Hypocrisy of the left

[Jason_Weishaupt]

They stand out-side of prisons holding candle light vigles for those on death row. They say that the government has no authority to decide life and death of those on death row. The very next day they come out and yell that the government should pull the plug on Terri. They want to kill unborn babies, they want to pull the plug on the handicapped but they do not want their fellow killers on death row to be put to death.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Jason Weishaupt

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Jason Weishaupt:

They stand out-side of prisons holding candle light vigles for those on death row. They say that the government has no authority to decide life and death of those on death row. The very next day they come out and yell that the government should pull the plug on Terri. They want to kill unborn babies, they want to pull the plug on the handicapped but they do not want their fellow killers on death row to be put to death.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Jason Weishaupt

I concur.

 

[jim_orr]

In response to the title of your thread…What’s new?

 

[Matt25]

Jason Weishaupt:

They stand out-side of prisons holding candle light vigles for those on death row. They say that the government has no authority to decide life and death of those on death row. The very next day they come out and yell that the government should pull the plug on Terri. They want to kill unborn babies, they want to pull the plug on the handicapped but they do not want their fellow killers on death row to be put to death.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Jason Weishaupt

What about Right wingers who support executing their fellow citizens but yell that Terry must live? Is that a consistent pro-life position?

Name names, which left wingers have ‘yelled pull the plug’.

How do you mean ‘fellow killers’ exactly?

Saying Liberalism is a mental disorder is just a vulgar insult and indicates you lack the arguments to deal with people who are no less intelligent, educated and balanced than yourself. If you find the idea of actually discussing stuff in a discussion forum to difficult to cope with then maybe you should not be here.

 

[Della]

Matt25:

What about Right wingers who support executing their fellow citizens but yell that Terry must live? Is that a consistent pro-life position?

Since I don’t think all people on the left are automatically evil, I will only respond to this part of your post.

When people call for the death penalty they ought to be calling for justice not revenge. The death penalty is, besides incarceration, the only way the state can bring justice to its citizens. The state cannot judge souls but it can exact penalties on bodies, which is all it has jurisdiction over.

The death penalty is not intrinsically evil, and the pope has never said so because if he did he would be violating Church teaching. He has said it should be used rarely if at all. I don’t agree with him there, not because I don’t want to see mercy done to criminals, but because it is the duty of the state to exact justice within the law, so if a state’s death penalty is rightly and properly judged necessary that is the business of the state.

In Terri’s case her civil rights were violated in a way we wouldn’t tolerate in the case of a convicted felon. That is why people are protesting, including me, and I think rightly so under the particular circumstances of her case.

 

[oldfogey]

To equate the death penalty with taking nutrition from Terri Schiavo is so simplistic as to be laughable, and IS indicative of the minimal reasoning processes of the Left. Murderers have KILLED SOMEONE, Terri never hurt anyone.

 

[Matt25]

Della:

When people call for the death penalty they ought to be calling for justice not revenge. The death penalty is, besides incarceration, the only way the state can bring justice to its citizens. The state cannot judge souls but it can exact penalties on bodies, which is all it has jurisdiction over.

In what way is killing someone bringing justice to society?

Justice according to the Catechism is

1807 *Justice *is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the “virtue of religion.” Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. The just man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbor. "You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor."68 “Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.”

Social justice is

**ARTICLE 3
SOCIAL JUSTICE **

**1928 **Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority.

**I. RESPECT FOR THE HUMAN PERSON **

**1929 **Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him:

What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.35 **1930 **Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.36 If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

**1931 **Respect for the human person proceeds by way of respect for the principle that "everyone should look upon his neighbor (without any exception) as ‘another self,’ above all bearing in mind his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity."37 No legislation could by itself do away with the fears, prejudices, and attitudes of pride and selfishness which obstruct the establishment of truly fraternal societies. Such behavior will cease only through the charity that finds in every man a “neighbor,” a brother.

**1932 **The duty of making oneself a neighbor to others and actively serving them becomes even more urgent when it involves the disadvantaged, in whatever area this may be. "As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."38

**1933 **This same duty extends to those who think or act differently from us. The teaching of Christ goes so far as to require the forgiveness of offenses. He extends the commandment of love, which is that of the New Law, to all enemies.39 Liberation in the spirit of the Gospel is incompatible with hatred of one’s enemy as a person, but not with hatred of the evil that he does as an enemy.

 

[Matt25]

oldfogey:

To equate the death penalty with taking nutrition from Terri Schiavo is so simplistic as to be laughable, and IS indicative of the minimal reasoning processes of the Left. Murderers have KILLED SOMEONE, Terri never hurt anyone.

The left did not do that it was the gentleman that started this thread. Personally I agree with the Holy Father both Capital Punishment and euthanasia are wrong. Both are part of the Culture of Death.

 

[Della]

Matt25:

In what way is killing someone bringing justice to society?

I am not at odds with the Catechism or with the Church’s position on the death penalty. So, why weary us with lots of citations that do not deal with it?

As to my not believing that all liberals are evil I cite this interview: foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151369,00.html, just so you’ll see my thinking isn’t merely two-dimensional. And no, I am not making any judgment about your thinking processes.

Oops! I see it doesn’t take you to the exact story. It’s the Lanny Davis story on the far right (no pun intended ).

 

[GoodSamaritan]

Della:

Since I don’t think all people on the left are automatically evil, I will only respond to this part of your post.

When people call for the death penalty they ought to be calling for justice not revenge. The death penalty is, besides incarceration, the only way the state can bring justice to its citizens. The state cannot judge souls but it can exact penalties on bodies, which is all it has jurisdiction over.

The death penalty is not intrinsically evil, and the pope has never said so because if he did he would be violating Church teaching. He has said it should be used rarely if at all. I don’t agree with him there, not because I don’t want to see mercy done to criminals, but because it is the duty of the state to exact justice within the law, so if a state’s death penalty is rightly and properly judged necessary that is the business of the state.

In Terri’s case her civil rights were violated in a way we wouldn’t tolerate in the case of a convicted felon. That is why people are protesting, including me, and I think rightly so under the particular circumstances of her case.

I agree that there exists a major difference between Terri and the death penalty. Both are unnecessary and fundamental violations of justice. Are they morally equivalent? No. The destruction of the innocent in a cruel and unusual manner would seem to take precedent. Still, this assumption that the state has the authority to take away human dignity (innocent or other) via execution of a human life is a false one.

It seems that many would equate the state’s killing of a criminal with ‘justice’. Well, according to the Church, it is NOT just if a bloodless manner exists to administer justice. Life in prison is that manner. Given the fact that this alternative exists, execution of criminals stops being just and starts being vengeance.

 

[Jay74]

Matt25:

What about Right wingers who support executing their fellow citizens but yell that Terry must live? Is that a consistent pro-life position?

Yes it is consistent. Those of us who support the death penalty do so precisely because we value life. We believe that life is so precious, that intentionally taking anothe persons life is deserving of the highest consequnce. It is very consistent.

I agree that those who support execution and say they are pro-life should have to answer for the perceived inconsistency. I believe many of us have a very good answer for it.

Likewise, I’d think those who oppose the death penalty for murderers, yet support abortion and support starving Terri, should explain the inconsistency as well.

I won’t make an ad hominem attack on those who oppose the death penalty–many fine people oppose capital punishment, and their reasons are certainly understandable (there are morally and intellectually honest arguments on both sides). Honestly, though, I’m at a loss for intellectually and morally honest arguments for starving terri.

 

[Lisa_N]

Matt25:

What about Right wingers who support executing their fellow citizens but yell that Terry must live? Is that a consistent pro-life position?

Name names, which left wingers have ‘yelled pull the plug’.

How do you mean ‘fellow killers’ exactly?

Saying Liberalism is a mental disorder is just a vulgar insult and indicates you lack the arguments to deal with people who are no less intelligent, educated and balanced than yourself. If you find the idea of actually discussing stuff in a discussion forum to difficult to cope with then maybe you should not be here.

Well Matt then maybe you can 'slplain to me what seem to be incredibly inconsistent positions taken by people on the left. Trust me I spend a LOT of time with liberals so I know what they say and the positions they take.

So riddle me this, a liberal will demand a woman’s ‘right to choose’ death for her unborn baby literally up to the second it clears her body. Yet that same liberal will demand rights for whales and polar bears and convicted criminals. Even before I became a Catholic, I thought this position was incredibly inconsistent from a human rights/Constitutional position. You do not need a religious base to believe that if human rights are to be protected, you need to protect the innocent as well as the guilty.

The liberals are the ones siding with Michael Schiavo. The same people who deman women’s rights and equality are allowing Mr S to treat his wife like a piece of trash. He has power of life or death over this woman based on a weak thread of a suddenly recovered repressed memory. Where are the ‘women’s rights’ people? Why aren’t they trying to help Terri escape from a homocidal husband?

The liberals who are fine with allowing a disabled woman to be put to death, slowly and painfully worry incessently about whether a terrorist is degraded by having women’s underwear put on their head or having to be photographed naked. Shoot I’d prefer wearing undies and being naked to dying of thirst. Obviously YMMV.

Matt I grew up with totally bleeding heart liberal parents. I bought it hook line and sinker until I grew up. It makes NO SENSE to me when they take seemingly completely inconsistent positions.

Lisa N

 

[Della]

GoodSamaritan:

I agree that there exists a major difference between Terri and the death penalty. Both are unnecessary and fundamental violations of justice. Are they morally equivalent? No. The destruction of the innocent in a cruel and unusual manner would seem to take precedent. Still, this assumption that the state has the authority to take away human dignity (innocent or other) via execution of a human life is a false one.

It seems that many would equate the state’s killing of a criminal with ‘justice’. Well, according to the Church, it is NOT just if a bloodless manner exists to administer justice. Life in prison is that manner. Given the fact that this alternative exists, execution of criminals stops being just and starts being vengeance.

I’m afraid you are reading into Church teaching what you want to see there. The Church has never declared that the death penalty cannot be exacted by the state. If you want to think otherwise you can, but don’t give others the impression that your stance is the Church’s teaching on it, because it simply isn’t.

 

[Matt25]

Lisa N:

Well Matt then maybe you can 'slplain to me what seem to be incredibly inconsistent positions taken by people on the left. Trust me I spend a LOT of time with liberals so I know what they say and the positions they take.

So riddle me this, a liberal will demand a woman’s ‘right to choose’ death for her unborn baby literally up to the second it clears her body. Yet that same liberal will demand rights for whales and polar bears and convicted criminals…

I do not support free abortion on demand so I am unable to defend it nor would I wish to. However the Catholic Church believes that convicted criminals do have rights. “Every human being is created in the image of God and redeemed by Jesus Christ, and, therefore, is invaluable and worthy of respect as a member of the human family.”
cm-ngo.net/VincentianSocialValues.html
Similarly we have duties towards the environment and the animals with which we share the planet the Catechism states "
2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.

2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals."

The liberals are the ones siding with Michael Schiavo. The same people who deman women’s rights and equality are allowing Mr S to treat his wife like a piece of trash. He has power of life or death over this woman based on a weak thread of a suddenly recovered repressed memory. Where are the ‘women’s rights’ people? Why aren’t they trying to help Terri escape from a homocidal husband?

I think they are arguing on the basis that quality of life is more important than the fact of life. If you believe that then their position is logical. If you do not it is profoundly immoral. Gender does not really enter into it unless you want to make a wholly spurious debating point.

The liberals who are fine with allowing a disabled woman to be put to death, slowly and painfully worry incessently about whether a terrorist is degraded by having women’s underwear put on their head or having to be photographed naked. Shoot I’d prefer wearing undies and being naked to dying of thirst. Obviously YMMV.

The people mistreated in what civillised people agree was a criminal fashion were not convicted of any crime so what makes you assert that they were terrorists? Or all all Arabs terrorists until proven otherwise in your charitable opinion.

Matt I grew up with totally bleeding heart liberal parents. I bought it hook line and sinker until I grew up. It makes NO SENSE to me when they take seemingly completely inconsistent positions.

While I do not define myself as a liberal I think you will find that their ideas are as consistent as humans ever are, which is not much. In the case of liberalism the basis for consistency is to be found in the ideas of utlilitarianism
" An action is right if it produces as much or more of an increase in happiness of all affected by it than any alternative action, and wrong if it does not."

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

GoodSamaritan:

I agree that there exists a major difference between Terri and the death penalty. Both are unnecessary and fundamental violations of justice. Are they morally equivalent? No. The destruction of the innocent in a cruel and unusual manner would seem to take precedent. Still, this assumption that the state has the authority to take away human dignity (innocent or other) via execution of a human life is a false one.

It seems that many would equate the state’s killing of a criminal with ‘justice’. Well, according to the Church, it is NOT just if a bloodless manner exists to administer justice. Life in prison is that manner. Given the fact that this alternative exists, execution of criminals stops being just and starts being vengeance.

I have to disagree with you here. Capital punishment is not in and of itself evil, although its application may be. If putting people to death for violation of the law was intrinsically evil, then God Himself has alot to answer for, because He Himself ordered it. Go read Deuteronomy. However, in our culture, the Holy Father has deemed that we have progressed to the point where the application of capital punishment should be extremely limited, if used at all. Euthanasia IS intrinsically evil. There is not situation which makes euthanasia morally permissible.