Liberalism is a sin? or the morality of liberalism

[Starwynd]

You cannot know this because you, by your own admission, are uninformed as to the content of this book, originally written in Spanish.

I am certain you have heard the truism, “You cannot judge a book by it’s cover.” That certainly applies here.

You are judging a book by it’s cover, and quite incorrectly, as I and other have indeed pointed out.

Yes I can know this without reading the book because I have read other papers and books with the same thing on it and they all say the same thing. I’ve seen this utter piece of junk hudnreds of times and have read other works just like it with the same kind of title. This might just be the earliest instance of that junk. It is still junk nonethless.

Starwynd, you are the person decrying the politicization of various things, yet you are the only one who is politicizing this. Do you practice what you preach? Are you so hypertensive to the term “liberal”, that you recoil in horror whenever you see it in print? If that is case, you should probably not read the directions for hand lotion or wound ointment as they say to apply the lotion or ointment “liberally”. The use of the word there is as political as it is in this book.

You can go stick it. I’m incredibly sick of this partisan ****. But hey go right on ahead and promote your partisan hack and a Godawful hateful book. I can’t stop you, but I will denounce you as nothing more than a partisan hack who has no credibility who’s only interest is to demonise an entire group of millions of people.

And all you’re doing is making yourself look bad with your partisan hackery and hasty generalizations.

The book is nothing more than a hateful piece of ****. Nothing more than that. It only encourages hate. Period.

And yes I would say the same thing if it were a liberal pulling that junk too and have done so.

 

[Starwynd]

Meh, on the other hand I could just be using reverse psychology to get people to read the book too.

You never know.

 

[rpp]

Yes I can know this without reading the book because I have read other papers and books with the same thing on it and they all say the same thing. I’ve seen this utter piece of junk hudnreds of times and have read other works just like it with the same kind of title. This might just be the earliest instance of that junk. It is still junk nonethless.

You can go stick it. I’m incredibly sick of this partisan ****. But hey go right on ahead and promote your partisan hack and a Godawful hateful book. I can’t stop you, but I will denounce you as nothing more than a partisan hack who has no credibility who’s only interest is to demonise an entire group of millions of people.

And all you’re doing is making yourself look bad with your partisan hackery and hasty generalizations.

The book is nothing more than a hateful piece of ****. Nothing more than that. It only encourages hate. Period.

And yes I would say the same thing if it were a liberal pulling that junk too and have done so.

Can you contrast your attitude and statement here with the concept of bigotry, please?

You literally have no clue about what you are talking about.

 

[Bennie_P]

Yes I can know this without reading the book because I have read other papers and books with the same thing on it and they all say the same thing. I’ve seen this utter piece of junk hudnreds of times and have read other works just like it with the same kind of title. This might just be the earliest instance of that junk. It is still junk nonethless.

You can go stick it. I’m incredibly sick of this partisan ****. But hey go right on ahead and promote your partisan hack and a Godawful hateful book. I can’t stop you, but I will denounce you as nothing more than a partisan hack who has no credibility who’s only interest is to demonise an entire group of millions of people.

And all you’re doing is making yourself look bad with your partisan hackery and hasty generalizations.

The book is nothing more than a hateful piece of ****. Nothing more than that. It only encourages hate. Period.

And yes I would say the same thing if it were a liberal pulling that junk too and have done so.

First which partisan Hack do you assume is being promoted? Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany has been dead for a century.

The hateful words being used are by you…

 

[UndertheRadar]

Liberalism is one of those “fighting” words that carries so much baggage and has shifted back and forth in meaning over the past three or four hundred years. One really need to specify what particular tenet of liberalism that is to be debated or we will go around in circles like a pair of tomcats hissing and spitting at one another.

Changing certain traditions (small T) has nothing to do with liberalism. It is the Traditional Teaching (Big T) of the Apostles and early Church that is important.

I would expect that any book on Liberalism written in 19th century Spain, post reformation, post inquisition (It lasted into the 19th century} is going to “gig” more than a few things characteristic of multicultural, multifaith democracies. Spain was far from a democratic form of government at the time.

So in my opinion, and I have read portions of the book, some things still apply, some do not. Just don’t dream that democratic forms of government are going to meet all of your expectations or change because they are too “liberal” for your tastes.

By saying that we now live in a different time and that some points of the book are obsolete is IMO an idea of liberalism. If the ideas were ok back then why would they not be fine now. One answer: liberalism. We today don’t want to be held to standards of long ago because they are old fashioned. Naturally, liberalism would call some ideas of this book outdated.

 

[Starwynd]

Can you contrast your attitude and statement here with the concept of bigotry, please?

You literally have no clue about what you are talking about.

Neither do you.

See, two can play that kind of childish game.

 

[Starwynd]

First which partisan Hack do you assume is being promoted? Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany has been dead for a century.

The hateful words being used are by you…

No, the hate is being promoted by you and that godawful book.

 

[rwoehmke]

By saying that we now live in a different time and that some points of the book are obsolete is IMO an idea of liberalism. If the ideas were ok back then why would they not be fine now. One answer: liberalism. We today don’t want to be held to standards of long ago because they are old fashioned. Naturally, liberalism would call some ideas of this book outdated.

Tell you what young man, living under a king was not all purity and light either. Kings and Church have been in conflict in-numerable times over the centuries.

The other thing is that in a multi-cultural, multi-faith democracy some of those old standards might be valid, but to make them effective and workable? Standards certainly can be personally kept to, but as we all recognize trying to eradicate something as obviously horrible as abortion is an uphill battle and is far from won. How many other fronts do you want to fight on at the same time?

Actually, I have, over 70 some years, formed my standards and values, and when someone says “liberal” or “conservative”; reactionary if you wish, I usually take anything out of their mouth with a huge grain of salt. You want to live in 19th century anything be my guest, just don’t expect me to want to go along for the ride.

 

[prodigal-sun]

OK, Now that we all understand Starwynd’s position on this book because she has read it hundreds of times under different names. Can we get back to the Book. I have this book at home in my collection of unread books and very intersted in it.

Please continue!

Peace

 

[Bennie_P]

OK, Now that we all understand Starwynd’s position on this book because she has read it hundreds of times under different names. Can we get back to the Book. I have this book at home in my collection of unread books and very intersted in it.

Please continue!

Peace

The militant wording of the book could and would be offensive to those that consider themselves a Liberal, but the book is not really written for them, but for Catholics on how to deal with the temptation of Liberal thought within thier own lives. This is not a book I would give to non-Catholics in order to convert them, though I have not seen anything in it that doesn’t speak the truth as to the relationship or the lack of relationship of Liberal Teachings with Catholic teaching. I truly don’t think anyone that doesn’t recongnize Church teachings on many issues (morality, salvation, etc.) would understand its message.

 

[Starwynd]

but for Catholics on how to deal with the temptation of Liberal thought within thier own lives.

Okay.

Now I understand, and I humbly offer my apologies.

The thing is I do see that kind of thing on political boards all the time, and that’s where I got confused. Because of being on those boards when I hear the word liberal I tend to think of Democrat/socialist/leftist and so on. And I have literally seen that same exact title on those kinds of boards crop up from time to time, although in the context I have already just describe. I have seen papers that state “liberalism is a mental disorder” as well.

But no, I am no liberal. I just do not like it when people demonize an entire group of people. It’s just plain wrong no matter who does it.

I was an idiot, and I’m sorry.

 

[Ruthie]

Has anyone but me read the article? I found it to be excellent and very true. My grandfather, a Congregationalist minister, would not recognize his church in its current manifestation.

I repeat the link:
The Death of Protestant America: A Political Theory of the Protestant Mainline

Here’s a quote:

"Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran—the name hardly matters anymore. It’s true that if you dig through the conservative manifestos and broadsides of the past thirty years, you find one distressed cry after another, each bemoaning the particular path by which this or that denomination lost its intellectual and doctrinal distinctiveness.

 After you’ve read a few of these outraged complaints, however, the targets begin to blur together. The names may vary, but the topics remain the same: the uniformity of social class at the church head*quarters, the routine genuflections toward the latest political causes, the feminizing of the clergy, the unimportance of the ecclesial points that once defined the denomination, the substitution of leftist social action for Christian evangelizing, and the disappearance of biblical theology. All the Mainline churches have become essentially the same church: their histories, their theologies, and even much of their practice lost to a uniform vision of social progress. Only the names of the corporations that own their properties seem to differ."

Ruthie

 

[Bennie_P]

Has anyone but me read the article? I found it to be excellent and very true. My grandfather, a Congregationalist minister, would not recognize his church in its current manifestation.

I repeat the link:
The Death of Protestant America: A Political Theory of the Protestant Mainline

Here’s a quote:

"Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran—the name hardly matters anymore. It’s true that if you dig through the conservative manifestos and broadsides of the past thirty years, you find one distressed cry after another, each bemoaning the particular path by which this or that denomination lost its intellectual and doctrinal distinctiveness.

After you’ve read a few of these outraged complaints, however, the targets begin to blur together. The names may vary, but the topics remain the same: the uniformity of social class at the church head*quarters, the routine genuflections toward the latest political causes, the feminizing of the clergy, the unimportance of the ecclesial points that once defined the denomination, the substitution of leftist social action for Christian evangelizing, and the disappearance of biblical theology. All the Mainline churches have become essentially the same church: their histories, their theologies, and even much of their practice lost to a uniform vision of social progress. Only the names of the corporations that own their properties seem to differ."

Ruthie

You are the first it seems to read the article we have been spending too much time arguing over the title of the book.

Myself, I do see a link how liberalism or liberal ideas and causes took the mainline protestant churchs away from thier mission of spreading the gospel as they tried to keep up with the times and modern ideas with the rejection of tradition. The book is a warning to the Catholic faithful of the same error.

Only thing is, the mainline protestant seemed doomed to this error from the moment they left the Catholic Church and rejected Tradition (big T).

I see the Book as a teaching tool for all Catholics, not a manual of hate as suggested above by someone else.

Note many of those that have been upset with thier membership in mainline protestant churches have been crossing the Tiber.

 

[rwoehmke]

Has anyone but me read the article? I found it to be excellent and very true. My grandfather, a Congregationalist minister, would not recognize his church in its current manifestation.

Ruthie

I read it last week. Very interesting and further expands out knowledge as to what has been happening for at least a decade or more in the mainline churchs and in our country. Many people actually want a dependable moral framework, rules if you will, for living. Catholics, Mormons, and Evangelicals are growing.