LIBERTAS (What Pope Leo XIII wrote about Liberals)

[qfnol31]

But saying that since I spoke out that I disagree is picking a fight is inaccurate, and very presumptuous.

[Socrates]

Show me where any of the founding fathers of America ever used the word "democracy" to describe the American republic.

They did use the word, "republic."

[qfnol31]

CIA does too.

The Constitution.

I think Texas has a link to it too, in it's Constitution.

(Republic that is)

[Desert Walker]

NOTE:
This post could use more development but here it is anyway.
-------------------------
I absolutely love this discussion, and the fact that it continues to come up. It's very stimulating to the mind.

Very early in this thread Snarf gave the dictionary definition of the word "liberal" and accused ironmonk of not having done his research, I guess, becuase IM did not include this definition in his thread starting posts. It simply cannot be said, however, that the definition of "liberal" or "liberalism" can be confined to any one "realm" of intellectual thought. Liberalism in politics and economics is not [i]exactly[/i] the same thing as liberalism in Catholic Theology and human behavior.

From this assumption, the [i]concept[/i] of liberalism can be analyzed in a very broad way. And it should be. It is, after all, a concept that filters down from the lofty heights of the rational mind and affects [i]real[/i] behavior. So instead of trying to grasp at the mere [i]concept[/i] of liberalism, which is often intangibly tucked away in the far reaches of the human intellect, let us look at the thing in terms of what it accomplishes in reality.

Ah, how unfortunate. Such a task appears to be impossible to accomplish! What! Do you mean to tell me that we cannot make a distinction between the content of our intellects and reality itself? But, good sir! I protest that would be madness! Yes I agree completely. It is mad to think that ideas are real. It is of even greater madness to think that the ideas of our intellect are more real than what is real itself.

Oh I lament this! I truly do! But what has brought us to this unfortunate state of affairs? Post-Enlightenment philosophy. I admit this sounds trite. But I disagree that it is trite. Recall that it is the way of ideas, the content of the intellect, to fiddler down into our behavior. This does not mean that our ideas are as real as our behavior. That is illogical. But because ideas do have a tendancy to fiddler down and form real behavior, we should be vigilant over what ideas we allow to have free reign in our intellect. It is the conservative thing to do you know.

What does this have to do with Post-Enlightenment philosophy? The men who came up with that stuff passed it on to us through education. It's been presented to us as truth you see (or at least potentially true). But ALL of it can be traced back to one single idea: "I think, therefore I am." This idea was a liberal idea, because it had nothing to do with Catholic Theology or the philosophical methods of the time from which Catholic Theology was given a form.

It is from that single idea that we get so much error in much of our contemporary thought. Becuase that idea elevates ideas themselves above reality, thus allowing for ANY idea to be considered truth. If you can't see that this is exactly what the mentality of liberalism does then you are simply choosing to ignore the clear goings-on among men.

But the conservative statement "I am, therefore I think" puts the existence of the body and the spirit FIRST, and ideas second. Thus, [i]false ideas[/i] can be more easily doubted and labeled for what they are. But if the existence of [i]thinking[/i] is the beginning of all considerations about what is real and what isn't, then false ideas are more easily embraced as descriptions of the truth.

My point is that ideas, by what they can be seen to do to a person's life, can be judged as either liberal or conservative. And I believe that what can rightly be termed "liberal ideas" are the ones that seek to "liberate" the human person from the "oppression" of the Truth, which is simply Reality Itself.

Conservative ideas are rightly those that result in further BINDING the person to the Truth, to Reality.

[morostheos]

Very interesting thoughts, Desert Walker. I like what you're saying. But how exactly do you link in the terms liberal and conservative there? I see how you have categorized them, but how is placing ideas before reality inherently liberal and placing reality before ideas inherently conservative?

[ironmonk]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Feb 20 2006, 08:37 PM']Very interesting thoughts, Desert Walker.  I like what you're saying.  But how exactly do you link in the terms liberal and conservative there?  I see how you have categorized them, but how is placing ideas before reality inherently liberal and placing reality before ideas inherently conservative?
[right][snapback]893249[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I would say that liberals get an idea and ignore reality or try to "change" reality to fit their ideas whereas conservatives focus on reality and then draw ideas from reality.

Such as Church teachings, logic, reason, human nature, etc...

God Bless,
ironmonk

[morostheos]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 20 2006, 08:41 PM']I would say that liberals get an idea and ignore reality or try to "change" reality to fit their ideas whereas conservatives focus on reality and then draw ideas from reality.

Such as Church teachings, logic, reason, human nature, etc...

God Bless,
ironmonk
[right][snapback]893257[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

maybe provide some examples?

[Socrates]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 20 2006, 06:41 PM']I would say that liberals get an idea and ignore reality or try to "change" reality to fit their ideas whereas conservatives focus on reality and then draw ideas from reality.

Such as Church teachings, logic, reason, human nature, etc...

God Bless,
ironmonk
[right][snapback]893257[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Last weekend, I saw a car in the parking lot which had a bumper sticker which said, "The universe rearranges itself to conform to your mind." (or something like that), and another that said, "Vote Pro-choice."

I could not help but think these two sentiments are connected.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Feb 20 2006, 06:37 PM']Very interesting thoughts, Desert Walker.  I like what you're saying.  But how exactly do you link in the terms liberal and conservative there?  I see how you have categorized them, but how is placing ideas before reality inherently liberal and placing reality before ideas inherently conservative?
[right][snapback]893249[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Just the question I needed to further develop that stuff. It's also encouraging to know that someone was actually able to understand what I write because sometimes I'm not even sure I do .

I appeal to Catholic Theology. God created the world in a very particular way did He not? That's what we believe anyway. So reality itself is unchanging because God constructed it exactly the way he intended to construct it. And God is unchanging so he won't change his mind about stuff he creates. Thus, Truth can be known from the created order. And Truths about the created order are PROPERLY known from the created order.

When you place an idea before reality -- that is, holding it to be an accurately true description of reality -- you are being liberal [i]because[/i] it is [i]possible[/i] that the idea, in some way, conflicts with what is real in the created order. Thus, it is NECESSARY to BE conservative in regard to ideas, because not every idea that pops into your head is in harmony with the created order. And anything that is not in harmony with the created order is an untrue idea. Thus it can be seen that a liberal attitude toward ideas is potentially not in harmony with the created order, and potentially unfriendly toward Truth. Hence, [/I]observation of reality[I] in order to TEST an idea's harmoniousness with reality is a conservative action (i.e. placing reality before ideas). Do you kind of see how this is the case?

Edited February 21, 2006 by Desert Walker

[Desert Walker]

In some ways it amounts to this:

In response to an idea:

- Liberalism demands action in accord with the idea

- Conservatism demands action in accord with knowable Truth

[morostheos]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Feb 21 2006, 10:43 AM']Just the question I needed to further develop that stuff. It's also encouraging to know that someone was actually able to understand what I write because sometimes I'm not even sure I do .

I appeal to Catholic Theology.  God created the world in a very particular  way did He not?  That's what we believe anyway.  So reality itself is unchanging because God constructed it exactly the way he intended to construct it.  And God is unchanging so he won't change his mind about stuff he creates.  Thus, Truth can be known from the created order.  And Truths about the created order are PROPERLY known from the created order.

When you place an idea before reality -- that is, holding it to be an accurately true description of reality -- you are being liberal [i]because[/i] it is [i]possible[/i] that the idea, in some way, conflicts with what is real in the created order.  Thus, it is NECESSARY to BE conservative in regard to  ideas, because not every idea that pops into your head is in harmony with the created order.  And anything that is not in harmony with the created order is an untrue idea.  Thus it can be seen that a liberal attitude toward ideas is potentially not in harmony with the created order, and potentially unfriendly toward Truth.  Hence, [/I]observation of reality[I] in order to TEST an idea's harmoniousness with reality is a conservative action (i.e. placing reality before ideas).  Do you kind of see how this is the case?
[right][snapback]893650[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, that makes sense. Here's my question though: are you referring to liberal/conservative in the political sense of the word or in the more general sense?

It seems to me that both liberals and conservatives (politically) have a tendency to place ideas before reality.

[stbernardLT]

I once liberated a hamster from a toilet bowl. : Who ever said you can't be both a liberal and a catholic. In fact me and the ACLU are organizing a "hamster rights" rally. We think it is sad that every hamster is potrayed as someone who eats their young, afterall it is just the males. We will not be at peace until this problem gets resolved.

Just a little sarcasm towards liberals (and hamsters)

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='stbernardLT' date='Feb 24 2006, 01:59 PM']I once liberated a hamster from a toilet bowl.  :  Who ever said you can't be both a liberal and a catholic.  In fact me and the ACLU are organizing a "hamster rights" rally.  We think it is sad that every hamster is potrayed as someone who eats their young, afterall it is just the males.  We will not be at peace until this problem gets resolved.

Just a little sarcasm towards liberals (and hamsters)
[right][snapback]896799[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



The poor hamster...

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Feb 24 2006, 01:50 PM']Yes, that makes sense.  Here's my question though: are you referring to liberal/conservative in the political sense of the word or in the more general sense? 

It seems to me that both liberals and conservatives (politically) have a tendency to place ideas before reality.
[right][snapback]896783[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes I agree.

I'm referring to liberalism and conservatism, as best I can, in the philosophical sense. I have come to the conclusion that these are two, emerging philosophies that have not yet been defined in a complete way by their adherents. But the definition process is occurring in our time. I am also realizing that the emerging Philosophy of Liberalism is an effective tool in Satan's hands for undermining the effectiveness of a certain set of the moral principles of Catholicism; mainly those regarding sexual pleasure. The American Democratic Party has apparently embraced this philosophy in a large way. The emerging Philosophy of Conservatism is an interesting contrast. It is having difficulty distinguishing itself from the traditional American Republican Party. This is something that it must accomplish because the hardline GOP is still representative of an economic system that has difficulty abiding by Catholic moral principles regarding fairness and justice toward the worker, one of the pillars of effective capitalism. The evils within capitalism are still considered by non-conservatives to be evils that conservatives promote. But the emerging Philosophy of Conservatism bases its vision for society more so on that of Medieval Europe than on the dark state of affairs common to industrial society. I am beginning to see that the Philosophy of Conservatism is, in allying itself with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, fighting against the degeneration of society into the mire of immorality and the injustice that results. It appears to be on the front lines of American society against Lucifer's work in the world. Liberalism seems to be more of a cooperating philosophy (probably unwittingly like a "useful idiot" of communist masterminds). It appears to be cooperating with Evil.

There is SO much more that can be said about this.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "general sense."

Here's my take on the political sense of the words:

Liberalism and conservatism in the political sense is a VERY relative and shifting dynamic. The reason is the concept of "status quo." If the status quo of current politics is that access to an abortion (for example) should be considered a right under civil law then anyone who challenges that status quo could correctly be labeled liberal and anyone defending that status quo could be considered conservative. This understanding of these two opposite adjectives comes from a narrow dictionary definition (the one Snarf provided earlier). You can only see this fact, however, if you drop the notion that these adjectives have anything to do with morality, and that the history of how the current status quo came into being is not considered. For, in the case of abortion, it was a liberal approach to the status quo of abortion's illegality that resulted in the current status quo of abortion's legality (not, of course, in the moral sense of law but in the civil sense of law).