Whyand How I'm a "liberal"

[ironmonk]

Also, you have so much wrong I don't have the time to debate you on every point. It is your responsibility to learn the faith and let the faith guide your opinions, not society.

Of course you think you are correct, but if you go the links provided, and spend some time listening to why we think you are wrong, then you will either wise up or at least know why we think you are so far off base.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Akalyte]

Is there such a thing in rerum nature ["in the nature of things"] as a Liberal in good faith? In our day it seems almost impossible to reconcile Liberalism with good faith, which is the only thing that can give it the shadow of excuse. It cannot, however, be denied that, absolutely speaking, there may exist under peculiar circumstances an exceptional case, but this will indeed be unique.

In the history of heresy we frequently find some individuals, even many, who, in spite of themselves, are dragged into the torrent of error for no other reason than their supreme ignorance. But it must be admitted that, if ever an error has been deprived of any excuse on this score, that error is Liberalism as it exists today. Most heresies which have rent the bosom of the Church have attempted to disguise their errors under an exterior of affected piety. Jansenism, perhaps the most subtle of all heresies, won over a great number of adherents by its cunning simulation of sanctity. Its morals were rigid to the extreme; its dogmas formidable; the exterior conduct of its promoters ascetic and apparently enlightened. It wore the visage of a Saint, while at heart it reeked with the corruption of pride. The majority of ancient heresies turned upon very subtle points of doctrine, which only the skilled theologian could discern, and upon which the ignorant multitude could give no judgment, save such as they received in confidence from their leaders. By a very natural consequence, when the hierarchy of a diocese fell into error, most of his subordinates--clerics and laity full of confidence in their pastor--fell with him. This was all the easier, owing to the difficulty of communication with Rome in ancient times, when the infallible voice of the Universal Pastor could not readily reach the flock in parts remote from the Chair of Peter. The diffusion of many ancient heresies, which were mostly purely theological, was nearly always due to this cause. Hence we find St. Jerome crying out in the fourth century: Ingemuit universus orbis se esse Arianum: "The whole world groaned to find itself Arian." This also explains how in the midst of great schisms and great heresies, such as the Greek Schism and Anglican heresy, there may be numbers of souls in whom the roots of the True Faith are not dead, although in its exterior profession this faith may appear deformed and vicious. Such was the case in England for many years after the rebellion of Henry VIII, and such, in some instances, is the case in our own times [1886], for the ready acceptance of the True Faith by many English converts of recent years bears ample witness to the vitality of the Faith in souls so grossly betrayed into heresy by apostate guides three centuries ago [i.e., in the 16th century]. Such souls, united to the Mystical Body of the Church by Baptism, by interior Sanctifying Grace, are able to gain eternal salvation with ourselves.

Can the same be said of Liberalism? Liberalism first presented itself under a political mask, but since its debut, this mask has become so transparent that blind indeed is he who cannot divine the perversity of such a miserable travesty. The veil of hypocrisy and pietism which some of its panegyrists first threw around it has been stripped off. The halo in which it was first depicted has shown itself to be, not the soft light of Heaven, but the lurid glare of Hell. It has gathered under its banner all the dregs of society, wherever corruption was its precursor and promoter. The new doctrines which it preached--and which it wished to substitute for ancient truth--had nothing abstract nor metaphysical; it rejected everything but brutal facts, which betrayed it as the offspring of Satan and the enemy of mankind. The terrors of the French Revolution were the evidence of its origin, as sprung from the corruptions of a society that had abandoned God and battened on the bestial results of Voltarian skepticism. No wonder it avoided the abstract and the metaphysical, to revel in the atrocious deeds of a bloody revolution [The French Revolution, 1789-1799], which proclaimed the absolute sovereignty of man against his Creator and the Church.

If such were the horrors of the birth of Liberalism, what must be said of its odious development in our own day, when its infernal principles bask in the full light of the world's approbation? Never has an error been more severely castigated by the condemnation of the Church; never more accurately have those condemnations been borne out by the testimony of experience and history. When Protestantism is fast losing its power, sinking into the abyss out of sheer impotence, Liberalism, even more formidable and more dangerous, fills the ranks of this decaying heresy with enemies still more resourceful, implacable and obstinate. Protestantism is now a dead dog; Liberalism a living lion going about seeking whom he may devour. Its dreadful doctrine is permeating society to the core;

It has become the modern political creed and threatens us with a second revolution, to turn the world over once again to paganism. Are there any good Catholics who do not believe this? Let them but read the signs of the times, not with the eyes of the world, but by the light of the Faith, which Jesus Christ gave to them. "I am the way, the truth and the life," said our Divine Lord. "He that followeth me, walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light of life." (John 8:12). He who follows the Church follows Him, for He Himself said to the Apostles and their successors, "He who hears you, hears Me."

What then is the attitude of the Church towards Liberalism? Is not its entire hierarchy considered hostile to Liberalism? Does not Liberalism itself bear witness to this? What does the word "Clericalism" with which the Liberals have honored those most energetically opposed to their doctrine, prove, if not that they regard the Church as their most implacable adversary? How do they look upon the Pope, upon bishops, priests, religious of all kinds, on pious people and practical Catholics? "Clericals" "clericals" always, that is, "anti-Liberals!" How then can we expect to find good faith on the part of a Liberal Catholic when orthodoxy is so distinctly and completely opposed to Liberalism? Those who are capable of comprehending the principles of the question can readily satisfy themselves on its merits by its intrinsic reasons; those who cannot so comprehend have an extrinsic authority [The Catholic Church] more than sufficient to form an accurate judgment for them, such as it should be in every good Christian in matters touching the Faith. Light is not wanting; those who will, can see well enough. But alas! Insubordination, illegitimate interests and the desire to take and make things easy are abundantly at hand to prejudice and to blind. The seduction of Liberalism is not of the kind that blinds by a false light, but rather by the seduction which, in sullying the heart, obscures the understanding. We may therefore justly believe, except perhaps with very rare exception, that it requires a very vigorous effort of charity to admit in our day, in accordance with true moral principles, the excuse of "good faith" in a Catholic who entertains Liberal principles.

[Snarf]

It'd be nice if you actually responded to what I have to say, rather than polemically rant about the Platonic Form of liberalism.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 4 2006, 08:05 PM'][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.[/quote]
I was not attacking you for "imposing the responsibility of altruism--a moral precept--on the state" - I was simply pointing out the inconsistancies in your own expressed views.

You have stated that you beleive it is wrong for the state to recognize moral precepts regarding matters touching on sex, then say the state must "recognize moral precepts" in matters regarding what people do with their money.
It seems you are simply picking and choosing which areas you believe the government should and should not recognize Christian morality.

[quote]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.[/quote]
Again, I agree that abortion is wrong. You have acknowledged that you do believe in some forms of government morality. But then you also condemn recognition of morality by the government in other areas as "imposing a subjective judgment upon the individual" and "restricting personal liberties."
Again, inconsistancy.

[quote][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.[/quote]
What is "Preservation of the State" and why is it to be the main goal of government?
And it seems that you only want certain comandments to be reflected in law while ignoring others.

[quote][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.[/quote]
Puerile, unrealistic, idealistic, blah, blah, blah.
Once you resort to name-calling, it's clear you've already lost the debate.

[quote][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.[/quote]
Where have I said "might makes right"???
My point is that human law should reflect the Divine Law, not oppose it.
Legal and government "might" should be on the side of right, not wrong.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
[quote]1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. [b]All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law." [/b]Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, [b]all of them interrelated[/b]: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally,[b] civil [/b]and ecclesiastical laws

1953 [b]The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."[/b][/quote]

[Socrates]

(Note: this is a continuation from my last post - split up due to number of quotes.)

[quote][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.[/quote]
"My" vision of history is that of Christ's Catholic Church.
Sorry, I'm not a Hegelian, so I don't buy that "dialectical" foolishness.

[quote][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.[/quote]
Well, it's already happened in Canada and Sweden. There's no reason to believe that if certain liberals had their way, there would be similar prosecution in the U.S. Such P.C. censorship has already long been enforced on many college campuses.

Matthew Shepherd's murderers were tried and convicted for their crimes.
"My ilk" believes that all murderers should pay equally for their crimes, regardless of what perversion their victims may or may not have practiced. A brutal murder of a "gay" man should not be punished any more or less harshly than the brutal murder of a "straight" girl.

[quote][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.[/quote]
As I have pointed out in other threads, "heterosexual" marriage is for the good of society. Homosexual sodomy is not.

[quote][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.[/quote]
More name-calling. So the "principles of the State" are more important than justice?
Justice should serve the State, rather than vice-versa?
Someone's got things bass-ackwards here!

[quote][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.[/quote]
Read what I say rather than twist it. I'm pointing out inconsistancies in your views - essentially that the state should be grounded in morality in some things, but not others.

And for my economic views, I'd direct you to the "Can a True Catholic be a Liberal?" thread. There's simply more wrong to socialism than I've got time to discuss here, which is why socialism has been repeatedly condemned by the Church.

[quote][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.
[right][snapback]875985[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
"Holier than thou you are!"
At least I follow the Creed and the Church's teachings, rather than reject them when they suit me.

[Snarf]

[i]It seems you are simply picking and choosing which areas you believe the government should and should not recognize Christian morality.[/i]

How much Thomas Hobbes have you read? I don't agree with much of his conclusions, but his observations of the natural state of man are pretty astute. I've said clearly that the state should dispense justice and promote equity. The reasons for this is that with these precepts all people mutually benefit and the human species can be propogated. There are plenty of instances where preservation of the state and recognition of Christian morality coalesce. But where they don't, then morality should fall to the individual.

[i]You have acknowledged that you do believe in some forms of government morality. But then you also condemn recognition of morality by the government in other areas as "imposing a subjective judgment upon the individual" and "restricting personal liberties."
Again, inconsistancy. [/i]

How many times to I have to explain it? Morality should be state-imposed where it benefits the state. There are plenty of instances where this is the case. Where spiritual directives don't concern the state, the state shouldn't be concerned. No matter how many times you call it inconsistent, you fail to prove anything other than your ability to pick and choose what limited facet of an argument you can argue against. That's not debate, that's masturbation.

[i]What is "Preservation of the State" and why is it to be the main goal of government?
And it seems that you only want certain comandments to be reflected in law while ignoring others.[/I

Preservation of the State is the point of government, as dictated by Locke, Hobbes, Mill, and many other folks conservatives love to discriminately refer to. Preservation of the State is the assurance that all people can live in a world without fear of being dominated by their oppressors. I fail to see how that violates Christian principles.

[I]Once you resort to nam9e-calling, it's clear you've already lost the debate.[/i]

Name calling? I apologize I didn't realize how sensitive you were. As if there were a debate here. If I don't agree with you, I'm a bad Catholic, I hate America, and what else? "Debate" implies a sharing of ideas... what this is has been my proclamation of what I believe, added to which is your insistence that I'm a bad Christian for espousing such views.

As for my Catholicity, I need prove myself only to God. Nothing I believe contradicts the essential teachings of the Catechism, which, by the way, tells us NOT to be homophobic.

[Socrates]

[quote name='sraf' date='Feb 4 2006, 08:44 PM']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.  [b]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.[/b]  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. [b]But I will not take away the woman's right to decide for herself. [/b][right][snapback]876010[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
What you're saying here is absurd.
Nobody has a [b]right [/b]to murder an innocent human life!!

Would you say:
"If she chooses to murder her three-year-old daughter, 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."?

Would you say that as long as people are going to keep committing murders, we should try to lower murder rates, but still "respect the murderers' right to decide for themselves whether to murder"???

And implying that murder may be justified to prevent a life lived in poverty or hardship is totally wrong and contrary in every way to the Catholic doctrine of the sacredness of human life.
Countless people have grown up in poverty or with uncaring parents, but have been able to overcome their hardships.

The mentality that says it is justifiable to kill innocent human beings in order to prevent possible suffering is contrary to everything Christ and His Church teaches, and is a prime example of the "Culture of Death" decried by the Church.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 5 2006, 02:00 PM'][i]It seems you are simply picking and choosing which areas you believe the government should and should not recognize Christian morality.[/i]

How much Thomas Hobbes have you read?  I don't agree with much of his conclusions, but his observations of the natural state of man are pretty astute.  I've said clearly that the state should dispense justice and promote equity.  The reasons for this is that with these precepts all people mutually benefit and the human species can be propogated.  There are plenty of instances where preservation of the state and recognition of Christian morality coalesce.  But where they don't, then morality should fall to the individual.[/quote]
I've studied some of what Hobbes taught back in college, though I'll admit I'm not an expert on him. I do not agree with his basic theory of the nature of man and the "social contract" theory of government, which was in several ways contrary to the traditional Catholic theory of government.

I'm sorry, but simply appealing to the authority of Hobbes to support your views won't work here. Hobbes was far from infallible.

[quote][i]You have acknowledged that you do believe in some forms of government morality. But then you also condemn recognition of morality by the government in other areas as "imposing a subjective judgment upon the individual" and "restricting personal liberties."
Again, inconsistancy. [/i]

How many times to I have to explain it?  Morality should be state-imposed where it benefits the state.  There are plenty of instances where this is the case.  Where spiritual directives don't concern the state, the state shouldn't be concerned.  No matter how many times you call it inconsistent, you fail to prove anything other than your ability to pick and choose what limited facet of an argument you can argue against.  That's not debate, that's masturbation.[/quote]
Morality should be state-imposed where it benefits the state???!!

Since when is "benefitting the state" the goal of government??

The philosophy which makes "the State" a goal unto itself is wrong, contrary to the consistant teaching of the Church, and quite dangerous.

The state should not exist for itself, but for the common good of society.
The state should ideally be a servant to the Church and to morality, not only follow morality when it suits its own goals of "self-preservation."

The idea that the state is its own goal, unbeholden to any outside morality, finds its purest fulfillment in such systems as Nazism and Communism.

So I'm a jack-off? That's very mature of you.

[quote][i]What is "Preservation of the State" and why is it to be the main goal of government?
And it seems that you only want certain comandments to be reflected in law while ignoring others.[/i]

Preservation of the State is the point of government, as dictated by Locke, Hobbes, Mill, and many other folks conservatives love to discriminately refer to.  Preservation of the State is the assurance that all people can live in a world without fear of being dominated by their oppressors.  I fail to see how that violates Christian principles.[/quote]
Note that I haven't cited any of these people.
Preservation of the State is not the point ot government as dictated by the Church, which should be what matters to a Catholic.
And your defintition is vague enough as to be interpreted to mean anything.
The state can just as easy [b]be[/b] an oppressor, as guarantee freedom from oppression.

[quote][i]Once you resort to nam9e-calling, it's clear you've already lost the debate.[/i]

Name calling?  I apologize I didn't realize how sensitive you were.   As if there were a debate here.  If I don't agree with you, I'm a bad Catholic, I hate America, and what else?  "Debate" implies a sharing of ideas... what this is has been my proclamation of what I believe, added to which is your insistence that I'm a bad Christian for espousing such views.

As for my Catholicity, I need prove myself only to God.  Nothing I believe contradicts the essential teachings of the Catechism, which, by the way, tells us NOT to be homophobic.
[right][snapback]876432[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Blah, Blah, blah.
And where is "homophobia" (whatever that means) condemned in the Catechism? I fail to see how that even relates to this particular debate.

[Snarf]

If it were up to me, people would live in sustainable harmony that wouldn't require a "State". Aside from saying that it's not in line with Church thining, what exactly is wrong with the Social Contract theory? Most conservatives I know love it. And before you say I don't know any real conservatives, I went to one of the most politically conservative (particularly libertarian) schools in the country. I had classes taught by Neocons and I partied with Neocons.

[i]Since when is "benefitting the state" the goal of government??[/i]

It's been years since I've taken PIR, so I'm a bit rusty with all the different definitions and attributes of the classical image of the State. How I use it basically refers to the amalgamation of society, culture, and government. The state is what administers justice, and government is what gives it form. Both communism and anarcho-capitalism, the polar extremes representing a departure from formal government, espouse their own views of how government can be made superfluous. Obviously, neither route will work in practicality.

[i]I'm sorry, but simply appealing to the authority of Hobbes to support your views won't work here. Hobbes was far from infallible.[/i]

You must be referring to that part wherein I said that I agree with everything there is to say with Hobbes, not just his common sense assertions.

[i]The philosophy which makes "the State" a goal unto itself is wrong, contrary to the consistant teaching of the Church, and quite dangerous.[/i]

I agree absolutely that the state is dangerous, but being afraid of it won't make it go away. If anything, conservativism favors the State moreso than the contemporary Left. Small government, big society--that's what you want, isn't it? What I'm saying is that the State is more dangerous when it lacks a strong body to regulate it. It's just that I find more danger in suppression of worker's rights and the formation of monopolies than I do in men have sex together and schools not teaching that dinosaurs rode on Noah's ark.

[i]The state should not exist for itself, but for the common good of society.[/i]

Agreed. But your idea of "common good" encroaches far too deeply into personal liberty. So, what is it? The state is too powerful, it should be powerless... and yet dominate what people do behind closed doors? Your stance is as consistent as pancake batter that really wasn't stirred very well at all.

[i]The idea that the state is its own goal, unbeholden to any outside morality, finds its purest fulfillment in such systems as Nazism and Communism.[/i]

I'm not asking if you agree with Marx, because I sure as hell don't. But do you know what he had to say? Lenin wasn't chosen as premier because he had a bitchin' goatee, but because he bastardized communism into something that was feasible. Stalin then took it from there, which brings up, why do you think Trotsky was assassinated by his home government? Historical communism does to Marxism what the French Revolution did to Utopianism. Nazis, on the other hand, were fond of the idea of regulating consensus morality. So, although your discussion of communism strikes me as pointless, it carries the air of condescension in that you assume I don't know what I'm talking about.

[i]So I'm a jack-off? That's very mature of you.[/i]

I fail to see what my maturity has to do with your calling yourself a jack-off.

[i]Note that I haven't cited any of these people.[/I

I didn't say you did, but it's just one of my personal pleasures when conservatives do--and they do it quite often. Especially when conservatives scream "1984, Big Brother!" as if Eric Blair hadn't been an ardent socialist.

[I]Preservation of the State is not the point ot government as dictated by the Church, which should be what matters to a Catholic.[/i]

So. What does government do, then?

[i]The state can just as easy be an oppressor, as guarantee freedom from oppression.[/i]

I'm sorry, but I'd rather see the oppression of billionaires who attend board meetings twice a year than I would like to see the oppression of people who were born with the attraction to their own gender.

[i]And where is "homophobia" (whatever that means) condemned in the Catechism? I fail to see how that even relates to this particular debate.[/i]

It relates just as far as my slight incongruity with doctrine does--it's extraneous, but hey, you started it.

[b]2358[/b]: The number of men and women who have deep=seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. Thiss inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They [b]must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided[/b].

That doesn't mean they should be able to get married, but you confessed that the test "Are you a homophobe?" revealed that you lack sensitivity. No, I don't put much stock in online tests. I put stock in what you have to say, which is neither charitable nor sensitive.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 5 2006, 07:29 PM']If it were up to me, people would live in sustainable harmony that wouldn't require a "State".  Aside from saying that it's not in line with Church thining, what exactly is wrong with the Social Contract theory?  Most conservatives I know love it.  And before you say I don't know any real conservatives, I went to one of the most politically conservative (particularly libertarian) schools in the country.  I had classes taught by Neocons and I partied with Neocons.[/quote]
In short, the problem is that it does not acknowledge the divine authority of God. It says the state derives its power solely from the consent of the governed. While this is good insofar as it (in theory) places limits on the power of the state, it does not acknowledge that the state is under the Divine Rule of God, and should conform to God's Law, not usurp it.

And I tend to lean more "paleo-con" than "neo-con" on most issues, and am not a libertarian (though I lean towards them in some areas).
If you want to debate me, address what I actually post, not what "most conservatives you know" or any other people say.

[quote][i]Since when is "benefitting the state" the goal of government??[/i]

It's been years since I've taken PIR, so I'm a bit rusty with all the different definitions and attributes of the classical image of the State.  How I use it basically refers to the amalgamation of society, culture, and government.  The state is what administers justice, and government is what gives it form.  Both communism and anarcho-capitalism, the polar extremes representing a departure from formal government, espouse their own views of how government can be made superfluous.  Obviously, neither route will work in practicality.[/quote]
I don't agree that the state is the ultimate expression of society. Statism is a dangerous and false philosophy, which has had disasterous consequences in the past century.

[quote][i]I'm sorry, but simply appealing to the authority of Hobbes to support your views won't work here. Hobbes was far from infallible.[/i]

You must be referring to that part wherein I said that I agree with everything there is to say with Hobbes, not just his common sense assertions.[/quote]
Need to specify what you are talking about.

[quote][i]The philosophy which makes "the State" a goal unto itself is wrong, contrary to the consistant teaching of the Church, and quite dangerous.[/i]

I agree absolutely that the state is dangerous, but being afraid of it won't make it go away.  If anything, conservativism favors the State moreso than the contemporary Left.  Small government, big society--that's what you want, isn't it?  What I'm saying is that the State is more dangerous when it lacks a strong body to regulate it.  It's just that I find more danger in suppression of worker's rights and the formation of monopolies than I do in men have sex together and schools not teaching that dinosaurs rode on Noah's ark.[/quote]
The state must be kept in check, and government should be limited. The central government should not be doing things that can be done on the local level (principle of subsidiarity).
More local autonomy, less big-government tax-and-spend programs.
Most liberals favor more socialism, federal government regulation of everything, more government programs, and tax-and-spend government "solutions" to all life's problems.
Increasing government interference in the economy does not in fact improve everybody's condition, but in the long run creates more unemployment and poverty for everyone. (If you want to debate this in depth, please start another thread.)

[quote][i]The state should not exist for itself, but for the common good of society.[/i]

Agreed.  But your idea of "common good" encroaches far too deeply into personal liberty.  So, what is it?  The state is too powerful, it should be powerless... and yet dominate what people do behind closed doors?  Your stance is as consistent as pancake batter that really wasn't stirred very well at all.[/quote]
Nice straw man argument there!
I never said the government should have cops in people's bedrooms or any other such foolishness. (Nor has any person taken seriously on the Right.) I've said that I'm opposed to the state giving special legal recognition or privileges to sodomistic practices, which is quite another matter. Such things as requiring that states recognize "gay civil unions" and creating laws that guarantee legal privileges for homosexuals, and passing "hate crime" legislation, increase the power of the central government, not decrease it.

You've proven no contradictions in my thinking, only your own inability to answer what I actually posted, rather than straw men of your own imagining.

[quote][i]The idea that the state is its own goal, unbeholden to any outside morality, finds its purest fulfillment in such systems as Nazism and Communism.[/i]

I'm not asking if you agree with Marx, because I sure as hell don't.  But do you know what he had to say?  Lenin wasn't chosen as premier because he had a bitchin' goatee, but because he bastardized communism into something that was feasible.  Stalin then took it from there, which brings up, why do you think Trotsky was assassinated by his home government?  Historical communism does to Marxism what the French Revolution did to Utopianism.  Nazis, on the other hand, were fond of the idea of regulating consensus morality.  So, although your discussion of communism strikes me as pointless, it carries the air of condescension in that you assume I don't know what I'm talking about.[/quote]
Marx taught militant atheism and that the communist state was the highest end of man, violently rejecting the authority of God, and replacing it with worrship of Man.
Lenin and all his successors did the same, though Communism frequently killed its own, being never satisfied in its goal of perpetual Revolution. The bloody history of Communism should tell you something about it.

The Nazis likewise refused to acknowledge a higher moral order higher than their own National Socialist state. Church and morality were to be made subject to the all-powerful State, rather than vice-versa.
Nazism was very much an ugly child of the statist philosophies you seem to espouse.

[quote][i]Note that I haven't cited any of these people.[/i]

I didn't say you did, but it's just one of my personal pleasures when conservatives do--and they do it quite often.  Especially when conservatives scream "1984, Big Brother!" as if Eric Blair hadn't been an ardent socialist.[/quote]
This is really neither here nor there. People can be right in some things but wrong in others. One may see the prescience of Orwell's warnings against statism without agreeing with his socialism.

[quote][i]Preservation of the State is not the point ot government as dictated by the Church, which should be what matters to a Catholic.[/i]

So.  What does government do, then?[/quote]
In short - preserve the common good. Basically it should protect the people against outside threats (such as foreign enemies) and protect them from interior threats (such as criminals).
For a particularly Catholic understanding of the role of the state, see my earlier posted quote from the CCC.
Exactly how much else it should do can be debated, but it should generally not overstep its bounds and do what can be done at a more local level.

[quote][i]The state can just as easy be an oppressor, as guarantee freedom from oppression.[/i]

I'm sorry, but I'd rather see the oppression of billionaires who attend board meetings twice a year than I would like to see the oppression of people who were born with the attraction to their own gender.[/quote]
The government should not be in the business of "oppressing" anybody. The government still need give no recognition or privilege to sodomy or other sinful perversion.

[quote] . . . That doesn't mean [homosexuals] should be able to get married . . . [right][snapback]876648[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Indeed. Enough said.

[Snarf]

[i]In short, the problem is that it does not acknowledge the divine authority of God[/i]

And whenever it does, it most always tends to be some concept of God that is neither righteous nor appropriate. I'm not going to lie and say that all the Framers weren't practicing Christians, but they were a very ugly color of Christian and the rest were deists. I would rather be Catholic in a secular nation than be Puritan in America. The State is not in a place to define God, so acknowledging His authority is impracticable. It's the responsibility of society to recognize divine authority, and thus color the State accordingly. The first step to doing this is following Christ's example. Remind sinners that they are sinning, but do not violate their free will.

[i]I don't agree that the state is the ultimate expression of society. Statism is a dangerous and false philosophy, which has had disasterous consequences in the past century.[/i]

"Ultimate expression" maybe not. The State is one facet of society, the primary other being culture. I don't know what you mean by Statism, but associating it exclusively with communism or fascism is a logical leap that Shaq couldn't make. The concept of "human being and citizen" is as old as Socrates, and is inseperable from some image of the State. "Statism" has done some nasty things, sure, but so has religion.

Oh, I forgot to mention that the dialectic idea was used by Fichte, and only rarely by Hegel. Calling it Hegelianism is just a ploy of lazy undergraduate professors who try to rationalize why Marx quotes him so often.

[i]The state must be kept in check, and government should be limited. The central government should not be doing things that can be done on the local level (principle of subsidiarity).[/i]

I actually agree, but this is manifest in my preference to be taxed by the State of Indiana over Bush.

[i]More local autonomy, less big-government tax-and-spend programs.[/i]

Since I did say that everything should be nationalized...

[i]Most liberals favor more socialism, federal government regulation of everything, more government programs, and tax-and-spend government "solutions" to all life's problems.[/i]

"Most liberals"... Someone I know on a message board once said "If you want to debate me, address what I actually post". Don't cross the river from inconsistency into hypocrisy.

[i]Increasing government interference in the economy does not in fact improve everybody's condition, but in the long run creates more unemployment and poverty for everyone.[/i]

One of my best friends at Chicago was a libertarian, and he was never able to convince me of this. I don't have a closed mind on the subject on account that I feel that government regulation should be subjective to economic and historical context. High taxation or minimum wage rates could be a boon to one situation and a hindrance to another--I'm not denying that. What I'm asserting is that the principle itself is in accord with reason, and should be undertaken with such discretion.

[i]I've said that I'm opposed to the state giving special legal recognition or privileges to sodomistic practices, which is quite another matter[/I

By your logic, the legal recognition and priveleges granted to hetero marriages exist only because they have sex. That's extremely condescending and demeaning, and certainly not respectful, compassionate, or sensitive.

I've never seen a case wherein "hate crime" legislation has infringed on freedom of speech. Care to provide any example of how defense of homosexuals' inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has done so?

[I]Marx taught militant atheism and that the communist state was the highest end of man, violently rejecting the authority of God, and replacing it with worrship of Man.
Lenin and all his successors did the same, though Communism frequently killed its own, being never satisfied in its goal of perpetual Revolution. The bloody history of Communism should tell you something about it.[/i]

So. How many Marxist articles do you have on your bookshelf that weren't sponsered by the 700 Club?

I'm not a communist, so I have no shame in looking at their bloody history. I'm too busy being ashamed of the holocaust being perpetrated by fellow white theists. Which brings us to...

[i]The Nazis likewise refused to acknowledge a higher moral order higher than their own National Socialist state. Church and morality were to be made subject to the all-powerful State, rather than vice-versa.
Nazism was very much an ugly child of the statist philosophies you seem to espouse.[/i]

The Nazi Party wore religion on their shoulders while its inner conclaves focused on building an empire to last a millennium. Nazism was also the ugly child of the conservative philosophies you openly proclaim.

[I]In short - preserve the common good. Basically it should protect the people against outside threats (such as foreign enemies) and protect them from interior threats (such as criminals).
For a particularly Catholic understanding of the role of the state, see my earlier posted quote from the CCC.
Exactly how much else it should do can be debated, but it should generally not overstep its bounds and do what can be done at a more local level[/I

I never said that teh government should be as big as possible, and personally I tend to root for the little guy when they're in accord with reason. I'd love to see more local autonomy, but I'd like to see it dispensed in a logically sound manner.

[I]The government still need give no recognition or privilege to sodomy or other sinful perversion[/I

What do you think gays want, a bill that says they get paid for having mansex? SSD is intrinsically disordered and sinful, but it's not chimerical, and the Catechism affirms this. I've met a handful of homosexuals who've let being gay define who they are, but I know far more for whom being who they are has defined them as gay. Christ didn't approbate tax collectors, thieves and whores, but He loved them and treated them like human beings.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='sraf' date='Feb 4 2006, 10:44 PM']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. [/quote]
Regardless of it's cell count, you yourself said it was a human being. Giving people the right to abort when it doesn't 'look' human is a very emotional argument. What 'rights' of the mother are being ignored, exactly? The right to have a bigger tv? The right to have brand new clothes? The right to a college education?

If you have problems with children growing up in poverty, let's get extreme with the follow-thru: Do you think killing off starving children in Africa as an acceptable solution to poor living conditions? Do we judge someone's right to life based on your (or the mother's) conception of what the conditions of their life should look like? Shall we only allow people to live who are [i]wanted[/i]? (Personally, I've been itching for just such a green light to go on a hobo killing spree.)

heh
[quote] 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.[/quote]
Exactly. It's a [i]child[/i]. Do we give the right to life to children when they're born? We should base right to life on [i]location[/i]?
Do we give the right to life to children based on how far developed they are? On how 'human' they look? ...and they say pro-lifers are emotional. heh
If this choice is such an important right, why don't we give mothers a few months after birth to figure it out? They're hardly more developed. Why all the queasiness with killing a baby a few days old? Heck, at that 'age' some babies would still be in the womb....they can be born a week or so late.

[quote]  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. [/quote]
What right exactly are we talking about? What right of hers is so precious that we should allow her to kill to be able to maintain it?
[quote]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% [/quote]
Admirable, and likely a good start....

[quote] 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.[/quote]
I don't think we would have had the Sexual Revolution you referred to later in your post if we hadn't had easy access to contraceptives. I believe they got us into this mess in the first place. I feel women in developed countries have made their choice when they decide to have sex. Your argument is that people simply [i]cannot[/i] be expected to be responsible, so we'll at least make their sinful, hurtful, demeaning actions more palatable to our sensibilities? We have a tumor in our culture, so your solution is to institute an environment that enables it to [i]grow[/i]?

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 6 2006, 01:04 AM']So.  How many Marxist articles do you  have on your bookshelf that weren't sponsered by the 700 Club?
[/quote]
heh

[Socrates]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 5 2006, 11:04 PM'][i]In short, the problem is that it does not acknowledge the divine authority of God[/i]

And whenever it does, it most always tends to be some concept of God that is neither righteous nor appropriate.  I'm not going to lie and say that all the Framers weren't practicing Christians, but they were a very ugly color of Christian and the rest were deists.  I would rather be Catholic in a secular nation than be Puritan in America.  The State is not in a place to define God, so acknowledging His authority is impracticable.  It's the responsibility of society to recognize divine authority, and thus color the State accordingly.  The first step to doing this is following Christ's example.  Remind sinners that they are sinning, but do not violate their free will.[/quote]
If the state does not submit to or respect the higher authority of God, it becomes a god unto itself (as with Communism and National Socialism).
No government has ever been perfect and without blame, but those that respected God and Christian morality have been better than those who reject God's authority all together.

And the "violating free will" argument is just ludicrous. By this logic, the only acceptable system would be absolute anarchy, as [b]any [/b]law, rule, or regulation would "violate" the free will of those who would oppose it.

[quote][i]I don't agree that the state is the ultimate expression of society. Statism is a dangerous and false philosophy, which has had disasterous consequences in the past century.[/i]

"Ultimate expression" maybe not.  The State is one facet of society, the primary other being culture.  I don't know what you mean by Statism, but associating it exclusively with communism or fascism is a logical leap that Shaq couldn't make.  The concept of "human being and citizen" is as old as Socrates, and is inseperable from some image of the State.  "Statism" has done some nasty things, sure, but so has religion.[/quote]
Statism is the belief that the state is the highest goal and purpose of human society, and the state is given absolute power over all elements of society. In Communism, it is the Communist government. In National Socialism, it is the national state.

[quote][i]The state must be kept in check, and government should be limited. The central government should not be doing things that can be done on the local level (principle of subsidiarity).[/i]

I actually agree, but this is manifest in my preference to be taxed by the State of Indiana over Bush.[/quote]
No disagreement with you there. (And you can also substitute Clinton or whomsever for Bush as well.)

[quote][i]More local autonomy, less big-government tax-and-spend programs.[/i]

Since I did say that everything should be nationalized...

[i]Most liberals favor more socialism, federal government regulation of everything, more government programs, and tax-and-spend government "solutions" to all life's problems.[/i]

"Most liberals"... Someone I know on a message board once said "If you want to debate me, address what I actually post".  Don't cross the river from inconsistency into hypocrisy.[/quote]
Well, you yourself did say you were in favor of socialism.
Socialism by its very nature requires an increase in the powers of government. If you think it does not, you are living in Fantasy Land.

[quote][i]Increasing government interference in the economy does not in fact improve everybody's condition, but in the long run creates more unemployment and poverty for everyone.[/i]

One of my best friends at Chicago was a libertarian, and he was never able to convince me of this.  I don't have a closed mind on the subject on account that I feel that government regulation should be subjective to economic and historical context.  High taxation or minimum wage rates could be a boon to one situation and a hindrance to another--I'm not denying that.  What I'm asserting is that the principle itself is in accord with reason, and should be undertaken with such discretion.[/quote]
I have seen nothing to convince me that socialism would work, and all the evidence in the real world has shown that it in fact does not work.

I'd suggest reading [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0865970858/sr=1-1/qid=1139286534/ref=sr_1_1/002-2323353-4496057?%5Fencoding=UTF8"][i]The Ethics of Redistribution[/i], by Bertrand de Jouvenel.[/url]

[quote] [i]I've said that I'm opposed to the state giving special legal recognition or privileges to sodomistic practices, which is quite another matter[/i]

By your logic, the legal recognition and priveleges granted to hetero marriages exist only because they have sex.  That's extremely condescending and demeaning, and certainly not respectful, compassionate, or sensitive.[/quote]
The only reason marriage is given any legal recognition and privileges is because marriage is the basis of family, which is the basis of society itself. If a marriage is completely opposed to the procreation and raising of children, then it is indeed purposeless and pointless.
If you want to debate this further, go to one of the zillion and one threads on this topic on Phatmass. I'm getting tired of endlessly repeating myself on this one.

[quote]I've never seen a case wherein "hate crime" legislation has infringed on freedom of speech.  Care to provide any example of how defense of homosexuals' inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has done so?[/quote]
In Canada, one can be fined for what is deemed "hate speech" against homosexuals, including quoting the Bible to oppose the "gay rights" agenda.

In Sweden, a pastor was charged with hate crimes for preaching against the sin of homosexuality in his church. The case was later dropped due only to intense outrage from Christians around the world.

Thank God this hasn't come to America yet, though some liberals want it to. Suppression of free speech can be the only real purpose of "hate-crime" legislation.

[quote][i]Marx taught militant atheism and that the communist state was the highest end of man, violently rejecting the authority of God, and replacing it with worrship of Man.
Lenin and all his successors did the same, though Communism frequently killed its own, being never satisfied in its goal of perpetual Revolution. The bloody history of Communism should tell you something about it.[/i]

So.  How many Marxist articles do you  have on your bookshelf that weren't sponsered by the 700 Club?

I'm not a communist, so I have no shame in looking at their bloody history.  I'm too busy being ashamed of the holocaust being perpetrated by fellow white theists.  Which brings us to...

[i]The Nazis likewise refused to acknowledge a higher moral order higher than their own National Socialist state. Church and morality were to be made subject to the all-powerful State, rather than vice-versa.
Nazism was very much an ugly child of the statist philosophies you seem to espouse.[/i]

The Nazi Party wore religion on their shoulders while its inner conclaves focused on building an empire to last a millennium.  Nazism was also the ugly child of the conservative philosophies you openly proclaim.[/quote]
This is pure bologna. The Nazis were far from being devout Christians, and persecuted those Christians (including Catholics) who dared oppose their Satanic agenda. Hitler and many of the top Nazis were into neo-pagan occult ideas.

Painting the Nazis as conservative Christians (and conservative Christians as Nazis) is one of the stupidest and most insidious lies of the Left. Constantly repeating this law does not make it true.


[quote][i]In short - preserve the common good. Basically it should protect the people against outside threats (such as foreign enemies) and protect them from interior threats (such as criminals).
For a particularly Catholic understanding of the role of the state, see my earlier posted quote from the CCC.
Exactly how much else it should do can be debated, but it should generally not overstep its bounds and do what can be done at a more local level[/i]

I never said that teh government should be as big as possible, and personally I tend to root for the little guy when they're in accord with reason.  I'd love to see more local autonomy, but I'd like to see it dispensed in a logically sound manner.[/quote]
Socialism necessitates big government. No way around that.

[quote][i]The government still need give no recognition or privilege to sodomy or other sinful perversion[/i]

What do you think gays want, a bill that says they get paid for having mansex?  SSD is intrinsically disordered and sinful, but it's not chimerical, and the Catechism affirms this.  I've met a handful of homosexuals who've let being gay define who they are, but I know far more for whom being who they are has defined them as gay.  Christ didn't approbate tax collectors, thieves and whores, but He loved them and treated them like human beings.
[right][snapback]876797[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Christ called tax collectors and whores to change their ways and follow Him. "Go and sin no more." He did absolutely nothing to condone or encourage their sinful behavior - but told them to change.

Condoning and blessing sinful "relationships" is far from Christ-like.

[Snarf]

[i]If the state does not submit to or respect the higher authority of God, it becomes a god unto itself[/i]

Again, any concept of God might be an a priori to the individual, but to the government its just impractical to assume unless the religious foundations of the State are absolutely homogeneous. By your logic, the ideal government would make it illegal to sell meat on Fridays in Lent.

[i]And the "violating free will" argument is just ludicrous. By this logic, the only acceptable system would be absolute anarchy, as any law, rule, or regulation would "violate" the free will of those who would oppose it.[/i]

I should have the free will to murder anyone I like, but since murder is socially reprehensible I should expect to be severely punished.

[i]Statism is the belief that the state is the highest goal and purpose of human society, and the state is given absolute power over all elements of society.[/i]

Then I'm not a Statist, as I don't feel that the State should have absolute power over what people do or do not do.

[i]Socialism by its very nature requires an increase in the powers of government. If you think it does not, you are living in Fantasy Land.[/i]

Socialism is far too young to be judged by history. Its main tragedy was that Marx hated it, and so lulled people into support for Communism as an alternative. I admit and support the fact that socialism requires a support of increase in powers over the economy, but in a modern context the economy is far too dangerous to be left in the hands of those born into power.

[i]The only reason marriage is given any legal recognition and privileges is because marriage is the basis of family, which is the basis of society itself. If a marriage is completely opposed to the procreation and raising of children, then it is indeed purposeless and pointless.[/i]

So when a homosexual is in the hospital, the one person in the world who cares about him/her should be denied clearance to see them because they don't have children or blood relations? I'd recommend reading Warner's [i]The Trouble with Normal[/i], but I don't want you to get an anneurysm.

[i]Suppression of free speech can be the only real purpose of "hate-crime" legislation.[/i]

Disenfranchised blacks in the South would get a kick out of that, I'm sure.

[i]The Nazis were far from being devout Christians, and persecuted those Christians (including Catholics) who dared oppose their Satanic agenda[/i].

The vast majority of antebellum Germany were church-going Nazis, in the same regard as modern America comprises probably 90% of either Democrates or Republicans. Associating an ideology exclusively with those directly in power is dangerous and counterfactual.

[I]Condoning and blessing sinful "relationships" is far from Christ-like[/I

Nobody's asking you to "bless" or "condone" anything. Treating all people like human beings would be a nice start, though.