Hypocrisy and Right vs. Left Wing

[ribozyme]

But his clarity is simply breath taking. When I ask an Evangelical Protestant about social justice issues, I’ll often hear responses to the effect ‘abortion is more important because it is better to be suffering in poverty than dead…’ From a Protestant point of view, with its rejection of our beliefs about things like baptism, this does not even make much sense. But, even from a Catholic point of view it is arguing evil as a zero sum game, justice for the unborn must come at other’s expense…

Compare this to the Pope’s argument in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI. He approaches it from the other direction. These are inalianable rights of the human person. Given by God, affirmed by Scripture, and held as absolute by the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. This is, in effect, what we already hold most dear. And, the most fundemental of these rights is life…

The arguments may seem similiar, but they are not. One is, I think, hypocritical. It professes to pursue justice in the name of Christ, but starts with the assumption that it is impractical to apply the same principles universally. The other is cohesive and coherent.** Abortion is not an issue in isolation, but one of many aspects of a fundemental belief in the right to life, at “any stage” and in “any condition”…**

Again, this is not knew, consider this quote from Pope Stephen V in the 9th century:

“If he who destroys what is conceived in the womb by abortion is a murderer, how much more is he unable to excuse himself of murder who kills a child even one day old.” - Pope Stephen V, Epistle to Archbishop of Mainz

More than a thousand years have passed since that was written, but the topic is still relevant. Our inalianable rights of the human person do not end at birth. So it is hypocritical to only treasure life, without exception, when it has not yet even reached its most clearly identifiable form.

Emphasis mine:

You are only demonstrating the veracity of his earlier statements by monomanically focusing on abortion. Liberals, such as myself, need to accept that most Catholics will be against abortion. However, liberalism is not about promoting abortion, but one of its primary objectives is to make sure that the weakest in society are adequately taken care off. Such beliefs are motivatived by utilitarian principles of Mill and Bentham as their utilitarianism augmented the classic Lockean liberalism. Some utilitarian liberals such as myself accept abortion because one can coherently argue that an inchoate fetus is not a “person.” However, liberals must accept that Catholics do not adhere to the utilitarian ethical scheme, but some liberals such as myself abhor the idee fixe of abortion by some Catholics.

If you think liberalism is about promoting abortion, go to www.cbpp.org. That website promotes a liberal agenda, but it doesn’t obsessively talk about abortion. Liberalism is more than promoting abortion rights.

 

[estesbob]

Emphasis mine:

You are only demonstrating the veracity of his earlier statements by monomanically focusing on abortion.

Hes **monomanically **focusing on abortion!!! WOW-ill bet he didnt know that !!! We are so blessed to have someone with your massive intellect point these things out to us.

 

[BamaRider]

Concerning post #260 someone help me, but I don’t get it. Where has ANY conservative wanted to deny life to ANYONE?

:banghead:

 

[vern_humphrey]

Emphasis mine:

You are only demonstrating the veracity of his earlier statements by monomanically focusing on abortion. Liberals, such as myself, need to accept that most Catholics will be against abortion. However, liberalism is not about promoting abortion, but one of its primary objectives is to make sure that the weakest in society are adequately taken care off.

As the Godfather might say, “Buggsy, go take care of dat kid.”

 

[BamaRider]

As they say around these parts- "Get me outta here Vern."

 

[estesbob]

Concerning post #260 someone help me, but I don’t get it. Where has ANY conservative wanted to deny life to ANYONE?

:banghead:

Beats me. i dont hink there is a point to his post other tan to show us how many BIG words he can fit in to impress us with how very very smart he is. Thee is hope-at his age I was a McGovern supporter

 

[SoCalRC]

As presented above these paragraphs contradict one another and I think a large part of the difference in the positions staked out in this thread is determined by which paragraph is believed to present the guiding principle.

If, as is stated in paragraph one, all other human rights issues are “false and illusory” if the fundamental right to life is compromised, then abortion will be the overriding, uncompromisable issue. If, as paragraph two states, all offenses against life, integrity, and the dignity of the human person are thrown together as a “supreme dishonor to the Creator” then we have not only the license but the obligation to factor in issues like the minimum wage and OSHA requirements.

My opinion is that, while there is (unfortunately) a laundry list of issues of true evil that need to be addressed, the belief that we can resolve them at the expense of the actual right to life issues is … false and illusory.

Ender

But the Church does not throw all offenses together, it does draw a distinction between what it considers absolute moral imperitives and issues subject to proportional means.

The question is, why are so many Catholics willing to cross that line and declare it not only just, but morally superior?

Think of it this way, imagine a spectacularly effective public figure who, quite literally, moves mountains with regards to abortion in the US. This person not only appears to be the single most essential incredient in massive reductions in abortions and huge shifts in public opinion, it appears unstoppable - virtually 0 abortions appears an attainable goal.

There is just one problem, the person is a serial killer. For all appearances, there is terrible guilt and remorse, but horrible urges inevitably win and once or twice a month someone is tortured and murdered. Let’s say over 5 years we are looking at millions of fetuses, versus 100 victims.

Far fetched? Consider the situation we have now. We have 100+ torture deaths of detainees over the last five years. Murder, like abortion and euthanasia has been declared to be, infallibly, always a grave moral disorder.

Further, if we examine the Catechism we will find that the torture or mistreatment of detainees is absolutely prohibited in war. Its presence invalidates a just war argument. So, casualties, particularly civilian casualties (which are already prohibited under the Catechism) become murder. Which, again, is held to be infallibly immoral.

The principle difference is that, unlike my hypothetical, we have no tangible evidence that the same folks proclaiming that they have the legal right to torture and mutilate even innocent children have made any measurable progress with regards to abortion what-so-ever.

Again, I know where I stand, both on the hypothetical and the reality. I will not compromise on principles that the Church has indicated are non negotiable in my public life. For all the sneering and false witness, I haven’t heard anyone explain why they, in good concience, disagree.

 

[SoCalRC]

Why are we having this discussion then? SoCal says he votes staunchly Catholic. I’ll take him at his word. That means there is only one party for him come fall.

You are incorrect. This is the US. The ‘two party’ system is not mandatory, it is a side effect of the pursuit of earthly power.

People say that they cannot vote outside the existing parties because it would “waste” their vote, or “dillute” their power.

The way I see it, voting my faith is a form of standing with God, so it can never be a waste. The benefits may not come in this life, but my obligation remains the same. Further, I accept that God is the only true source of power, so placing more trust in a political party than God would be idolatry for me.

From there SoCalRC et al can decide which is the most Catholic.

Again, as a Catholic, I reject moral relativity. The Church has explained that, with regards to my political life, 9 broad moral principles cannot be abridged. 1 of 9, 2 of 9, or even 8 of 9 is not enough - non negotiable means just that:

"In this context “limiting the harm”], it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.

When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning…"

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

The Church is clear, if I compromise on any of the 9 moral principles that follow, I am ignoring an inalienable ethical demand, at the expense of the essence of moral law, and potentially undermining Catholicism itself.

You support secret detention and torture (with related murders). Those you support have already indicated that even the mutilation of children is within the realm of activities that they permitted. I cannot, any more than I can accept the abortion of innocents.

 

[BamaRider]

You are only demonstrating the veracity of his earlier statements by monomanically focusing on abortion. Liberals, such as myself, need to accept that most Catholics will be against abortion. However, liberalism is not about promoting abortion, but one of its primary objectives is to make sure that the weakest in society are adequately taken care off. Such beliefs are motivatived by utilitarian principles of Mill and Bentham as their utilitarianism augmented the classic Lockean liberalism. Some utilitarian liberals such as myself accept abortion because one can coherently argue that an inchoate fetus is not a “person.” However, liberals must accept that Catholics do not adhere to the utilitarian ethical scheme, but some liberals such as myself abhor the idee fixe of abortion by some Catholics.

One thing a guy like me loves to do, is let a lib keep talking and eventually you’ll see the truth about what he believes.

Taken from the quote above-

“However, liberalism is not about promoting abortion, but one of its primary objectives is to make sure that the weakest in society are adequately taken care off”

What I find compelling here, is the premise “want to take care of the most weakest in society.” Now I dunno how much weaker you can get in than a baby in the womb, so why they treat that baby, the way they do, is beyond me. You just have no crediblity when you say you have concern for the weakest of our society when you are pro choice, now c’mon.

And you’re NEVER gonna convince me liberalism is NOT about advancing abortion. What makes you think that???

For crying out loud, there is ONE party in this country that will do all it can to preserve a bunch of unhatched eggs from seagulls to give them a chance to live, but if you try to do that with baby, they jump up and down cry “you can’t do that.”
**
Now** get me outta here Vern.

 

[BamaRider]

You support secret detention and torture (with related murders). Those you support have already indicated that even the mutilation of children is within the realm of activities that they permitted. I cannot, any more than I can accept the abortion of innocents.

If some wacko has info about a nuke being popped off in Atlanta, I support our military and intelligence in whatever they have to do to prevent it. End of story.

I don’t buy the premise our soldiers are killing and torturing innocents as a policy. Have some acted badly? Yes and they have been dealt with. I’m not going along with the notion my country rounds up innocents for the heck of it and tortues them. And I’ll extend that belief to any American President or party.

Have some been detained? Probably, but all I’m gonna tell them is becareful of the friends you keep, or risk a Navy Seal Team coming to see ya one night.

Vern I thought you were gonna get me outta here?? LOL

 

[BamaRider]

You are incorrect. This is the US. The ‘two party’ system is not mandatory, it is a side effect of the pursuit of earthly power.

People say that they cannot vote outside the existing parties because it would “waste” their vote, or “dillute” their power.

The way I see it, voting my faith is a form of standing with God, so it can never be a waste. The benefits may not come in this life, but my obligation remains the same. Further, I accept that God is the only true source of power, so placing more trust in a political party than God would be idolatry for me.

Again, as a Catholic, I reject moral relativity. The Church has explained that, with regards to my political life, 9 broad moral principles cannot be abridged. 1 of 9, 2 of 9, or even 8 of 9 is not enough - non negotiable means just that:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

The Church is clear, if I compromise on any of the 9 moral principles that follow, I am ignoring an inalienable ethical demand, at the expense of the essence of moral law, and potentially undermining Catholicism itself.

You support secret detention and torture (with related murders). Those you support have already indicated that even the mutilation of children is within the realm of activities that they permitted. I cannot, any more than I can accept the abortion of innocents.

So all this means you won’t be voting Democratic this fall. Thank you.

 

[SoCalRC]

Becuase they are the same cut n posts rants he always makes. They can be summed up with this:

He hates republicans
God hates republicans
The Church backs up his views.

I will have to admit that some of the tales he spins are quite amusing-i guess we have moved on from republicans forcing women into slavery to the republicans having a private army(blackwater) and wanting to to turn the whitehouse over to a fundamentalist preacher.

Again, another fine example of diversity in mental processes. In this very thread I have (as I have many times previously) indicated that I view everyone as a fellow child of God.

I have never once stated that God hates anyone. I think that you are confusing me with the Evangelical thought you regularly bombard yourself with from right wing outlets. A GOP presidential hopeful actively sought the endorsement of someone who has proclaimed that God hates Catholics and is angry at America for tolerating us. Similiarly, multiple voices in the GOP ‘religious base’ (ex. Pat Robertson) have declared that God hates America because we tolerate gays.

I, myself, believe that our pope has it correct and would recommend reading his first encyclical “God is Love”.

I must admit, I do quote the Church, a lot. My interpretation of statements is certainly fallible. That is why I generally include long quotes and links to the original. However, although you are quick to dismiss my interpretations, there are a number of questions that you have never answered. For example,

Why do you believe that it is morally acceptable to compromise on moral issues that the Church has stated are non-negotiable?

Why do you believe that it is morally acceptable to compromise even on the issue of abortion?

You have previously indicated that you represent a morally superior form of Catholicism and that you, and others like you, are the “source” of all discernable good, can you point to any tangible evidence that you have, in fact, accomplished any good?

In a seeming contradiction, you once declared that the GOP was the “source” of the same good you, yourself, had previously claimed responsibility for. Are you truly indicating that the GOP is a chosen people, specially annointed by God - or are you rejecting the conventional Catholic Dogma that God is the true source of good?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

If some wacko has info about a nuke being popped off in Atlanta, I support our military and intelligence in whatever they have to do to prevent it. End of story.

I don’t buy the premise our soldiers are killing and torturing innocents as a policy. Have some acted badly? Yes and they have been dealt with. I’m not going along with the notion my country rounds up innocents for the heck of it and tortues them. And I’ll extend that belief to any American President or party.

Have some been detained? Probably, but all I’m gonna tell them is becareful of the friends you keep, or risk a Navy Seal Team coming to see ya one night.

Vern I thought you were gonna get me outta here?? LOL

Bama,

You see, it is that new math.

Millions of innocent killed via aboritons is morally less than a handful of suspected terrorists being held.

In any criminal justice system, there will be a small percentage of people who are wrongly accused or treated poorly.

File this under “false equivocacy.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern I thought you were gonna get me outta here?? LOL

Stand still. I can’t get a lock on you with the tractor beam.

And go easy on these people – they’re generating material for my new business.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Again, another fine example of diversity in mental processes. In this very thread I have (as I have many times previously) indicated that I view everyone as a fellow child of God.

I have never once stated that God hates anyone. I think that you are confusing me with the Evangelical thought you regularly bombard yourself with from right wing outlets. A GOP presidential hopeful actively sought the endorsement of someone who has proclaimed that God hates Catholics and is angry at America for tolerating us. Similiarly, multiple voices in the GOP ‘religious base’ (ex. Pat Robertson) have declared that God hates America because we tolerate gays.

I, myself, believe that our pope has it correct and would recommend reading his first encyclical “God is Love”.

I must admit, I do quote the Church, a lot. My interpretation of statements is certainly fallible. That is why I generally include long quotes and links to the original. However, although you are quick to dismiss my interpretations, there are a number of questions that you have never answered. For example,

Why do you believe that it is morally acceptable to compromise on moral issues that the Church has stated are non-negotiable?

Why do you believe that it is morally acceptable to compromise even on the issue of abortion?

You have previously indicated that you represent a morally superior form of Catholicism and that you, and others like you, are the “source” of all discernable good, can you point to any tangible evidence that you have, in fact, accomplished any good?

In a seeming contradiction, you once declared that the GOP was the “source” of the same good you, yourself, had previously claimed responsibility for. Are you truly indicating that the GOP is a chosen people, specially annointed by God - or are you rejecting the conventional Catholic Dogma that God is the true source of good?

And there is another canidate out there who supported a pastor for 20 years who spewed racist remarks toward middle class white people.

 

[BamaRider]

Again, another fine example of diversity in mental processes. In this very thread I have (as I have many times previously) indicated that I view everyone as a fellow child of God.

I have never once stated that God hates anyone. I think that you are confusing me with the Evangelical thought you regularly bombard yourself with from right wing outlets. A GOP presidential hopeful actively sought the endorsement of someone who has proclaimed that God hates Catholics and is angry at America for tolerating us. Similiarly, multiple voices in the GOP ‘religious base’ (ex. Pat Robertson) have declared that God hates America because we tolerate gays.

I, myself, believe that our pope has it correct and would recommend reading his first encyclical “God is Love”.

I must admit, I do quote the Church, a lot. My interpretation of statements is certainly fallible. That is why I generally include long quotes and links to the original. However, although you are quick to dismiss my interpretations, there are a number of questions that you have never answered. For example,

Why do you believe that it is morally acceptable to compromise on moral issues that the Church has stated are non-negotiable?

Why do you believe that it is morally acceptable to compromise even on the issue of abortion?

You have previously indicated that you represent a morally superior form of Catholicism and that you, and others like you, are the “source” of all discernable good, can you point to any tangible evidence that you have, in fact, accomplished any good?

In a seeming contradiction, you once declared that the GOP was the “source” of the same good you, yourself, had previously claimed responsibility for. Are you truly indicating that the GOP is a chosen people, specially annointed by God - or are you rejecting the conventional Catholic Dogma that God is the true source of good?

SoCal- EstesBob has said no such thing.

 

[SoCalRC]

What you, like all Southerners, don’t seem to realize is the tremendous social progress that has been made in California…

If you wish to cut me down with sharp wit, then I would suggest attacking an argument that I have made. I have stated that I think that socio economic disparities have no bearing on rightousness. I also consider all to be children of God.

I simply pointed out that, although Bama is willing to proclaim the moral superiority of his state’s residents, there is no tangible, secular, evidence to support his claim.

SoCalRC is going to vote for the Dem candidate for president.

Highly unlikely. I have never voted for a pro-choice candidate and cannot envision starting this cycle. The difference is not pro life/choice, the difference is that I believe that the Church’s assertion of non negotiable principles is correct. I believe that compromising the right to life in the name of abortion is, ultimately, counter productive.

You, seemingly, disagree, but do not seem willing to explain why.

I admit that I have been avoiding directly responding to your posts, convincing myself that I was addressing most aspects in posts to others. But, to be frank, your constant assertion to know my heart and mind, assigning me even secret motives in contrast to my stated words, strike me as distinctly un Christian. The Catechism instructs us to view the statements of others in the most charitable light. In this, I inevitably fail. I am, after all, just another sinner. But, with your posts in this thread, I fail more spectacularly than usual.

My thought had been that, by avoiding you, I would be less tempted to answer in what I would perceive to be ‘like’ ways. However, after praying over the matter (and for you), I have concluded that dismissive silence is already the sin I have been trying to avoid. So, I will endeavor to answer any further questions you pose, with the exception that I will not bother to correct any addition gross mistatements about what I have stated or aspirtions about my truthfulness or integrity as a fellow Catholic.

Peace

 

[SoCalRC]

SoCal- EstesBob has said no such thing.

Try using the search function.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Try using the search function.

I believe the rules place that burden on you.

 

[SoCalRC]

And there is another canidate out there who supported a pastor for 20 years who spewed racist remarks toward middle class white people.

I actually find this non-sensical on several levels. Two wrongs do not make a right, that has been my point. You cannot support life in one form at the expense of another.

I certainly am not contrasting dems vs. gop, I am simply stating that, living in the highest density of Christians in human history, I see no reason to compromise on what the Church has declared cannot be compromised.

Last, I have heard similiar theology in more than one homily, albiet inevitably in more temperate language. When one suppresses emotion (nationalist and otherwise), the sentiments are neither particularly new, or unique. We can find them in the Bible (the prophet Jeremiah comes to mind) and, as noted, in plentiful supply on the self described religious right.