snapback]875847[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
To be truly conservative, in any meaningful sense, does not mean simply upholding the status quo.

The "status quo" on many things has been defined by the liberals, and conservatives should fight to change the liberal status quo.

For instance, Roe v. Wade was a "liberal" decision, yet it is currently the "status quo" and needs to be changed.

I think the problem with too many "conservative" politicians is that they are too "conservative" in this regard - they simply want to avoid or slow futher destruction by the liberals, rather than work for the radical "rolling back" of the liberal agenda which is needed.

[Snarf]

I once had a class with Jean Beth Elshtain, of whom you may have heard for her support of Bush in the war against terrorism. The class was devoted to De Civitate Dei, and she stressed over and over that the City of God was never to take place on Earth, and that a theocratic state would ultimately fail in Augustine's view. I never picked that up from the text itself, but given her credentials I should believe she wasn't making it up.

Mainly, the point of my "manifesto" was to illustrate how asinine it is to rant about liberals doing this or that when the term itself is pretty null.

[i]you also seem to consider having morality even respected by law to be the "restricting of personal liberties" and "hubristic nonsense." This is contradictory.[/i]

Morality should always lie in the individual. The problem with abortion is that certain powers have wrongfully ordained that the termination of a prenatal human falls into that realm. So, laws against sodomy, exemplia gratia, are not cogent because they impose a subjective judgment upon the individual. While that judgment belongs to God, God endowed us with the power of will to do just that. It is the responsibility of Christians to educate sinners against the eternal pitfalls of immoral behavior, but it's not the responsibility of the government. My main reasoning for holding this view is the slippery slope tendency; most of America isn't Catholic, so outlawing sodomy or other vices runs the same thread as potentially banning what Protestants perceive as "worshping graven images" and such. Hell, it was literally illegal to celebrate Christmas in Puritan America in the mid-1600s.

What I meant by "hubristic nonsense" is the fact that politicians play up morality as bait for voters, when they cast their votes in distinctly un-Christlike directions.

[i]you do mention you support the state giving legal recognition to "same-sex unions" (which, btw is the state giving legal benefits to perversion, not simply allowing "personal liberties").[/i]

I'd be fine if civil unions didn't incur legal benefits, so long as there is equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals. I didn't pay much attention to the "Can homosexuals love each other" thread, but to believe that they can't is simply naive and un-Christian. That view assumes that homosexuals are obsessed with copulation, which in personal experience, all homosexuals I've met were on average less promiscuous than heteros. I agree absolutely that their love does not suit the Christian purpose of marriage, and so I would never argue that same-sex marriage should be condoned by religious institutions. But homosexuality isn't a problem that's just going to go away, and to deny them basic human emotion--even if biologically disordered--is neither Christian nor politically cogent.

[i]Also, you seem quite willing to restrict peoples' liberties in economic matters in the name of "altruism."[/i]

This seems rather whiney to me. Is taxation an infringement upon liberty in the least? "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", after all. If you assume that I think that the present state of welfare is where it should be, then you're wrong. There are too many loopholes in the system. The reverse of the coin is that when people can be born into the highest tiers of society and sustain that lifestyle without ever working while families starve, that's a far worse loophole.

[i]I believe laws and legislation to be in accord with morality, not be opposed to divorced from the God's Natural Law.[/i]

We both don't trust government much. You don't trust them with your money, I don't trust them with morality. Government should exist for the preservation of equity and safety. I can't think of a single historical example when state-imposed morality worked at all, and I can think of several examples when it was a disaster.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 4 2006, 06:11 PM']I once had a class with Jean Beth Elshtain, of whom you may have heard for her support of Bush in the war against terrorism.  The class was devoted to De Civitate Dei, and she stressed over and over that the City of God was never to take place on Earth, and that a theocratic state would ultimately fail in Augustine's view.  I never picked that up from the text itself, but given her credentials I should believe she wasn't making it up.[/quote]
I'm not personally familiar with this person, so I'd have to actually read her material to have an understanding of exactly where she stands or make any meaningful critique.
The fact is, however, that there is a vast range between having a "theocratic state" which tries to duplicate heaven on earth by force, and the morally nihilistic form of government you seem to favor.
My own (Catholic) poli-sci professor said that it would be impossible to literally create the Kingdom of God here on earth, yet the earthly order and government should support God's Natural Law, not be contrary or opposed to it. (It would take awhile to explain that in detail, but that's the gist of it.)

[quote]Mainly, the point of my "manifesto" was to illustrate how asinine it is to rant about liberals doing this or that when the term itself is pretty null.[/quote]
The term "liberal," like any other, is not perfect, but it can be safely used to describe a certain set of attitudes and beliefs (which seem to largely coincide with your own).

[quote][i]you also seem to consider having morality even respected by law to be the "restricting of personal liberties" and "hubristic nonsense." This is contradictory.[/i]

Morality should always lie in the individual.  The problem with abortion is that certain powers have wrongfully ordained that the termination of a prenatal human falls into that realm.  So, laws against sodomy, exemplia gratia, are not cogent because they impose a subjective judgment upon the individual.  While that judgment belongs to God, God endowed us with the power of will to do just that.  It is the responsibility of Christians to educate sinners against the eternal pitfalls of immoral behavior, but it's not the responsibility of the government.  My main reasoning for holding this view is the slippery slope tendency; most of America isn't Catholic, so outlawing sodomy or other vices runs the same thread as potentially banning what Protestants perceive as "worshping graven images" and such.  Hell, it was literally illegal to celebrate Christmas in Puritan America in the mid-1600s.
What I meant by "hubristic nonsense" is the fact that politicians play up morality as bait for voters, when they cast their votes in distinctly un-Christlike directions..[/quote]
It sounds like what you are advocating here is basically moral relativism - that there is no morality outside the individual, and that the state should officially recognize this. And you have failed to really explain how abortion lies outside of the realm of morality. One cannot explain how abortion is wrong and should be outlawed with at least appealing to [b]some[/b] form of moral principles.

And your saying that government should be completely unnaffected by or support any Christian principles is nonsensical.
It is impossible for government to not be influenced by or support [b]any[/b] principles at all. In your case, total moral relativism would be the principle that government and law are based upon.

I would much rather see government reflect the truth of God's Natural Law, than to support the godless lies of moral relativism and radical secularism.

America has existed for over 200 years without requiring support for "gay marriage" and other such nonsense, and this has hardly led to the creation of some theocratic tyranny. Your statement here sounds more like typical secularist liberal propaganda than anything with any rooting in reality.

There has indeed been a "slippery slope" in this country - and it has been towards officially-sanctioned godless immorality, not towards a "theocracy." First comes widespread acceptance of all kinds of sexual immorality, and the belief that people should simply be free to do whatever they want in this regard. Then comes acceptance of abortion, and its being declared an inviolable right. Then comes pushing for euthanasia, and special "rights" for homosexuality, and "hate-crime" legislation against those who speak out against such things.

And if politicians hypocritically use Christian rhetoric for rather ungodfly ends, they will be judged for it, yet the fact that a politician may be hypocritical is hardly reason for saying Christian morality should play absolutely no role in politics.

[quote][i]you do mention you support the state giving legal recognition to "same-sex unions" (which, btw is the state giving legal benefits to perversion, not simply allowing "personal liberties").[/i]

I'd be fine if civil unions didn't incur legal benefits, so long as there is equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals.  I didn't pay much attention to the "Can homosexuals love each other" thread, but to believe that they can't is simply naive and un-Christian.  That view assumes that homosexuals are obsessed with copulation, which in personal experience, all homosexuals I've met were on average less promiscuous than heteros.  I agree absolutely that their love does not suit the Christian purpose of marriage, and so I would never argue that same-sex marriage should be condoned by religious institutions.  But homosexuality isn't a problem that's just going to go away, and to deny them basic human emotion--even if biologically disordered--is neither Christian nor politically cogent.[/quote]
Perhaps you should have read more of that thread, so you'd get a better idea of what the arguments are. The truth is that emotion is completely irrelevant to the issue of "gay marriage" and legal benefits.
Morality and law should not be based simply on emotion - on a "if it feels good, do it" principle.

And saying that homosexual and heterosexual "relationships" and "unions" need to have equal recognition under the law is based on your false principles of moral relativism.
Good and evil, right and wrong, do not deserve equal legal footing - such a doctrine is Satanic.

[quote][i]Also, you seem quite willing to restrict peoples' liberties in economic matters in the name of "altruism."[/i]
This seems rather whiney to me.  Is taxation an infringement upon liberty in the least?  "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", after all.  If you assume that I think that the present state of welfare is where it should be, then you're wrong.  There are too many loopholes in the system.  The reverse of the coin is that when people can be born into the highest tiers of society and sustain that lifestyle without ever working while families starve, that's a far worse loophole.[/quote]
Yes, of course taxation is an infringement upon liberty! In a system of perfect liberty, the government would not be able to force anyone to give over their money to them. Perfect liberty would entail people being able to do whatever they like with their own property and money.

I am not arguing that there ought to be absolutely no taxation, or that all taxation is intrinsically unjust. (Nor do I believe "liberty" to be an [i]absolute[/i] principle.) I do believe there should be much less taxation, though, but that is really another issue

However, to say that the government should tell people what they must do with their money contradicts your earlier stated position that morality must lie entirely in the individual, and government must in no way limit an individual's liberty.

And, according to you, why should someone born into wealth be forced to work, or to give money to help the starving? You would say, "altruism," but is that not a moral principle?
You seem to say the government should have absolutely no say in regards to people's moral life, except when it comes to their money. This is a glaring internal contradiction in your thought.

[quote][i]I believe laws and legislation to be in accord with morality, not be opposed to divorced from the God's Natural Law.[/i]

We both don't trust government much.  You don't trust them with your money, I don't trust them with morality.  Government should exist for the preservation of equity and safety.  I can't think of a single historical example when state-imposed morality worked at all, and I can think of several examples when it was a disaster.
[right][snapback]875905[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Study your history, and tell me why states that recognize morality are better than those that do not. Give me a single example of a state that did not recognize morality that "worked."

Why are "equity" and "safety" more important than morality?

Absolute "Equity" is a false principle, and states that try to enforce it have all been disasters (Communist nations, Revolutionary France.)

And as long as you insist that government and law must be based on moral relativism, I am afraid there will never be any common ground between us.

[Snarf]

[i]that there is no morality outside the individual, and that the state should officially recognize this[/i]

First you claim this, then you attack me for imposing the responsibility of altruism--a moral precept--on the state. Well, which is it? I'm not the least bit morally relativistic where it concerns God's Law. Sin is sin. You deliberately overlook my constant iterations to this end so that you can call my views Satanic.

Abortion is wrong because it violates one's right to life. Government is a social construct created to protect such rights. So, obviously, I believe in some forms of governmental morality. Sorry to burst your bubble. As I've said before, it's the government's duty to protect man from himself. That's a moral axiom founded on common sense.

[i]And your saying that government should be completely unnaffected by or support any Christian principles is nonsensical.[/i]

Except I never said that. Preservation of the State invokes most of the Ten Commandments, so I see no problem in giving credit where credit is due.

[i]I would much rather see government reflect the truth of God's Natural Law, than to support the godless lies of moral relativism and radical secularism.[/i]

That's nice. Puerile, unrealistic, idealistic... but nice.

[i]America has existed for over 200 years without requiring support for "gay marriage" and other such nonsense, and this has hardly led to the creation of some theocratic tyranny. Your statement hear sounds more like typical secularist liberal propaganda than anything with any rooting in reality.[/i]

So much wrong with that... maybe the 19th Century would have seen more gay marriages if not for the anti-sodomy laws on the books. You obviously have the illusion that might makes right, seeing as you have the might of prejudice on your side. If you think 200 years is an impressive chunk of history, no matter you're intoxicated with Creationism.

[i]There has indeed been a "slippery slope" in this country - and it has been towards officially-sanctioned godless immorality, not towards a "theocracy."[/i]

Prohibition and the Comstock Laws are the product of the TWENTIETH century. History is dialectical, like I already said. Your vision of history is myopic and self-serving.

[i]Then comes pushing for euthanasia, and special "rights" for homosexuality, and "hate-crime" legislation against those who speak out against such things.[/i]

How many examples can you show me of hate-crimes being litigated for "speaking"? The blood of Matthew Shephard is on the hands of your ilk.

[i]Morality and law should not be based simply on emotion - on a "if it feels good, do it" principle,[/I

Fine. Strip heterosexual marriages of their perks, then.

[I]Good and evil, right and wrong, do not deserve equal legal footing - such a doctrine is Satanic[/i]

Immaturity as its purest. If something is evil, then justice will be dispensed. Only where it violates the fundamental principles of the State should such justice be administered by the government.

[i]In a system of perfect liberty, the government would not be able to force anyone to give over their money to them. Perfect liberty would entail people being able to do whatever they like with their own property and money.[/i]

That's a rather parasitic view to hold. If an entrepeneur makes money, he does because others have disposable income. No man is his own mint. Redistribution of wealth should be commensurate with historical context, I agree. As long as there's a state that produces capital, the individual cannot escape obligations to the state. If you want to live in the hills and be totally self-sufficient, I'd say you wouldn't deserve to be taxed because you're not withdrawing from society. But wealth is circular, and in certain historical contexts there are cogs in the wheel. If your wealth were genuinely and inseperably "yours", you'd have no need whatsoever for common currency.

[i]And, according to you, why should someone born into wealth be forced to work, or to give money to help the starving? You would say, "altruism,"
but is that not a moral principle?
You seem to say the government should have absolutely no say in regard's to people's moral life, except when it comes to their money. This is a glaring internal contradiction in your thought.[/i]

Only when you pick and choose which of my thoughts you want to pay attention to. I clearly said, the state exists to ensure legal sanctions for social stability as well as social equity. "Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever", said Martin Luther King Jr. Assuring that the least fortunate of society not be perpetually raped by the wheel of fortune isn't just altruism, it's sanity of self-preservation.

[i]Study your history, and tell me why states that recognize morality are better than those that do not. Give me a single example of a state that did not recognize morality that "worked."[/i]

Imperial China lasted how many millennia? Of course morality is essential to the well-being of the state, I never said anything to the contrary. Defining precisely how people should helm their eternal destiny doesn't fall into that, and to think otherwise is fascist.

Attic Greece revelled in homosexuality. It never crumbled, it was assimilated by Hellenistic and Etruscan culture, both of which don't fit your perfect vision of morality. Your point would work if I did say that morality doesn't exist in government, but I never said that. All I'm saying is that morality should be objectively sound.

[i]And as long as you insist that government and law must be based on moral relativism, I am afraid there will never be any common ground between us.[/i]

Then apparently the Creed means more to me than it does to you, if you cannot respect that common ground.

[sraf]

*claps*
[b]Snarf[/b], it's good to find someone who agrees with me here. It's been lonely.

Allow me to chime in my two cents, please?

As a Catholic, as a biology student in high school, I don't [i]like[/i] abortion. In the early days of my political awareness, when I was starting to be aware of what issues in the world were, I openly opposed it, seeing it as a way to have sex and escape consequences and responsibility. And in my heart, I still don't like it. Whatever you say, at the moment that the egg and sperm join, you have got all the chromosomes needed for a human being. There isn't anything else except for the rapidly dividing cells and the blastospore, but it is still as human as you or I.
However, as I grew more aware, I realized that to fight for the [i]rights [/i]of the bunch of cells and ignore the rights of the mother is cruel to both of them. I can't decide whether or not a life lived in poverty with a mother who never wanted you is better or worse than not living at all. But I think it is best if the responsibility for the choice was given to the person whom it really matters the most - the mother. But here's the key: she has got to decide on behalf of herself [i]and [/i]the fetus. If she chooses to abort the fetus, I would not agree with her. It is something I would never do to my own child. I might try to persuade her against it and I might succeed or I might not. But I will not take away the woman's right to decide for herself.

But I still want to keep the number of abortions down. So I came up with an idea of a Pro-Balance movement - one that strives to keep the number of abortions in the U.S. below 5% of what it is now, by a combination of 1. thorough sex education in schools (teaching about consequences, STDs, etc. as well as financial difficulties of childrearing) 2. 'Crisis Pregnancy Clinics' that do not promote either abortion, adoption, or keeping the infant but somewhere that a woman can go to in need and find guidance to see which option is really best - usually adoption. 3. In all public schools and Catholic ones, a class that teaches children to make moral decisions and understand various moral codes around the world and 4. Widespread sale of contraceptives, because in today's day and age, you are being foolish and impractical to think that people are going to stop having premarital sex if you deny abortions and contraceptives. You cannot take away both abortions and contraceptives, so you have to leave one option - in this case, contraceptives are the lesser of two evils.

So, in short, I understand why you do not support abortions. But I am trying to give you my set of glasses to see how I view the situation - that is, you cannot take away this practice now that it has been instated. If you want to change it completely, find a time machine and go to the 1920's and stop the first Sexual Revolution. But until then, you must accept that people are going to have sex and you must give the woman thorough facts and a choice.

[Akalyte]

Liberalism is the "ugly stepchild" of Protestantism. It is error, and it is a sin. Catholics dont need liberalism. I dont know why i keep trying to prove liberals wrong, my priest said it makes no sense, liberals will never get it.

[ironmonk]

[quote]I believe in an active deity (particularly that corresponding to the Roman Catholic faith)[/quote]

Calling yourself "Catholic" does not make you a Catholic. Having the faith established by Christ and obeying it is what makes you Catholic.

You have cleared up why you have the "phishy - i don't rep the church" title.

You might want to read (and listen to) the following...

[url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio.htm"]http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0002.html"]http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...ics/ap0002.html[/url]

[url="http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html"]http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/b...pStatement.html[/url]

[url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/featured-writing.htm"]http://www.peterkreeft.com/featured-writing.htm[/url]


Using the term "active deity" shows that something is lacking in your study. God willing the above will fill that void and help you be Catholic.


God Bless,
ironmonk
[url="http://www.catholicswag.com/fulltruth.php"]http://www.catholicswag.com/fulltruth.php[/url] <--Full Undeniable Truth

[Akalyte]

Here i go again.

"what is liberalism"?

Protestantism naturally begets toleration of error. Rejecting the principle of authority in religion, it has neither criterion nor definition of faith. On the principle that every individual or sect may interpret the deposit of Revelation according to the dictates of private judgment, it gives birth to endless differences and contradictions. Impelled by the law of its own impotence, through lack of any decisive voice of authority in matters of faith, it is forced to recognize as valid and orthodox any belief that springs from the exercise of private judgment. Therefore does it finally arrive, by force of its own premises, at the conclusion that one creed is as good as another; it then seeks to shelter its inconsistency under the false plea of liberty of conscience. Belief is not imposed by a legitimately and divinely constituted authority, but springs directly and freely from the unrestricted exercise of the individual's reason or caprice upon the subject matter of Revelation. The individual or sect interprets as it pleases--rejecting or accepting what it chooses. This is popularly called liberty of conscience. Accepting this principle, Infidelity, on the same plea, rejects all Revelation, and Protestantism, which handed over the premise, is powerless to protest against the conclusion; for it is clear that one who, under the plea of rational liberty, has the right to repudiate any part of Revelation that may displease him, cannot logically quarrel with one who, on the same ground, repudiates the whole. If one creed is as good as another, on the plea of rational liberty, on the same plea, no creed is as good as any. Taking the field with this fatal weapon of Rationalism, Infidelity has stormed and taken the very citadel of Protestantism, helpless against the foe of its own making.

As a result, we find amongst the people of this country (excepting well formed Catholics, of course) that authoritative and positive religion has met with utter disaster and that religious beliefs or unbeliefs have come to be mere matters of opinion, wherein there are always essential differences, each one being free to make or unmake his own creed--or accept no creed.

Such is the mainspring of the heresy constantly dinned into our ears, flooding our current literature and our press. It is against this that we have to be perpetually vigilant, the more so because it insidiously attacks us on the grounds of a false charity and in the name of a false liberty. Nor does it appeal to us only on the ground of religious toleration.

The principle ramifies in many directions, striking root into our domestic, civil, and political life, whose vigor and health depend upon the nourishing and sustaining power of religion. For religion is the bond which unites us to God, the Source and End of all good; and Infidelity, whether virtual, as in Protestantism, or explicit, as in Agnosticism, severs the bond which binds men to God and seeks to build human society on the foundations of man's absolute independence. Hence we find Liberalism laying down as the basis of its propaganda the following principles:

1. The absolute sovereignty of the individual in his entire independence of God and God's authority.

2. The absolute sovereignty of society in its entire independence of everything which does not proceed from itself.

3. Absolute civil sovereignty in the implied right of the people to make their own laws in entire independence and utter disregard of any other criterion than the popular will expressed at the polls and in parliamentary majorities.

4. Absolute freedom of thought in politics, morals, or in religion. The unrestrained liberty of the press.

Such are the radical principles of Liberalism. In the assumption of the absolute sovereignty of the individual, that is, his entire independence of God, we find the common source of all the others. To express them all in one term, they are, in the order of ideas, RATIONALISM, or the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of human reason. Here human reason is made the measure and sum of truth. Hence we have individual, social, and political Rationalism, the corrupt fountainhead of liberalist principles [which are]: absolute freedom of worship, the supremacy of the State, secular education repudiating any connection with religion, marriage sanctioned and legitimatized by the State alone, etc.; in one word, which synthesizes all, we have SECULARIZATION, which denies religion any active intervention in the concerns of public and of private life, whatever they be. This is veritable social atheism.

Such is the source of liberalism in the order of ideas; such, in consequence of our Protestant and infidel surroundings, is the intellectual atmosphere which we are perpetually breathing into our souls. Nor do these principles remain simply in the speculative order, poised forever in the region of thought. Men are not mere contemplatives. Doctrines and beliefs inevitably precipitate themselves into action. The speculation of today becomes the deed of tomorrow, for men, by force of the law of their nature, are ever acting out what they think. Rationalism, therefore, takes concrete shape in the order of facts. It finds palpable expression and action in the press, in legislation, and in social life. The secular press reeks with it, proclaiming with almost unanimous vociferation, absolute division between public life and religion. It has become the shibboleth of journalism, and the editor who will not recognize it in his daily screed soon feels the dagger of popular disapproval. In secularized marriage and in our divorce laws, it cleaves the very roots of domestic society; in secularized education, the cardinal principle of our public school system, it propagates itself in the hearts of the future citizens and the future parents; in compulsory school laws, it forces in the entering wedge of socialism; in the speech and intercourse of social life, it is constantly asserting itself with growing reiteration; in secret societies, organized in a spirit destructive of religion and often for the express purpose of exterminating Catholicity, it menaces our institutions and places the country in the hands of conspirators, whose methods and designs, beyond the reach of the public eye, constitute a tyranny of darkness. In a thousand ways does the principle of Rationalism find its action and expression in social and civil life, and however diversified be its manifestation, there is in it always a unity and a system of opposition to Catholicity. Whether concerted or not, it ever acts in the same direction, and whatever special school within the genus of Liberalism professes it or puts it into action--be it in society, in domestic life, or in politics--the same essential characteristics will be found in all its protean shapes--opposition to the Church--and it will ever be found stigmatizing the most ardent defenders of the Faith as reactionaries, clericals, Ultramontanes [See Ch. 19], etc. Wherever found, whatever its uniform, Liberalism in its practical action is ever a systematic warfare upon the Church. Whether it intrigue, whether it legislate, whether it orate or assassinate, whether it call itself Liberty or Government or the State or Humanity or Reason, or whatnot, its fundamental characteristic is an uncompromising opposition to the Church.

Liberalism is a world complete in itself; it has its maxims, its fashions, its art, its literature, its diplomacy, its laws, its conspiracies, its ambuscades. It is the world of Lucifer, disguised in our times under the name of Liberalism, in radical opposition and in perpetual warfare against that society composed of the Children of God, the Church of Jesus Christ.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Akalyte' date='Feb 4 2006, 11:03 PM']Liberalism is the "ugly stepchild" of Protestantism. It is error, and it is a sin. Catholics dont need liberalism. I dont know why i keep trying to prove liberals wrong, my priest said it makes no sense, liberals will never get it.
[right][snapback]876016[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I often get the same impression, but I have planted some seeds in people who were previously liberal and I have seen the fruit that they have changed. Granted, I can count the ones I've seen do a 180 on one hand, but if changing one lost person takes care of a multitude of sins, then I might be ahead of the game... This might be also why I think I debate until most are sick of reading/hearing it... but they don't have to listen to me or read what I write. If someone I'm debating with replies that shows that they want to continue

[b]St. James 5:19 [/b]
My brothers, if anyone among you should stray from the truth and someone bring him back,
[b]20 [/b]he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.


Something is not right (aka wrong) with the way they think. I think it might be a mix of unsound logic, wrong information, and disordered priorities.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Snarf]

See, that's what's so immature about the right. My own incongruities with doctrine aside, the right can't bear that one can be orthodox and liberal coevally. Yes, there have been Church documents disparaging collectivism. There have also been Church documents disparaging the Jews. Neither are part of Dogma, so it's meaningless to bring them up in serious discussion.

The point of my rant was that you can't typeset that because someone believes in civil unions and taxation that they HAVE to be pro-choice. This is endemic of American politics, and the best incorporation of global politics I've seen has been "STALIN KILLED MILLIONS" or "SWEDES LOVES THEM THEIR SUICIDE", as if dictatorship says something about taxation or seasonal depression says something about the economy.

The right has as odd sense that it's being persecuted by allowing others to do what they want. The exceptions wherein this makes sense is when the majority mandates abortion (against which I have clearly established myself) and taxation. Taxes are just part of life, deal with it. The only convincing arguments I've seen came from [i]On Liberty[/i], but lucky for me JS Mill decided he was a democratic socialist (which, in his context, has NOTHING to do with communism or Marxism).

As for my having said that God is "active", I was making a metaphysical generality and that would have been understood if you did an inkling of reading into what I have to say on the subject. I say that He's "active" only in the sense that the world is not that of the deists. God created the world, ordained for humans to have souls, et cetera. I've probably studied eternity more than anyone else here, so don't lecture me about God's timelessness.

And Akalyte, how much study of "liberalism" have you done that predates 1960 or so?

[ironmonk]

you really should read/listen to the links.

you have a lot wrong.

the point is about your use of the word "diety" and writing "particularly that corresponding to the Roman Catholic faith"... you support things that are not Catholic and shows that you do not hold the True Faith.

Listen and read Peter Kreeft. Read the other links. You will then, God willing, learn how you are wrong and wise up.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Akalyte]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 5 2006, 11:32 AM']See, that's what's so immature about the right.  My own incongruities with doctrine aside, the right can't bear that one can be orthodox and liberal coevally.  Yes, there have been Church documents disparaging collectivism.  There have also been Church documents disparaging the Jews.  Neither are part of Dogma, so it's meaningless to bring them up in serious discussion.

The point of my rant was that you can't typeset that because someone believes in civil unions and taxation that they HAVE to be pro-choice.  This is endemic of American politics, and the best incorporation of global politics I've seen has been "STALIN KILLED MILLIONS" or "SWEDES LOVES THEM THEIR SUICIDE", as if dictatorship says something about taxation or seasonal depression says something about the economy.

The right has as odd sense that it's being persecuted by allowing others to do what they want.  The exceptions wherein this makes sense is when the majority mandates abortion (against which I have clearly established myself) and taxation.  Taxes are just part of life, deal with it.  The only convincing arguments I've seen came from [i]On Liberty[/i], but lucky for me JS Mill decided he was a democratic socialist (which, in his context, has NOTHING to do with communism or Marxism).

As for my having said that God is "active", I was making a metaphysical generality and that would have been understood if you did an inkling of reading into what I have to say on the subject.  I say that He's "active" only in the sense that the world is not that of the deists.  God created the world, ordained for humans to have souls, et cetera.  I've probably studied eternity more than anyone else here, so don't lecture me about God's timelessness.

And Akalyte, how much study of "liberalism" have you done that predates 1960 or so?
[right][snapback]876316[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Enough to know the damage liberalism has caused in the world and in the church. Both politically and religiously.