LIBERTAS (What Pope Leo XIII wrote about Liberals)

[Akalyte]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 11 2006, 10:26 AM']I hope you've never pledged allegiance to the flag, because it represents liberalism, political and economic (namely, democracy and capitalism).

The corresponding conservative ideals would be Monarchy and Marxist collectivism.
[right][snapback]883871[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

actually i dont pledge allegiance to the flag..

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 11 2006, 12:26 PM']I hope you've never pledged allegiance to the flag, because it represents liberalism, political and economic (namely, democracy and capitalism).

The corresponding conservative ideals would be Monarchy and Marxist collectivism.
[right][snapback]883871[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It does not represent "liberalism" or democracy.

Liberty as defined by the fathers of our country does not equal liberalism.

Our country is a republic. The founding fathers knew that democracy always ends up to the lowest common denominator..


"I pledge alligence to the flag of the United States of America and to the [b]republic [/b]for which it stands, one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all."

Liberty to choose our way of life by far does not come near to liberalism. These words were chosen because in other countries your life would be chosen for you... your career, your wife, etc...

There is nothing wrong with pledging to the flag as long as it's secondary to the faith. In fact the fourth degree of KofC is Patriotism. Through patriotism we bring our faith into society.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Era Might]

America may not be a pure democracy, but it is not a monarchy. It was, in its day, liberal (as is capitalism). And so long as you want to retain the language of that age, America remains an essentially liberal nation.

And of course there's nothing wrong with saluting the flag. Unless you have hangups about pledging your allegiance to a nation founded on a liberal social order.

Edited February 11, 2006 by Era Might

[Cam42]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 11 2006, 01:20 PM']It does not represent "liberalism" or democracy.

Liberty as defined by the fathers of our country does not equal liberalism.

Our country is a republic. The founding fathers knew that democracy always ends up to the lowest common denominator..
"I pledge alligence to the flag of the United States of America and to the [b]republic [/b]for which it stands, one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all."

Liberty to choose our way of life by far does not come near to liberalism. These words were chosen because in other countries your life would be chosen for you... your career, your wife, etc...

There is nothing wrong with pledging to the flag as long as it's secondary to the faith. In fact the fourth degree of KofC is Patriotism. Through patriotism we bring our faith into society.

God Bless,
ironmonk
[right][snapback]883914[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

To emphasize republic as if it were something other than a democratic rule of government is disingenious. You know this and you know that our form of government falls under the scope of democracy. Our form of democracy is certainly a representative form of democracy, but it is a democracy nonetheless.

Incidentally, our form of government is still very much in the minority as far as world government is concerned, regardless of what Predident Bush would propose. The only other countries that employ our form are Austria, Brazil, Ethiopia, Germany (since 1918), Nigeria, USA (since 1789), and India (since January 26, 1950).

So, I think that it is a little inaccurate to make that statement about the "Pledge." We are affirming the whole of the United States and the Flag.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 11 2006, 01:22 PM']America may not be a pure democracy, but it is not a monarchy. It was, in its day, liberal (as is capitalism). And so long as you want to retain the language of that age, America remains an essentially liberal nation.

And of course there's nothing wrong with saluting the flag. Unless you have hangups about pledging your allegiance to a nation founded on a liberal social order.
[right][snapback]883915[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree completely.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 11 2006, 01:14 PM']To emphasize republic as if it were something other than a democratic rule of government is disingenious.  You know this and you know that our form of government falls under the scope of democracy.  Our form of democracy is certainly a representative form of democracy, but it is a democracy nonetheless.

Incidentally, our form of government is still very much in the minority as far as world government is concerned, regardless of what Predident Bush would propose.  The only other countries that employ our form are Austria, Brazil, Ethiopia, Germany (since 1918), Nigeria, USA (since 1789), and India (since January 26, 1950).

So, I think that it is a little inaccurate to make that statement about the "Pledge."  We are affirming the whole of the United States and the Flag.
[right][snapback]883946[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Republic's more accurate than representative democracy here...Democracy is a voting of the people while a republic is where we elect our officials to vote for us.

Ironmonk is correct in defending that we are a republic over a democracy. They're very different.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 11 2006, 11:26 AM']I hope you've never pledged allegiance to the flag, because it represents liberalism, political and economic (namely, democracy and capitalism).

The corresponding conservative ideals would be Monarchy and Marxist collectivism.
[right][snapback]883871[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I much prefer monarchy anyways.

[Era Might]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Feb 11 2006, 03:21 PM']Ironmonk is correct in defending that we are a republic over a democracy.  They're very different.
[right][snapback]883968[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Please tell President Bush to stop spreading democracy, then.

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Feb 11 2006, 03:21 PM']Republic's more accurate than representative democracy here...Democracy is a voting of the people while a republic is where we elect our officials to vote for us.

Ironmonk is correct in defending that we are a republic over a democracy.  They're very different.
[right][snapback]883968[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Absolutely incorrect. That is NOT accurate.

A representative democracy is a form of democracy founded on the exercice of popular sovereignty by the people's representants. It is a theory of civics in which voters choose (in free, secret, multi-party elections) representatives to act in their interests, but not as their proxies—i.e., not necessarily according to their voters' wishes, but with enough authority to exercise initiative in the face of changing circumstances. Another form of representative democracy involves impartial selection of representatives through sortition.

This is exactly what type of government we employ. It was Benjamin Franklin who philosophized this form first, based upon an Iroquois model.

Another name of this type of government is republican democracy. One meaning of the word republic is "object for the people," which embodies the notion of a democracy, making the term "republican democracy" redundant. An alternative definition of republic is any government that is not a monarchy, and by this definition there are abundant examples of states that are republics but that are not democracies, and of states that are democracies but not republics.

Accuracy, accuracy, accuracy. I agree with Era Might on this...Bush needs to get his terms straight, as do most Americans.

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Feb 11 2006, 03:23 PM']I much prefer monarchy anyways.
[right][snapback]883969[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Move to Great Britain, then. The United States was founded to be free from that form of suppressive government.

(I am not speaking of the papal monarchy, incidentally.....)

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Feb 11 2006, 07:08 AM']I agree with IM on most of what he's posted. However many of the "liberals" on the board have been deemed liberal by others.  No one in the real world who knows me would ever dream of calling me a liberal.  Yet I get called this regularly around these parts.  (It makes me chuckle)

Are there some that come on PM who are truly liberal?  Sure but they are few and far between.  Many are called liberal pejoratively simply because others don't agree with their opinions.  Its an easy way to avoid a thoughtful conversation.
[right][snapback]883770[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I basically agree with Al's answer.

Typically what happens is someone posts something, aimed at no individuals in particular, decrying some aspect of liberalism. Then others act as though this is a personal attack against them, and start defending liberal views or attack "conservatism."
Then they later complain about being labeled "liberal."

And what is considered "liberal" or "conservative" varies by location, and in what circles a person is in.

Unfortunately, in a lot of urban "blue-state" parts (what some would call "the real world"), anyone who has any respect at all for traditional religion or morality or opposes abortion or euthanasia, is automatically labeled "conservative" (or even "ultra-conservative" or "extreme-right.")

Simply being pro-life or Catholic/Christian does not necessarily make one a conservative in my view.

There are plenty of well-meaning liberals.

And 50 years ago, opposing abortion or public endorsement of homosexuality would not have been seen as "conservative" or "right-wing" - it would simply be regarded as normal and decent. These issues were not yet even controversial.

And if one wants to take the term "liberal" to be perjorative, that's their problem. If someone calls me a conservative, I don't consider that perjorative.

I think the fact that people consider the word "liberal" a slur says more about the morally bankrupt state of modern liberalism than anything else.

I tend to refer to "liberals" in debates to collectively refer to the people taking the liberal position in the debate - not to make a personal statement about those people.

[Jaime]

[quote]And if one wants to take the term "liberal" perjorative, that's their problem. If someone calls me a conservative, I don't consider that perjorative.
[/quote]

What are you kidding me? You're actually suggesting that people aren't using it as an insult?

How many countless comments have been posted comparing "liberal" to evil? And how many posts have referred to a person as liberal?

Give me a break

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Feb 11 2006, 05:10 PM']What are you kidding me?  You're actually suggesting that people aren't using it as an insult?

How many countless comments have been posted comparing "liberal" to evil?  And how many posts have referred to a person as liberal?

Give me a break
[right][snapback]884129[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well somebody doesn't seem to be chuckling.

So which do you want, nobody to say anything attacking the ideas of liberalism, or for nobody to call anybody "liberal" who defends or promotes liberal views?

Anyways, I'm done with this thread - I can see it's just going to devolve into more whining and bickering.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 11 2006, 06:22 PM']Well somebody doesn't seem to be chuckling. 

So which do you want, nobody to say anything attacking the ideas of liberalism, or for nobody to call anybody "liberal" who defends or promotes liberal views?

Anyways, I'm done with this thread - I can see it's just going to devolve into more whining and bickering.
[right][snapback]884148[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I've said it already. I think that when the term "liberal" is thrown around on this board its to avoid an actual discussion

"typical liberal thinking" = I can just dismiss it.

And I've said it on other threads, Conservatism does not equal Orthodox.

[Cam42]

[quote]And if one wants to take the term "liberal" to be perjorative, that's their problem. If someone calls me a conservative, I don't consider that perjorative.[/quote]

Considering that you don't consider being called a "conservative" pejorative, even when it is, I can understand your missing the point. However Socrates, the interesting part isn't that "the fact that people consider the word "liberal" a slur," but rather that people are so intolerant of others views, that they can't see that another view might have some merit.

Again, looking at what Era Might had to say, and what others have said on this and other threads, the pejorative use of "liberal" is not what the pervading thought is, but rather the thought that is imposed upon those who don't fall into a neat little box, which isn't so neat. There are some serious problems within the conservative regime in this country.......and there are some serious problems within the liberal regime.

What is pejorative? The attitudes of the so-called conservatives on this board. I don't hear this kind of language nor do I see this attitude much in the "real world" from the conservatives that are affiliated with the Republican party, outside possibly Rush Limbaugh and Bo Snerdly (who isn't real, btw.)