Not really…concidering its coming from lewrockwell.com
You make it sound like bad things.Not really…concidering its coming from lewrockwell.com
The site also features regular screeds about how Abraham Lincoln was a murderous war criminal, how the American military is a hotbed of criminal imperialism and murderous warmongering, and why Southern secession not only was honorable and noble but how it still is a viable option.
I will as well.
Do a little more research – this is a seriously disturbed group.
Let’s please not get involved with suggestiong seditious speech here. It is a violation of forum rules.
I read LewRockwell.com every day. They are libertarians, Austrian Economists and anarcho capitalists who subscribe to the ideals of natural law, self ownership and non agression. Certainly their ideas disturb the status quo, but they are consistent in their application of their philosophy.
That being the case, I would submit that the use of LewRockwell is inappropriate and incompatible with a Forum that not only recommends favoring Catholic theological leanings, but essentially requires it. There is nothing within Catholic teachings regarding economics that endorses anarcho-capitalism, Catholicism in fact denounces it. I’d suggest you and others who use Lew Rockwell find another source to make your case.
I would suggest you take that up with Dr. Thomas Woods who writes for Latin Mass Magazine, The Remnant & lewrockwell.com, among others.
Granted, lewrockwell.com is an extremly left leaning site, I don’t believe completely banning people using articles for that site is justified. Many sites that are quoted on here, though mainly conservative and fairly inline with Christian teaching (anti-abortion, etc.), they do have commentary from time to time that is rather radical. I remember one such sight used also had an article suggesting that the US nuke all terrorist friendly countries, regardless of who gets caught in the blast. Maybe the same should be of Anne Coulter, quoted from time to time and very conservative, because she has made the comment it would be alright if we had invaded Iraq over oil because we need the resources.
By that measure, I would submit that the National Review, World Net Daily, Fox and many other websites and sources regularly quoted on this forum are likewise inappropriate and incompatible, in as much as modern Papal pronouncements endorse the welfare state, the UN as a final international arbiter, etc.
I’d like to see that denouncement quoted. Furthermore, economics is not a matter of faith or morals, and I fail to see where the Magesterium has any special insight into economic techniques by virtue of the office.
Though I appreciate your support of the use of LewRockwell for the reasons you mentioned, I must point out it is not “extremely left leaning”. Though there may be some agreement on opposition to the current war, the Left is not opposed to war, like LewRockwell.com is. The Left will support a war waged by Left leaders. Furthermore, the modern American Left would have nothing in common with the economic ideas of self ownership and property rights that are bedrock ideals at LewRockwell.com. In some instance the Right hates our ideas. In other cases the Left hates our ideas. We are neither Left nor Right.
I didn’t say I was banning anything. I just recommended that if you are going to post here, remember that this is a Catholic site, and the references cited should align with Catholic moral teaching, even as it regards politics, economics, science, etc…
I have also read many articles there that are very uncharitable and dredge up derogatory stories about Abraham Lincoln, so all-in-all I think it is a mixed bag.
Sorry, it just sounded like you were implying that it would be banned, against guidelines, etc. to post an article from that site.
Here is the looming thought. If you are going to reference ANYTHING that contradicts Catholic moral teaching, reconsider its use, regardless of the source. The only ones I would implicitly trust are from www.catholic.com (obviously) and www.vatican.va (again, obviously)