Jesus' moral teachings and Liberal politics

[Angainor]

In America, Liberals try to say that they too are a party of values, in response to perception of Republicians being the party of Values. They say they stand for values such as the teachings of Jesus about feeding the poor.

Jesus tells us (you and me) to give to the poor. What does that have to do with Liberal’s redistribution schemes of taking from one to give to another?

 

[Lisa_N]

Angainor:

In America, Liberals try to say that they too are a party of values, in response to perception of Republicians being the party of Values. They say they stand for values such as the teachings of Jesus about feeding the poor.

Jesus tells us (you and me) to give to the poor. What does that have to do with Liberal’s redistribution schemes of taking from one to give to another?

I’ve wondered myself. I am involved with a group that is mostly liberal. They somehow think that high taxes = holiness. They think that conservative politics are heartless and that we want to throw hungry people out in the street! I wish I could dialog with a reasonable liberal because I cannot fathom where they come up with such wild ideas.

Lisa N

 

[CatholicPoet]

I wouldn’t call myself a liberal or a conservative in the way that either term is used in its politcal sense. I also do not align myself with either of the two major political parties in the United States – Democrats or Republicans – because I believe that both parties have serious objectionable moral shortcomings. I say that to put what else I have to say in a context and – hopefully – establish some neutrality between both the Left and the Right.

I think that, based on what I hear in the major news media outlets, you are right, Angainor, in your statement that Democrats are waving the “we’ve got values, too!” banner in what is an almost comical reaction to what seems to have come as a shock to them – that Joe and Jane America do, in point of fact, care about that sort of thing.

What alarms me is not that they are reacting – I would frankly be surprised if they were not able to learn from their blunders – rather I am alarmed by that to which they are reacting. The Republicans have been able to brand themselves as the party of values by successfully playing a few select hot-button issues, mostly abortion and gay marriage.

If I understand your position correctly, Angainor, it is your belief (and I have no reason to doubt the validity of it) that from that lesson, apparantly, the Democrats have decided to test float an issue or two as their own moral hot buttons, specifically a tax policy promoted as being for the good of the poor. Furthermore, you find that position to be at odds with the teachings of Jesus in regard to the proper way to treat and care for those less fortunate than us.

I would certainly agree with you that taxation is not automatically a cure for poverty. Nor is the Robin Hood Ideal of stealing from the rich to give to the poor a reasonable solution. Any reasonably intelligent person can look at many of the ways our government wastes time, money and resources and realize that there are problems in the establishment.

However, I would suggest to you that if we look to government or political parties for morally sound policy, we are likely to look in vain. I would further suggest that a political platform that (rightly) condemns abortion while accepting the body bags of war or counting it as just punishment to execute a convicted criminal does not present a consistent ethic of life and is every bit as flawed as a political platform that promotes a flawed and foolish taxation policy.

As catholics and people of faith, we are called to stand up for what is right. That certainly is no easy task. It is my belief that it is better to look for common ground between political factions – look for those things on which liberals and conservatives agree – and from there begin a dialog from which differences can be resolved for the good of all.

For all of my life – at least, all of my life during which I have been old enough to know the difference – the political parties of America have been defined by their differences. Mud is flung. Ugly words are used. Fists are shaken and faces turn red – and it’s not with shame. Where has that gotten us? Are we better off as a country – and I mean better off morally – than we were in 1970? Or in 1950? Or 1920?

We’ve all heard it: “If you keep doing what you’ve always done, you’ll keep getting what you’ve always gotten.” It wouldn’t be so familiar if there wasn’t some truth in it. In the last presidential election – and for the first (and hopefully last) time in my life – I walked up to the voting booth undecided. I stood looking at the ballot, reached into my pocket and gave my rosary a squeeze and cast my vote, hoping that God would forgive me.

For me, it was ultimately the issue of abortion that decided my vote. I think of millions and millions of people who never got the chance to be born – people with whom I would have grown up and people with whom I would be friends today. People, some of whom, would be going to Iraq and not coming home. Still, having said all that, I have absolutely no reason to believe that the legality of abortion will change in any significant way in the next three years.

As people of faith, it is our duty to support politicians when they get it right and offer correction when they get it wrong. As people of faith, it is difficult if not impossible to choose a side as no one side will always be right. In a perfect world, there would be no reason to tax anyone to help the poor as people would be doing that of their own free will. In a perfect world, there would be no need to outlaw abortion because no one would ever consider abortion as a possible alternative.

It is incumbent upon us all to work for a perfect world. We will fail… at least for the time being.

 

[Angainor]

Poet,

Quite an insiteful post. I hope you didn’t mistake my criticism of Democrats as a wholehearted endorsement of Republicians.

CatholicPoet:

However, I would suggest to you that if we look to government or political parties for morally sound policy, we are likely to look in vain.

Agreed!

CatholicPoet:

I would further suggest that a political platform that (rightly) condemns abortion while accepting the body bags of war or counting it as just punishment to execute a convicted criminal does not present a consistent ethic of life…

I would not put violent felons on the same page as unborn innocents, but I respect your view.

CatholicPoet:

As people of faith, it is difficult if not impossible to choose a side as no one side will always be right.

Some sides are right more often than others.

This thread wasn’t supposed to be about politics, but it is easy to fall into that trap.

 

[theMutant]

Angainor:

Jesus tells us (you and me) to give to the poor. What does that have to do with Liberal’s redistribution schemes of taking from one to give to another?

Short answer: Absolutely nothing.

 

[surfinpure]

Angainor:

In America, Liberals try to say that they too are a party of values, in response to perception of Republicians being the party of Values. They say they stand for values such as the teachings of Jesus about feeding the poor.

Jesus tells us (you and me) to give to the poor. What does that have to do with Liberal’s redistribution schemes of taking from one to give to another?

You have a sound point.

As for me, when I’m criticized for being a Conservative and calling myself a Christian, I like to point out that there are some higher moral issues on the table, with clear party alignment. Primarily, that of whether or not to murder our infants, our handicapped, and our elderly. It’s a clear choice for me. I choose life.

 

[CatholicPoet]

Angainor:

Quite an insiteful post. I hope you didn’t mistake my criticism of Democrats as a wholehearted endorsement of Republicians.

Oh, absolutely not! I think you and I agree much more than we disagree… if, in fact, we disagree at all. Certainly, I would agree that both major political partys have earned some criticism. I’m not sure anyone much completely endorses any political party. (I may be naïve on that, but I hope no one much does anyway!)

Angainor:

I would not put violent felons on the same page as unborn innocents, but I respect your view.

Yes. This one is difficult. It is very easy – even natural and hard-wired in – to want to protect the unborn or an infant. It is certainly hard (if not impossible) to hold such a life in the same regard as someone who has commited a violent crime (or several violent crimes).

My belief is that a life is a life; Jesus only said we have to love each other, fortunately, he didn’t say we have to approve of each other’s actions. I’m absolutely fine with not putting the unborn on the same page as a career criminal. The first needs to be nurtured and cared for so that he or she can grow up and experience the wonders and joys of life. The second needs to be locked up in a place where he (or she) will no longer be a danger to society, ever.

Sure, I’d rather find myself with a boat load of babies than a boat load of criminals. The real trick is raising the baby in such a way that he does not become the criminal.

Angainor:

This thread wasn’t supposed to be about politics, but it is easy to fall into that trap.

Oh. Uhm… Sorry? I see terms like “liberal” and “Republican” and immediately climb on my political soap box. (It’s a weakness I have; I’m working on it. You should hear some of the heated arguements my best friend and I have – you’d swear we were going to kill each other if you didn’t know better. But at the end, the arguement is over and we go for a beer. And we’re still best friends, because regardless of differences of opinion we deeply respect each other.)

Besides, he can’t help it if he’s wrong all the time. (I tried! I really did! I just couldn’t resist saying it!!!)

Angainor, maybe what I need is more information. Can you summarize for me (or give a link to a news story that does) the points of the plan to which you are objecting? I have a gut feeling that you have a valid point, but am not conversant enough with the particulars to be able to look for a connection between it and Jesus’s teachings.

Also, one other question: why the underlined initial “L” in Liberals? It looks like it’s done on purpose, so I’m guessing there’s a reason?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Angainor:

In America, Liberals try to say that they too are a party of values, in response to perception of Republicians being the party of Values. They say they stand for values such as the teachings of Jesus about feeding the poor.

Jesus tells us (you and me) to give to the poor. What does that have to do with Liberal’s redistribution schemes of taking from one to give to another?

A society like the believers formed in Acts is actually “socialistic” in a way, and therefore liberal. Everyone pools their resources and there is plenty for all.

The only problem is this system only works for committed believers who are willing to do their part. When governments try it, it fails because there is no sense of community, but only accountability to the Almighty Government.

Liberals are trying to get the government to create a utopia (chicken in every pot) like in Acts, but with people who are brought up in the mindset of “take responsibility for yourself” and personal property ownership.

In essence, the liberals in this fashion are actually trying to turn the government/society that behaves like an ideal church. Most churches can’t get that to work even at the parish level; some small communities excepted perhaps. Liberals are deluded into thinking the government can do what the Church isn’t doing.

Conservatives want the government to behave like the Old Testament “wrath of God” against those who sin and coerce them into behaving morally. Liberals want the government to be the embodyment of Christ’s teachings on forgiveness, sharing and openness.

I don’t see either side as having the moral high ground.

In the light of self-disclosure, my wife and I were elected three times for two year terms as conservative Republican precinct committeepersons. I tried registering as a Democratic for a while, and working with mostly liberals on a task force to investigating racism in city contract awards, appointed by the City Council and mayor of Wichita. I’ve worked hand-in-hand with these people, and believe me if either side gains significant power over the other we could be in big trouble.

Alan

 

[Angainor]

CatholicPoet:

Also, one other question: why the underlined initial “L” in Liberals? It looks like it’s done on purpose, so I’m guessing there’s a reason?

I used that to separate modern (capital “L”) Liberalism from classical (small “l”) liberalism.

 

[Lisa_N]

CatholicPoet:

My belief is that a life is a life; Jesus only said we have to love each other, fortunately, he didn’t say we have to approve of each other’s actions. I’m absolutely fine with not putting the unborn on the same page as a career criminal. The first needs to be nurtured and cared for so that he or she can grow up and experience the wonders and joys of life. The second needs to be locked up in a place where he (or she) will no longer be a danger to society, ever.

I heard a very interesting comment on Michael Medved’s show and I wish I knew the source but it’s apparently from a Democrat. He/she said the problem with Democrats is that they feel perfectly justified in criticizing people for what they BELIEVE but refuse to criticize what they DO. This is why they use terms such as ‘homophobe’ or ‘sexist’ because it represents a belief system, not because the person who objects to normalizing homosexuality is going to drag Joe and Bill out of their bed and string them up. I thought that was very insightful and well articulated.

I never cease to be amazed at the very real FEAR that Christians strike in the hearts of secular liberals. I ask what do you think these Christians are going to DO that will be a danger to you? They never have an answer because they aren’t afraid of what Christians will DO but what they believe. Why?

OTOH the same liberal will not criticize someone for irresponsible behavior or for a lack of morals as long as they have the ‘right’ beliefs.

Lisa N