Can you be both Catholic and liberal?

[beafedor]

I’ve been living in the States for almost 5 years and I realize that I’m using the word Liberal to refer to people and ideas that are the opposite of Conservative/Traditional/Religious/Biblical when discussing a moral issue.
In my country (France), the word Liberal has a different meaning and it can apply to some Catholic people/ideas/organizations as it has a “social concern” meaning.
France, on the other hand, is not considerate as a liberal country by French people. And now I’m confused because I realize that we have 2 different definitions on each side of the Atlantic Ocean. Why is that?

 

[itinerant1]

amen to that

Obama is the most pro-abortion president to date. I do not see that he has any moral values that co-incide with the teachings of any of the major religions.

 

[itinerant1]

I’ve been living in the States for almost 5 years and I realize that I’m using the word Liberal to refer to people and ideas that are the opposite of Conservative/Traditional/Religious/Biblical when discussing a moral issue.
In my country (France), the word Liberal has a different meaning and it can apply to some Catholic people/ideas/organizations as it has a “social concern” meaning.
France, on the other hand, is not considerate as a liberal country by French people. And now I’m confused because I realize that we have 2 different definitions on each side of the Atlantic Ocean. Why is that?

The terms liberal and conservative are relative to the political tradition of each country. For example, a conservative in Russia is most likely one who supports Russia’s almost defunct Communist ideology. He would be trying to conserve the old tradition that held power for 70 years.

In America, a true conservative is one who supports and attempts to conserve the philosophy of government held by the founders and framers of the Constitution. A liberal in America, on the other hand, is generally more socialist in his political ideology and does not support the ideas and ideals of the Constitution. He generally supports a reading of the Constitution that does not coincide with original intent. His is a sort of perverted notion of the Constitution as a “living document”.

 

[Havard]

People we call “conservatives” are not always for conserving the status quo. People we call “liberals” are not always for the expansion of individual freedoms.

In terms of charity, you might be surprised which people actually give. If you saw John Stossel’s expose on charity (back when he worked at ABC), it turns out that conservative families typically give more time, more of their income, and blood than liberal families. Arthur Brooks, a policy professor at Syracuse has written a book on the issue, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, which details how much more likely self-described conservatives are to give. Brooks, a self-described independent said that he was surprised at the results of his studies.

 

[itinerant1]

People we call “conservatives” are not always for conserving the status quo. People we call “liberals” are not always for the expansion of individual freedoms.

In terms of charity, you might be surprised which people actually give. If you saw John Stossel’s expose on charity (back when he worked at ABC), it turns out that conservative families typically give more time, more of their income, and blood than liberal families. Arthur Brooks, a policy professor at Syracuse has written a book on the issue, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, which details how much more likely self-described conservatives are to give. Brooks, a self-described independent said that he was surprised at the results of his studies.

The staus quo is no longer Constitutional government. The Constitution has been turned upside down and federal govenrment is out of control.

“True conservatives” was my qualification. Rush Limbaugh, for instance, is popularly categorized as a conservative, but he is not for returning to a Constitutional form of government. This makes him a liberal conservative. Actually, Rush Limbaugh is a liberal who hates liberalism. People, with their various political views don’t always easily fit into one or another category.

 

[blueonblue82]

What makes me the most frustrated with American politics these days is it seems that there is no respect between self-professed liberals and conservatives. It’s impossible to dialogue without the resulting “Reductio Ad Nazium”.

People on both sides of fence say “liberal” and “conservative” like there is a piece of you-know -what in their mouths. Political junkies spew a verbal diarrhea of horrendous half-truths about the other side, all while aggrandizing minor accomplishments of their own side. I think Catholics of any political stripe must remember that we are called to love and to forgive, not condemnation and slander.

Being a moderate myself, I’ve heard the craziest things come from all political directions, left-right or up-down. To answer the OP question. I think you can be a Catholic liberal, but you must tread lightly. I also think Catholic conservatives must also tread lightly. These two political constructs do not fit neatly in with Catholic views, so we are all at risk of choosing the wrong horse.

 

[estesbob]

What makes me the most frustrated with American politics these days is it seems that there is no respect between self-professed liberals and conservatives. It’s impossible to dialogue without the resulting “Reductio Ad Nazium”.

People on both sides of fence say “liberal” and “conservative” like there is a piece of you-know -what in their mouths. Political junkies spew a verbal diarrhea of horrendous half-truths about the other side, all while aggrandizing minor accomplishments of their own side. I think Catholics of any political stripe must remember that we are called to love and to forgive, not condemnation and slander.

Being a moderate myself, I’ve heard the craziest things come from all political directions, left-right or up-down. To answer the OP question. I think you can be a Catholic liberal, but you must tread lightly. I also think Catholic conservatives must also tread lightly. These two political constructs do not fit neatly in with Catholic views, so we are all at risk of choosing the wrong horse.

I am a conservative and there is not a single thing i support that is in conflcit with the teachings of the Church. Modern Liberalism, OTH, is in conflict with the Church on core moral teachings especially on abortion and homosexualtiy.

Is it half truth to point out the that liberal canidate for President in the last election advocates unrestricted taxpayer funded abortions on demand, repeal of the defense of marriage act and Dont ask dont tell? That on his third day in office he released funds to pay for taxpayer funded abortions and forced sterlizations overseas? that the Democrat party platform support all this? That a Catholic can NOT vote for a canidate who supports the above?

People who call themsleves moderate seem to beleive that gives some kind of moral superiority that allows them cast stones at everyone else. In reality they tend to lean left . if calling out Catholics who support the above and claim they are in accordance with church teachings is slander and judgemental I am proudly guilty as charged

 

[love2learn]

The political party that is closest to my political views is the Constitution Party. My Republican friends object to my voting for a Constitution Part candidate saying the Constitution Party is still too small to win a presidential election…I shook Republican and Democratic Party dust from my feet and moved on.

I was dismayed to see on the CP website a quote by G.W. Bush trashing the Constitution (though the context was not given). Were either the Republicans or Democrats ever in line with the Constitution or have they both always been extra-Constitutional?

 

[blueonblue82]

I am a conservative and there is not a single thing i support that is in conflcit with the teachings of the Church. Modern Liberalism, OTH, is in conflict with the Church on core moral teachings especially on abortion and homosexualtiy.

Is it half truth to point out the that liberal canidate for President in the last election advocates unrestricted taxpayer funded abortions on demand, repeal of the defense of marriage act and Dont ask dont tell? That on his third day in office he released funds to pay for taxpayer funded abortions and forced sterlizations overseas? that the Democrat party platform support all this? That a Catholic can NOT vote for a canidate who supports the above?

People who call themsleves moderate seem to beleive that gives some kind of moral superiority that allows them cast stones at everyone else. In reality they tend to lean left . if calling out Catholics who support the above and claim they are in accordance with church teachings is slander and judgemental I am proudly guilty as charged

To be clear, when I say liberal I do not mean the Democratic Party. And when I say conservative, I am not referring to the Republican Party.

I agree that this administrations actions/claims you’ve mentioned up are in conflict with church teaching and are very upsetting. We need speak out against them, but we must do it knowledgeably, rationally, and back it up with sound proof. We have a right to be outraged, but that doesn’t give us a right to stoop to dramatics, sweeping generalizations, and petty insults. Not that we can’t speak out!! Hardly!!! I just have heard/read some pretty terrible things said about liberals/conservatives from other Catholics in the last few years that makes me incredibly sad.

It’s funny you should say you suspect that most moderates lean left. I’ve heard a variation of that accusation from liberal colleagues who know that I’m the middle-of-the-road type. But they say, most US moderates lean more towards the right. My guess is when you are one end of the spectrum everyone else who is not more liberal/conservative than you leans left/right.

 

[fbg36]

I’ve been a liberal practically my whole life, politically and in most other ways including my understanding and practice of religion (Catholic). I’m not sure how much of Catholic doctrine and biblical teaching are literally true. Some elements, such as the Genesis account of creation, are obviously figurative. How much more is figurative-symbolic, I don’t know. I do know that it’s the beautiful symbolism that matters most to me – liturgy, sacraments, sacramentals, etc. I don’t need literal belief in all dogma and scripture to enter into those things and practice my religion with love. If I have a core belief, it’s probably the deep sense of relationship that’s expressed in Psalm 139 (138 in the Vulgate Bible). That is my sense of God. Meantime I go to Mass and confession and communion, and pray.

Conservatism makes sense to me as long as it’s not a disguise for narrow mindedness, or worse, closed-mindedness, or an excuse to be “absolutely right” about practically everything, or a license to traffic in the usual fear and doom-saying that comes from the far right.

I have respect for other religions, and in the case of Buddhism and the more mystical side of Islam I’ve got affection and have experienced in them what in Christianity is called the Holy Spirit.

I have a special attachment to the “extraordinary” Latin Mass because of its beauty and its disciplined approach to worship and it’s solid connection to more than a thousand years of Catholic piety and tradition. On Sundays I make a 100-mile round-trip to help celebrate the Latin Mass at a church in another city.

So, “Can you be both Catholic and liberal?” Speaking for myself, yes.

Peace,

~ Frank

.

 

[PursuingLogos20]

I’ve been living in the States for almost 5 years and I realize that I’m using the word Liberal to refer to people and ideas that are the opposite of Conservative/Traditional/Religious/Biblical when discussing a moral issue.
In my country (France), the word Liberal has a different meaning and it can apply to some Catholic people/ideas/organizations as it has a “social concern” meaning.
France, on the other hand, is not considerate as a liberal country by French people. And now I’m confused because I realize that we have 2 different definitions on each side of the Atlantic Ocean. Why is that?

Friend, Here in America “Liberal” now means typically someone of the left-wing side of politics and who has very modern views on social, governmental, and economic issues (the most left-wing liberals believe in moral acceptance, sometimes even righteousness, of euthanasia, gay marriage, large government, poor getting richer at the expense of the rich, abortion, contraception, global warming/save the planet, legalization of illegal immigrants, large taxes make large economy, hypocracy/smug ignorance on experience (Obama had very little to no experience governing anything more than a senatorial seat before he entered office), and basic tolerance of anything that upsets other people (unless, of course, when it begins to upset them)).

America was founded by late 18th century “liberals” which we now call “Classical Liberals”, as much time has passed. Liberal, taken from its root meaning, means “freeing”. The liberal arts are supposed to “free” us from ignorance about our world: philosophy, astronomy, mathematics, greek/latin, theology, music, etc. So the"liberal" is very “free” in his opinions about governmental, social, and/or economic issues.

The Conservative is the exact opposite, maintaining a “status quo” policy on social issues (no abortion, euthanasia, contraception, gay marriage, etc.). Politically (Governmental), he only approves of decentralized, small government to ensure economic independence for the private sector (small to big businesses that are private ones) but not enough so that the US Govt cannot organize an army, tax, or pass any bills (we already tried this and revised it through the Articles of Confederation period of our history). Economically, I personally do not know much besides making sure government has no power to appoint/remove business officials that are not under their jurisdiction, no power to set salaries among businesses, and no power to unfairly tax essentials like gas, food, etc.

There are those who fall outside both extremes of liberal and conservative and these people are known as “Moderates” or “Independents”. They usually don’t act on party lines, either distrusting both or one, and therefore not associating themselves as “Republican” or “Democrat” which are more and more having “Conservative” and “Liberal” labels put on them, although this is true. However, these moderates usually PICK a party to vote for as voting for a moderate as themselves is usually a “vote wasted” (Moderates are still a very unusual group of people and do not really have much political sway). My home state of NJ for example recently elected a “moderate conservative Republican” named Chris Christie as governor, the last governor being a liberal Democrat named Jon Corzine.

In essence, there are two parties REP and DEM, with varying individuals in both parties (Moderates, a few but there are some conservative (socially at best) Democrats, etc.). If you are conservative, you tend to vote for the Republican party, and if you are liberal you tend to vote for the Democratic party. Some people are more liberal/conservative than others (their beliefs fall in line with more liberal/conservative associated issues) and others are at both ends.

I hope this answers your question.

 

[PursuingLogos20]

I was dismayed to see on the CP website a quote by G.W. Bush trashing the Constitution (though the context was not given). Were either the Republicans or Democrats ever in line with the Constitution or have they both always been extra-Constitutional?

Abraham Lincoln, my favorite president besides Washington and Calvin Coolidge, started the Republican Party, and he was most CERTAINLY a supporter of the Constitution.

Remember, those jerks that twist the different clauses in the bill of rights to be more relative than objective and who say our founding fathers would not have wanted prayer in schools (which is just a lie) usually belong to the liberal side of matters.

 

[itinerant1]

I was dismayed to see on the CP website a quote by G.W. Bush trashing the Constitution (though the context was not given). Were either the Republicans or Democrats ever in line with the Constitution or have they both always been extra-Constitutional?

The Republican and Democrat Parties have changed much over time. In the beginning of the 20th century, they were much closer to the Constitution.

Now, it is rare to find any person in political office who takes seriously his oath to uphold the Constitution. Rep. Ron Paul is the one exception that comes to mind.

Bush, Clinton, et al. found the Constitution to be an obstacle to their agendas. Clinton used executive orders to bypass the Constitution. One Clinton aide, Paul Begala, commented on Clinton’s executive orders: “Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool.” Modern Democrats and Republicans enjoy breaking Constitutional restraints. However, the Constitution invests law making power in the Congressional, and not the Executive branch: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” -(Article 1, U.S. Constitution)

Executive orders are just one of the many tricks presidents are using to usurp power and make laws. And Congress is not willing to do anything about these and other Constitutional violations. Congress itself does enough of its own side-stepping of the Constitution. Since the U.S. Constitution still remains the highest civil law of the land, it is accurate to say that the three federal branches of government, occupied primarily by Republicans and Democrats, is operating lawlessly and illegally.

The modern Democratic and Republican Parties = America’s Machiavellian political machinery.

 

[itinerant1]

Abraham Lincoln, my favorite president besides Washington and Calvin Coolidge, started the Republican Party, and he was most CERTAINLY a supporter of the Constitution.

Remember, those jerks that twist the different clauses in the bill of rights to be more relative than objective and who say our founding fathers would not have wanted prayer in schools (which is just a lie) usually belong to the liberal side of matters.

Lincoln was quite the violator of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. His transgressions became so numerous that he said he was suspending the Constitution in order to save it. However, the Constitution does not authorize any president to suspend it. In addition, Lincoln shut down numerous northern newspapers that editorialized against his war policies. Lincoln had editors imprisoned. Lincoln’s transgressions are too numerous to list here, but I am well familiar with the real Abraham Lincoln if you are interested in historical facts.

Lincoln may have saved the Union geographically, but he destroyed it constitutionally.

Regarding prayer in school, it’s interesting to note that Russians now have more freedom than we do. Father Myron Effing told me he can go into any public school in Russia and give pro-life talks to the students.

 

[PursuingLogos20]

Lincoln was quite the violator of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. His transgressions became so numerous that he said he was suspending the Constitution in order to save it. However, the Constitution does not authorize any president to suspend it. In addition, Lincoln shut down numerous northern newspapers that editorialized against his war policies. Lincoln had editors imprisoned. Lincoln’s transgressions are too numerous to list here, but I am well familiar with the real Abraham Lincoln if you are interested in historical facts.

Lincoln may have saved the Union geographically, but he destroyed it constitutionally.

Regarding prayer in school, it’s interesting to note that Russians now have more freedom than we do. Father Myron Effing told me he can go into any public school in Russia and give pro-life talks to the students.

The Russians? Really?..Well, at least what he does might be true only in Siberia/Eastern Russia.

I am well aware of Lincoln’s transgressions on the Constitution in the Civil War, but am willing to accept them. I think if we did not suspend some rights for the war, much more unnecessary bloodshed would have been spilled. Loyalty to the Union and what it stood for was of utmost importance in a war that shook the very foundations of our understanding of the constitution, our culture (Lincoln-Douglas debates went on to disprove/prove what would be constitutionally acceptable about the spread of slavery; what the Founding Fathers would have done.) The fact that the betrayal of border states was a harsh possibility in states like Maryland, Kentucky, and Tennessee made the situation to control morale for the Union side ever more apparent. It’s the fault of those money-driven, irresponsible journalists that Lincoln imprisoned them for being disruptive. He was a gentleman, but war changes men. Makes their stronger, more focused. Remember if those border states seceded, and the capital taken, we’d probably have been a split nation with a hostile neighbor to our south. Keeping the capital was key. Lincoln was a good man, a smart man, and was put, like presidents before and after him, in a tough situation, and had to make some tough decisions. If he had respect enough for the Constitution going into the war to fight one for it, but didn’t have the chance to aid in the aftermath, how much can you really blame him for the outcome?

 

[itinerant1]

The Russians? Really?..Interesting.

I am well aware of Lincoln’s transgressions on the Constitution in the Civil War, but am willing to accept them. I think if we did not suspend some rights for the war, much more unnecessary bloodshed would have been spilled. Loyalty to the Union and what it stood for was of utmost importance in a war that shook the very foundations of our understanding of the constitution, our culture (Lincoln-Douglas debates went on to disprove/prove what would be constitutionally acceptable about the spread of slavery; what the Founding Fathers would have done.) The fact that the betrayal of border states was a harsh possibility in states like Maryland, Kentucky, and Tennessee made the situation to control morale for the Union side ever more apparent. It’s the fault of those money-driven, irresponsible journalists that Lincoln imprisoned them for being disruptive. He was a gentleman, but war changes men. Makes their stronger, more focused. Remember if those border states seceded, and the capital taken, we’d probably have been a split nation with a hostile neighbor to our south. Keeping the capital was key. Lincoln was a good man, a smart man, and was put, like presidents before and after him, in a tough situation, and had to make some tough decisions. If he had respect enough for the Constitution going into the war to fight one for it, but didn’t have the chance to aid in the aftermath, how much can you really blame him for the outcome?

First of all, the war was not about slavery as far as Lincoln’s motives for engaging the states that seceded. He was concerned that he would lose money. He said “How then shall I get my tariff?” The northern states were milking the southern states for tariffs. The revenue was not equally distributed, but unfairly so, to favor northern industrial development. Keeping the capital involved northern greed, especially the greed of those who wanted to build trans-continental railroad lines. The big industrial interests had Lincoln in their pocket.

There was no betrayal by seceding states. The Union was a voluntary association of states, which being voluntary, possessed the legal and natural right to secede any time they so chose. The right of secession was even incorporated in some states’ constitutions.

The first states ever to threaten secession were northern states influenced by the abolitionists. One of America’s founding documents, the Declaration of Independence enshrines the right of secession. Check it out. America was founded on secession from Great Britain. That is why the Europeans had a hard time figuring out what the war was about.

Lincoln violated not only the Constitution but the principles of the Declaration of Independence. That fact became clear when President Jefferson Davis was held on a charge of treason after the war. The best lawyers in the north volunteered their services to defend Davis. Eventually, the federal government realized they had no case against Davis, because his actions were perfectly legal. The treason charge was dropped and Davis was freed.

Lincoln was also a white separatist. His administration kicked around ideas for removing Negroes from the Union. Sending them back to Africa or to work on the Panama Canal were two of the ideas Lincoln seriously considered.

Lincoln contributed to the ruin of morale with his war propaganda. He frequently stated that if the South was allowed to secede it would destroy the chance for democratic government anywhere in the world. It was an absurd line of propaganda. It was the big lie.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

God save us.

The eugenics bill has passed. With this piece of Marxist legislation, it seems that God has abandoned America.

In truth it is we who have abandoned God, and liberals must bear their share of the blame. With their unholy sacrament of abortion, with planet-worship, with the embrace of communism and intrusive government, they have led the way.

I do not want abortions being funded at gunpoint on MY dime. I do not want people being arrested for bending a blade of ‘endangered grass’ or picking up the feather of some bird, while babies are being torn from their mother’s wombs with the smiling approval of the left.

There is NOTHING Catholic in this.

For shame.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Well, what beliefs of theirs makes them “left wing”? If it is not Abortion, is it euthanasia, the death penalty, pro-homosexuality, or something else?

The “Liberal” agenda appears to encompass ALL of these (among many others contrary to the Faith). So if one believes in only a few select items, they view themselves as “leaning left”. But, in my opinion and in seeing the effects on several close to me, the road quickly leads to affirming all of the liberal agenda.

That may be true of the USA, today (or it may not ) - it is not necessarily true of anywhere else, nor of all places at all times, nor in all matters.​

If there were no other religious or political experience than that among certain Christians in the US today, then it might be valid for all times & places. Since hpwever the US is just one rather recent country, among about 200 others, there is no reason why what is defined as liberal among certain Christians and excoriated as such, at the present day, should be what counts as liberal for all men in all matters. Liberalism, means different things in different contexts.

STM the word is used as a bogeyman

 

[LJinPA]

Liberal and Conservative are relative terms. I’m Catholic and consider myself a moderate though all over the map both politically and theologically but I am pro-life.

I hate polemics, scapegoating and demogoguery from either side. Both sides feed off of each other dividing the world into good guys and all bad guys and then paint charicatures of them. As long as one accepts the official teaching of the church I’m sure one can have some flexibility within those bounds (compassionate orthodoxy). God gave people varying personalities and temperaments some people are naturally stern some more empathetic but both have a place.
Us vs them thinking is collective egotism and not Christian.

Also some people labeled far right or far left gets the extreme label to to their tone or pugnacious temperament and not their ideology.

I happen to agree with Liberals on wanting equality, justice, diversity, tolerance, peace, and ending poverty but I disagree many times with their means to reaching that end. The end doesn’t justify the means.

I agree with Conservatives who want to end Abortion, strong families, but not with the constant angry, divisive, paranoid, scapegoatish, or smug tone I see with a few of their pundits.

The Catholic church is getting polarized also with moderate voices of reason becoming rare. I agree with Conservatives that we need Orthodoxy or else we will have a nail in our tire that may run fine for now but will eventually deflate. But some conservatives can be smug, judgmental, obsessive-compulsive, over-scrupulous and pessimistic.
I agree with Liberals in that there needs to be more empathy in applying orthodoxy to reality and that we should love the sinner hate the sin. But some so called progressives try to change truth and want the church to follow every fad and can get downright silly. There is also hypocracy and double-standards on both sides. We need a balance of personalities.
If some “liberals” or “modernists” seems more tending to “sins of the flesh”, it seems pride and anger seems to be a problem on the “far right”.

If only I had a nickel for all the times I hear the words Conservative and Liberal on TV…:banghead:

 

[PursuingLogos20]

First of all, the war was not about slavery as far as Lincoln’s motives for engaging the states that seceded. He was concerned that he would lose money. He said “How then shall I get my tariff?” The northern states were milking the southern states for tariffs. The revenue was not equally distributed, but unfairly so, to favor northern industrial development. Keeping the capital involved northern greed, especially the greed of those who wanted to build trans-continental railroad lines. The big industrial interests had Lincoln in their pocket.

There was no betrayal by seceding states. The Union was a voluntary association of states, which being voluntary, possessed the legal and natural right to secede any time they so chose. The right of secession was even incorporated in some states’ constitutions.

The first states ever to threaten secession were northern states influenced by the abolitionists. One of America’s founding documents, the Declaration of Independence enshrines the right of secession. Check it out. America was founded on secession from Great Britain. That is why the Europeans had a hard time figuring out what the war was about.

Lincoln violated not only the Constitution but the principles of the Declaration of Independence. That fact became clear when President Jefferson Davis was held on a charge of treason after the war. The best lawyers in the north volunteered their services to defend Davis. Eventually, the federal government realized they had no case against Davis, because his actions were perfectly legal. The treason charge was dropped and Davis was freed.

Lincoln was also a white separatist. His administration kicked around ideas for removing Negroes from the Union. Sending them back to Africa or to work on the Panama Canal were two of the ideas Lincoln seriously considered.

Lincoln contributed to the ruin of morale with his war propaganda. He frequently stated that if the South was allowed to secede it would destroy the chance for democratic government anywhere in the world. It was an absurd line of propaganda. It was the big lie.

I disagree with you on many points here, friend, and while I do not believe in ad hominum, I must say that you seem incredibly OUTLANDISH for making such statements!

There’s a right to secession in the D of I? Really? The closest I found for it is this “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”.

You say Lincoln incurred the Civil War just so he can get tax money?..I do not know how even to respond to that. I have never even HEARD of someone going that low below the belt…If there is any truth to these statements of yours, I would appreciate some DOCUMENTATION so that I may confirm it…however if you have NONE, then you are one of the most radical, “the south will rise again” shouters that I have ever met!