Progressivism and Church Teaching

  • Thread starter Thread starter OnAJourney
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Telling people that they have to fund PP is not a compromise. More importantly, why is a private non profit charity organization getting tax payer funds to operate? Even if we have the hyde amendment, PP is a private institution that could easily receive funds from the public voluntarily
 
HopkinsReb said:
40.png
niceatheist:
I’m not telling you to sit silently. Quite the opposite. Keep fighting for what you believe. The acceptance comes from having to accept that a majority of your fellow voters simply won’t agree with you.
Click to expand...
Yet.

10char
Click to expand...
Or perhaps ever. The polling on abortion hasn’t really changed significantly in a few decades. This is the culture war equivalent of the Western Front.
 
And precisely what is your position on the recent abortion bills in Virginia and New York?
 
OnAJourney said:
And precisely what is your position on the recent abortion bills in Virginia and New York?
Click to expand...
I personally don’t believe I have a right to intervene in the medical decisions women and their doctors make. I’m one of those people that you have to convince abortion is the high crime your camp keeps declaring it to be. I view it as a balancing of rights issue, a hard one where there aren’t any real winners.
 
Put aside intervention, because that isn’t what I’m asking. I am specifically asking you about the actual legislation which expands abortion and how it does so
 
Or how about the VA Gov’s comments defending letting already-born babies die?
 
Please actually answer the question, as I’m genuinely interested to hear your opinion on the matter. We’re all being open here, and you’re kind of skirting the actual question.
 
I don’t know the content of the bills in detail, and am wary to take one side’s take on the bill at face value. If you could provide links to the actual wording of the bills, that would be helpful.
 
The USA is not a democracy. It’s not a representative democracy. It’s a republic.
 
No I don’t. This Congress is not going to listen to me, and neither will the next Congress. No matter who is in power PP will still get money from the federal government
 
And the exact same people who say that we need to just shut up and pay for abortions also try to shut down Catholic adoption agencies for only letting couples who are actually married adopt children.
 
niceatheist said:
Would you like to live under a system of government where people can just wantonly withhold taxes because they don’t like some of things the money goes to pay for?
Click to expand...
Can I butt in and answer that question?

I would!
 
Last edited:
G.K. Chesterton comes to mind. I belive this is from Orthodoxy. Chesterton talks about progressivism as constantly changing the goal posts. So, if you had a goal to make everything in the world blue, that is quite a difficult feat. But, if you started painting things blue, you would make progress towards it. If you enlisted more people in the cause, then you would be painting things blue faster and faster. You would be progressing more and more to your goal of painting the world blue.

The progressivist, however, keeps changing his mind. So, for one moment th goal is to paint the world blue, which he does for a while. But, then he changes his mind and decides that yellow is the new fashion, it is the new cause, the new truth. So the world must be painted yellow. Every 10 years then every 5 then maybe every year the progressive keeps changing which color he wants to paint the world. The result being that it is painted many different colors, but no progress has been made at any one goal.

That lesson should be fairly obvious for us to see today. Are women’s liberation, and the sexual revolution, abortion, contraception, gay marriage, transgender issues all part of the same utopia, the same vision that the progressive has for the future? On paper they will tell you yes. But, of course, we see the fruits of this. Most recently, there isn’t even agreement on what your gender is anymore. People are saying that the newborn baby should make up ITS own mind maybe when its 5, maybe when its 10, about what its gender identity is.

Human progress could be defined in terms of learning about ourselves and our world. We progressively aquire more knowledge, and hopefully more wisdom. Its laughable when we live in a world where there are people who don’t even know their own gender. As the saying goes “Well what do you know?”

What do they know? How can they arrive at any truth, how can they support a cause when they know so little? The only cause they have is license. Which could be called licentiousness. Everyone should have the license to do whatever they want. Identify as whatever. Except when you’re white and identity as black. Or if you’re gay or black or any minority and want to vote Republican. Then you’ll find the limits of their tolerance.

Sorry that was so long. I forgot to say, that Chesterton says Catholicism is like the former. Catholicism has wanted to paint the world blue for 2,000 years. Its had the same goal the whole time. And, we have made progess.
 
Last edited:
Lemuel said:
40.png
niceatheist:
Would you like to live under a system of government where people can just wantonly withhold taxes because they don’t like some of things the money goes to pay for?
Click to expand...
Can I butt in and answer that question?

I would!
Click to expand...
Good, so your neighbors could all get together and agree not to pay for the upkeep of the road in front of your house.

Think about how such a society would work. It wouldn’t, because on top of everything else, it’s not how any human society has ever functioned. You may imagine yourself a lone wolf, but that’s a bizarre fantasy. Even the mountain man has to come down from the hills to buy an ax.
 
Yep, that would be fine. They would quickly learn how that plan isn’t a good one and we wouldn’t need laws to prove it.
 
“Silly examples are always simpler; let us suppose a man wanted a particular kind of world; say, a blue world. He would have no cause to complain of the slightness or swiftness of his task; he might toil for a long time at the transformation; he could work away (in every sense) until all was blue. He could have heroic adventures; the putting of the last touches to a blue tiger. He could have fairy dreams; the dawn of a blue moon. But if he worked hard, that high-minded reformer would certainly (from his own point of view) leave the world better and bluer than he found it. If he altered a blade of grass to his favourite colour every day, he would get on slowly. But if he altered his favourite colour every day, he would not get on at all. If, after reading a fresh philosopher, he started to paint everything red or yellow, his work would be thrown away: there would be nothing to show except a few blue tigers walking about, specimens of his early bad manner. This is exactly the position of the average modern thinker.”

Chesterton/ORTHODOXY, chap. VII,The Eternal Revolution, pp. 193-194, 1st ed.

Where does he said that final sentence?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top