Is there a difference between being a humanitarian versus a religious 'liberal?'

[Robert_Sock]

I’m personally do not consider myself to be a ‘liberal,’ and I do not like people labeling me as such, but I’m very attuned to humanitarian causes, such as the elimination of extreme poverty.

 

[Starrsmother]

I’m a strong conservative–but that doesn’t mean that I don’t support charity or things like the Mercy Ships. I guess it depends on your definition of being a liberal vs conservative. I do not believe that either political belief has a corner on humanitarian feelings. Infact, most of the things I see liberals support today are things I think are not humanitarian at all-- as they tend to enslave the poor to welfare, abort the unborn, promote immoral and unhealthy same sex unions and promote atheism and delete Christianity from Christmas and anything else they get within a country mile of! If that is someone’s definition of being a humanittarian, I think they need to look up the true definition of the word in a good dictionary!

 

[St_Francis]

I think a lot of this has to do with definitions. Some people think the terms liberal and humanitarian are interchangeable. I think by appending ‘religous’ to liberal in the way you did that you are trying to say a political liberal who is religious.

You seem to be religious. You fit my definition of a liberal; your energy seems to be directed towards getting to government to solve problems which to me is the definition of what we now call liberals.

A conservative relies more on individual or more local solutions.

To me, the philosophies we in the US currently call conservative or liberal are not at all Catholic. Liberalism relies entirely too much on the government to do what we as individuals ought to be doing, imposes similar solutions for wildly divergent problems, and is immired in fulfilling rules to the point of ignoring people as anything other than pieces of a puzzle.

Conservatives, otoh, seem also to view people as interchangeable parts, only in this case, they view people as so similar that any difficulties theyay encounter are of their own making. Each person could be Bill Gates if they simply applied themselves. Oh, sure, a lot of people obviously cannot be, and these people should definitely be helped by those who are, bit overall, most people should just do what they ought to be doing and if they do it right, they will succeed.

To me, Catholicism is different from each and better than both. To me, Catholicism offers balance bit also an elevation of persons. Man is neither either cookie-cutter Bill Gateses or physically incapcitated, nor either the burdensome or the elect.

Catholicism views each person is a complex interweaving of capabilities, virtues, vices, and individual characteristics and circumstances. Each of us needs help, God’s help. We each need other people. Each of us has something to contribute. Success is measured in something we can all obtain, and the Catholic, or spiritual, economy is like lighting candles rather rather than king-of-the-hill.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I think a lot of this has to do with definitions. Some people think the terms liberal and humanitarian are interchangeable. I think by appending ‘religous’ to liberal in the way you did that you are trying to say a political liberal who is religious.

You seem to be religious. You fit my definition of a liberal; your energy seems to be directed towards getting to government to solve problems which to me is the definition of what we now call liberals.

A conservative relies more on individual or more local solutions.

To me, the philosophies we in the US currently call conservative or liberal are not at all Catholic. Liberalism relies entirely too much on the government to do what we as individuals ought to be doing, imposes similar solutions for wildly divergent problems, and is immired in fulfilling rules to the point of ignoring people as anything other than pieces of a puzzle.

Conservatives, otoh, seem also to view people as interchangeable parts, only in this case, they view people as so similar that any difficulties theyay encounter are of their own making. Each person could be Bill Gates if they simply applied themselves. Oh, sure, a lot of people obviously cannot be, and these people should definitely be helped by those who are, bit overall, most people should just do what they ought to be doing and if they do it right, they will succeed.

To me, Catholicism is different from each and better than both. To me, Catholicism offers balance bit also an elevation of persons. Man is neither either cookie-cutter Bill Gateses or physically incapcitated, nor either the burdensome or the elect.

Catholicism views each person is a complex interweaving of capabilities, virtues, vices, and individual characteristics and circumstances. Each of us needs help, God’s help. We each need other people. Each of us has something to contribute. Success is measured in something we can all obtain, and the Catholic, or spiritual, economy is like lighting candles rather rather than king-of-the-hill.

Using extreme poverty in the world as an example, I would view a humanitarian ‘liberal’ as one who wants to use government subsides to house and feed those in extreme poverty; a humanitarian ‘conservative,’ on the other hand, would use the government to create jobs and to provide mandatory HS education for all children.

 

[3DOCTORS]

I think a lot of this has to do with definitions. Some people think the terms liberal and humanitarian are interchangeable. I think by appending ‘religous’ to liberal in the way you did that you are trying to say a political liberal who is religious.

You seem to be religious. You fit my definition of a liberal; your energy seems to be directed towards getting to government to solve problems which to me is the definition of what we now call liberals.

A conservative relies more on individual or more local solutions.

To me, the philosophies we in the US currently call conservative or liberal are not at all Catholic. Liberalism relies entirely too much on the government to do what we as individuals ought to be doing, imposes similar solutions for wildly divergent problems, and is immired in fulfilling rules to the point of ignoring people as anything other than pieces of a puzzle.

Conservatives, otoh, seem also to view people as interchangeable parts, only in this case, they view people as so similar that any difficulties theyay encounter are of their own making. Each person could be Bill Gates if they simply applied themselves. Oh, sure, a lot of people obviously cannot be, and these people should definitely be helped by those who are, bit overall, most people should just do what they ought to be doing and if they do it right, they will succeed.

To me, Catholicism is different from each and better than both. To me, Catholicism offers balance bit also an elevation of persons. Man is neither either cookie-cutter Bill Gateses or physically incapcitated, nor either the burdensome or the elect.

Catholicism views each person is a complex interweaving of capabilities, virtues, vices, and individual characteristics and circumstances. Each of us needs help, God’s help. We each need other people. Each of us has something to contribute. Success is measured in something we can all obtain, and the Catholic, or spiritual, economy is like lighting candles rather rather than king-of-the-hill.

Well said. :clapping:

One distinction that seems to be overlooked these days is that if you’re going to use the terms “liberal” and “conservative” you have to be clear whether you’re referring to financial or moral issues. There is some shading or overlap in some people’s definitions, such as those who are too quick to just say “get a job” and not take into account the individual’s difficulties with same. Or those who would think that tying aid to foreign nations should be contingent upon those nations’ acceptance of a “population control” clause that involves abortifacient contraceptives and other abortions, that the end justifies the means, etc.

So, one could be “liberal” financially and “conservative” morally or some other combination of the conventional meanings of each term when applied to each area of influence. Does that make sense? I don’t know if I got clear enough wording on it . . .

The point is, the conventional set of values those two words suggest to most don’t tell the whole story - or they shouldn’t. The right and wrong according to Church teaching is more nuanced and makes more sense, and looking to the media or one’s peers for clarification is like looking at the moon through a clouded telescope. I say read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other documents of the Popes and Bishops. If that’s too complex, go through the Baltimore Catechism. :twocents: Genuine charity and love for one’s neighbor isn’t rocket science, really. It’s we humans who overcomplicate it.

 

[St_Francis]

Using extreme poverty in the world as an example, I would view a humanitarian ‘liberal’ as one who wants to **use government subsides **to house and feed those in extreme poverty; a humanitarian ‘conservative,’ on the other hand, would **use the government **to create jobs and to provide mandatory HS education for all children.

Either way, it seems that what is sought is *government *action.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Either way, it seems that what is sought is *government *action.

Yes, but the government intervention would be deemed justified given past social injustices that caused extreme poverty. This would be similar to our government compensating American Indians given past social injustices.

 

[St_Francis]

Yes, but the government intervention would be deemed justified given past social injustices that caused extreme poverty. This would be similar to our government compensating American Indians given past social injustices.

Robert,
I asked you before and you didn’t answer: where do you think jobs come from?

 

[RoseMary131]

… and to provide mandatory HS education for all children.

What is HS education?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Robert,
I asked you before and you didn’t answer: where do you think jobs come from?

Corporations and other businesses, of course. But government can provide the incentive for them to expand. Government can also pave the way for mandatory HS education of all children, which is necessary for meaningful employment and the expansiveness of businesses. .

 

[St_Francis]

Corporations and other businesses, of course. But government can provide the incentive for them to expand.

How would to government provide incentive for businesses to expand?

Government can also pave the way for mandatory HS education of all children, which is necessary for meaningful employment and the expansiveness of businesses. .

I think you should read An Underground History of American Education. Overall, as long as US students can graduate without being able to read or make change, basically in worse shape than 8th grade graduates 150 years ago, I cannot take the suggestion of mandatory HS education seriously.

PS Rosemary: HS is high school, school for those aged 14-18.

 

[Robert_Sock]

How would to government provide incentive for businesses to expand?

Tax breaks for expanding, plus money-making incentives from having a well educated population available for immediate employment; stiff tax increases if businesses fail to expand.

I think you should read An Underground History of American Education. Overall, as long as US students can graduate without being able to read or make change, basically in worse shape than 8th grade graduates 150 years ago, I cannot take the suggestion of mandatory HS education seriously.

I’m talking about a worldwide effort in education, not just in America.

 

[St_Francis]

Tax breaks for expanding, plus money-making incentives from having a well educated population available for immediate employment; stiff tax increases if businesses fail to expand.

So, government-controlled business…

(C’mon, tax increases for failure to expand? Why not just give up and call it the soviet socialist world?)

I’m talking about a worldwide effort in education, not just in America.

Where will the money for this come from?

I think, Robert, that you have taken to heart the difficulties inherent in simply feeding people fish, but you haven’t grasped that alleviation of poverty will take more than just the government’s waving a magic wand and saying “Make it so.”

 

[Robert_Sock]

So, government-controlled business…

(C’mon, tax increases for failure to expand? Why not just give up and call it the soviet socialist world?)

Stiff tax increases could be imposed on all corporations and large businesses, and then offer tax break incentives for those willing to expand.

Where will the money for this come from?

Taxes on corporations and and other large businesses and where rich countries help the poor countries. Teachers would be paid extra incentives for accepting jobs in poverty-stricken areas.

I’m sure people in politics can come up with better plans, but you should get the picture.

Now can we get back on topic?

(And, it helps to be polite when posting!)

 

[St_Francis]

Stiff tax increases could be imposed on all corporations and large businesses, and then offer tax break incentives for those willing to expand.

Taxes on corporations and and other large businesses and where rich countries help the poor countries. Teachers would be paid extra incentives for accepting jobs in poverty-stricken areas.

I’m sure people in politics can come up with better plans, but you should get the picture.

Now can we get back on topic?

(And, it helps to be polite when posting!)

I apologize being impolite, Robert, and will try to avoid that.

I think this is on-topic because When people have the wrong idea about something, that causes problems.

For example, when I was more “conservative,” I had problems. There were forces in my mind that pushed against certain other ideas. Once I got away from being conservative, then I could look at things differently, and see much more how important prayer is rather than fretting about this-and-that which I could do nothing about anyway.

Now, businesses are going to do what they’re going to do, which is to maximize profit. If expansion works, they will do it. If hiring new employees will do it, they will hire. Teh government doesn’t really have to do much beyond getting out of the way with unreasonable mandates and taxes (reasonable ones are OK ).

As to the schools… you are contradicting yourself.On the one hand, you want to free businesses to expand and hire more people. On the other, you want to tAx them sufficiently to educate everyone in the world through high school.

Taxing them that much, Robert, will cause major problems, if not outright closures.

You advocate a government solution to these problems. This is liberal. You want to impose a high degree of government control over businesses. This is liberal. You want to forcibly educate eveyone in the world, this too is liberal.

How did the West emerge from the collapse of the Roman Empire? Not by the government’s controlling business and offering education to hige numbers of people.

What brought Europe out of the collapse was the Catholic Church. This is where we must look, not to the government. We will not get anywhere by controlling businesses. We will get somewhere by acting as Catholics and controlling ourselves.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I apologize being impolite, Robert, and will try to avoid that.

I think this is on-topic because When people have the wrong idea about something, that causes problems.

For example, when I was more “conservative,” I had problems. There were forces in my mind that pushed against certain other ideas. Once I got away from being conservative, then I could look at things differently, and see much more how important prayer is rather than fretting about this-and-that which I could do nothing about anyway.

Now, businesses are going to do what they’re going to do, which is to maximize profit. If expansion works, they will do it. If hiring new employees will do it, they will hire. Teh government doesn’t really have to do much beyond getting out of the way with unreasonable mandates and taxes (reasonable ones are OK ).

As to the schools… you are contradicting yourself.On the one hand, you want to free businesses to expand and hire more people. On the other, you want to tAx them sufficiently to educate everyone in the world through high school.

Taxing them that much, Robert, will cause major problems, if not outright closures.

You advocate a government solution to these problems. This is liberal. You want to impose a high degree of government control over businesses. This is liberal. You want to forcibly educate eveyone in the world, this too is liberal.

How did the West emerge from the collapse of the Roman Empire? Not by the government’s controlling business and offering education to hige numbers of people.

What brought Europe out of the collapse was the Catholic Church. This is where we must look, not to the government. We will not get anywhere by controlling businesses. We will get somewhere by acting as Catholics and controlling ourselves.

Government and corporations need to invest in people throughout the world, by educating them. It’s an investment that will pay great dividends a little on down the road. Exactly how to implement this initial investment, I honestly do not know, but the entire world stands to gain through a super-strong economy and a standard of living increase like that never before seen; new high-tech products, mass production increases and scientific endeavors. With a little ingenuity and planning, it’s all possible!

 

[St_Francis]

Government and corporations need to invest in people throughout the world, by educating them. It’s an investment that will pay great dividends a little on down the road. Exactly how to implement this initial investment, I honestly do not know, but the entire world stands to gain through a super-strong economy and a standard of living increase like that never before seen; new high-tech products, mass production increases and scientific endeavors. With a little ingenuity and planning, it’s all possible!

There are 7 billion people in the world. How much would this cost?

What I am saying is that you are looking at this from an unrealistic angle, and longing and pressing for something *which cannot happen. *If the world is left to its own devices, the expansion of businesses with occur in time, but this process can *not *be hastened. If the world is left to its own devices, people will become educated in time as well.

To focus on something that is a *fantasy *is to live in an illusion. This is not Catholic! Christ is *Truth; *illusion is a *distraction *from truth.

 

[Robert_Sock]

There are 7 billion people in the world. How much would this cost?

What I am saying is that you are looking at this from an unrealistic angle, and longing and pressing for something *which cannot happen. *If the world is left to its own devices, the expansion of businesses with occur in time, but this process can *not *be hastened. If the world is left to its own devices, people will become educated in time as well.

To focus on something that is a *fantasy *is to live in an illusion. This is not Catholic! Christ is *Truth; *illusion is a *distraction *from truth.

I believe your view that nothing can be done is an illusion. What you’re doing is to justify people turning a blind eye to the problem, and instead maintaining the status quo. Imagine the possibilities with our investing in those living in poverty! It’s an investment in the future of the world! Everyone would gain!

 

[St_Francis]

I believe your view that nothing can be done is an illusion. What you’re doing is to justify people turning a blind eye to the problem, and instead maintaining the status quo. Imagine the possibilities with our investing in those living in poverty! It’s an investment in the future of the world! Everyone would gain!

Seriously? You believe that my disagreeing with your plan is an attempt to justify turning a blind eye to poverty?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Seriously? You believe that my disagreeing with your plan is an attempt to justify turning a blind eye to poverty?

My apologies. I did not mean it like that. I meant it that you are eliminating one major way in which extreme poverty may be overcome.

Education and the creation of new jobs are essential in overcoming poverty. I honestly see no other way. Simply having an outpouring of Catholic aid is like a bandaid on an infected wound.