PROOF: Liberalism is a sin AND a mental disorder

[AlanFromWichita]

cynic:

Libertarians are morally liberal aswell: they don’t accept any authoritarian moral codes in law. The individual has the right to live their personal lives exactly a they wish, as long as it doesn’t interfere with others rights to do the same. Economically it’s a case of ‘survival of the fittest’. No tax to pay, completely privatised health and education… so depending on how right wing you are you might agree with this side of it.

You have made a good characterization, from what I know of them.

The reason this appeals to me, is that I think local Churches should be in charge of the liberal stuff such as welfare programs. For example, the best known free no-questions-asked meal every evening in Wichita is at the Lord’s Diner. The Catholic Diocese built it downtown, right across from the Cathedral. Practically any organization worth its salt has evenings scheduled to supply volunteer workers (after getting them Kansas food handler’s cards) from its organization. Scouts, parishes, schools, even non-Catholic groups.

This is the kind of thing the Church could do more of, if its powers weren’t usurped by the government. We could have actual stewardship of resources. If the government were running the Lord’s Diner, they would have means testing, huge administrative costs, endless debate over who gets credit for what, one party looking for negative soundbites from guests on nights the other party was in charge, etc. Plus, some of the most needy would not get fed because they were unable to get their paperwork processed.

Leave the government to protect us from what internal and external crimes it can, and build common assets such as streets. Let the parents, local school, and churches plan and carry out social justice type activities.

That’s what I call a healthy separation of Church and State. Why do we think we should entrust Caesar to do God’s work?

Alan

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I don’t know about the comparison between liberals and libertarians and I will admit that my caricature of liberalism as people who follow their own feelings only as a basis of truth is a bit too simple.

Here’s how I see it. Their are three worldviews or “religious systems” in the world.

Western Materialism/Rationalism invented or reinvented in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries denies that God or truth can be known. Rather, what life and invention are based upon is whatever the majority says is correct. It is the basis of modern science and politics and outside of Deism and some forms of dispensationalism has little use for any classic forms of religion. Modern liberalism is pretty much in this category. This category is the default category of all North American and Western European societies. “Knowledge” is based upon a closed system dependent upon certain rational constructs.

Eastern Mysticism is very ancient and believes that there is no reality outside the universal soul. Physical existence is an illusion based upon ignorance. Once we free ourselves from such ignorance we will be reabsorbed in the All. Knowledge is based upon meditation. The rational constructs of the materialists are rejected as mere mental phenomenon.

Monotheism believes in two orders of existence which can to one degree or another become one; God and creation. God creates by an act of His will and then provides a way for contingent then total participation with truth and God called worship.

To the degree that Western Rationalism rejects certain realities that won’t fit into their system they are either sinful or disordered.

Dan L

 

[Lilyofthevalley]

Let’s see Michael Weaner, the man who talks about women in the military like they are garbage, but Mr. WEaner during THE VIetnam ERa did not serve in the military. YEp, MR. WEaner went to BErkly. I Wonder what he was doing there.
OH, he also said the POpe looked like SAnta CLause. I guess he thought the pope looked funny dressed in red when he was layed out for his viewing. NIce guy there poking fun of a dead holy man.
SO you folks read his books, and remember what he said about the pope.

 

[cynic]

AlanFromWichita:

You have made a good characterization, from what I know of them.

The reason this appeals to me, is that I think local Churches should be in charge of the liberal stuff such as welfare programs. For example, the best known free no-questions-asked meal every evening in Wichita is at the Lord’s Diner. The Catholic Diocese built it downtown, right across from the Cathedral. Practically any organization worth its salt has evenings scheduled to supply volunteer workers (after getting them Kansas food handler’s cards) from its organization. Scouts, parishes, schools, even non-Catholic groups.

This is the kind of thing the Church could do more of, if its powers weren’t usurped by the government. We could have actual stewardship of resources. If the government were running the Lord’s Diner, they would have means testing, huge administrative costs, endless debate over who gets credit for what, one party looking for negative soundbites from guests on nights the other party was in charge, etc. Plus, some of the most needy would not get fed because they were unable to get their paperwork processed.

Leave the government to protect us from what internal and external crimes it can, and build common assets such as streets. Let the parents, local school, and churches plan and carry out social justice type activities.

That’s what I call a healthy separation of Church and State. Why do we think we should entrust Caesar to do God’s work?

Alan

Because it isn’t just Gods work, it’s the resposibility of society, run by an elected government. For the majority of the 20th century society has decided that letting those who can’t provide for themselves starve was not a good idea. And things like the minimum wage are a rational way to make sure those who can work can at least pay for a roof over their heads and enough food. Say what you will about he state of welfare today, but I can’t agree with you that all social support should be partitioned out to local churches, turning, what was in intention at least a safety net for those in need, into charity. Call me a commie if you wish but I believe those who are helpless have a right to receive help, because they are human, and not have that dependant on whether others ‘feel’ like being charitable.

(I’m obviosely not American…)

 

[vern_humphrey]

cynic:

Because it isn’t just Gods work, it’s the resposibility of society, run by an elected government.

When did the Church decide we no longer have personal responsibility, but could transfer all responsbility to government?

For the record, government does a bloody BAD job of taking care of people. In my state, the state-run education system has not managed to make a dent in the 22% adult illiteracy rate – and in some counties, it runs over 40%.

How is it “taking care of people” when they are not recieving a basic education?

cynic:

. And things like the minimum wage are a rational way to make sure those who can work can at least pay for a roof over their heads and enough food.

The minimun wage is an ideal way to:

1. Reduce the number of entry-level jobs, thus ensuring that many people with a poor education and no job skills can never set their foot on the economic ladder.
2. Raise prices to the consumer, thus ensuring that the poorest citizens will have to pay more for basic necessities.
3. Compress wages, ensuring that those who manage to get an entry-level job and work hard are not properly rewarded for their hard work.

And finally;

1. Promoting entry-level jobs as a way to support a family encourages people to start families when they cannot afford to support them.

cynic:

Say what you will about he state of welfare today, but I can’t agree with you that all social support should be partitioned out to local churches, turning, what was in intention at least a safety net for those in need, into charity. Call me a commie if you wish but I believe those who are helpless have a right to receive help, because they are human, and not have that dependant on whether others ‘feel’ like being charitable.

(I’m obviosely not American…)

What they (and we) have is a right to effective help, not help that is overpriced, riddled with corruption, and ineffective.

Turning all responsibilities over to a non-accountable government has resulted in the creation of a permanent underclass.

 

[Lisa_N]

cynic:

Because it isn’t just Gods work, it’s the resposibility of society, run by an elected government. For the majority of the 20th century society has decided that letting those who can’t provide for themselves starve was not a good idea. And things like the minimum wage are a rational way to make sure those who can work can at least pay for a roof over their heads and enough food. Say what you will about he state of welfare today, but I can’t agree with you that all social support should be partitioned out to local churches, turning, what was in intention at least a safety net for those in need, into charity. Call me a commie if you wish but I believe those who are helpless have a right to receive help, because they are human, and not have that dependant on whether others ‘feel’ like being charitable.

(I’m obviosely not American…)

Obviously!

Vern is right cynic, the problem with doling the money out to the government to spend is that it has certainly not provided any evidence it is either effective or efficient at providing a safety net.

No one starves in this country other than Terri Shiavo who was starved at government (not church) demand. I agree those who are helpless deserve our help. Funny how our government programs have assured that the most helpless (disabled, unborn babies) are the ones who are killed legally and those who are NOT helpless but simply gaming the system, ignorant or lazy can get plenty of support. I’ve learned to despise some of what Ayn Rand stood for but one of the things she pointed out is that our welfare state rewards bad behavior and the worse you behave the more you are given as far as government programs. I have very little faith in many government programs. Quite honestly our military service does a great job but the social industrial complex is a disaster.

I honestly don’t know the answer, maybe some combination of government and charity, but the money needs to follow the programs that work. We’re putting way too much down the proverbial rathole

Lisa N

 

[cynic]

vern humphrey:

The minimun wage is an ideal way to:

1. Reduce the number of entry-level jobs, thus ensuring that many people with a poor education and no job skills can never set their foot on the economic ladder.
2. Raise prices to the consumer, thus ensuring that the poorest citizens will have to pay more for basic necessities.
3. Compress wages, ensuring that those who manage to get an entry-level job and work hard are not properly rewarded for their hard work.

And finally;

1. Promoting entry-level jobs as a way to support a family encourages people to start families when they cannot afford to support them.

What they (and we) have is a right to effective help, not help that is overpriced, riddled with corruption, and ineffective.

Turning all responsibilities over to a non-accountable government has resulted in the creation of a permanent underclass.

the minimum wage is exactly what it implies, that absolute minimum needed for full time workers to pay for food and a modest rent. You have to wonder about the motives of those who want to pay their workers less than this.

You do not need a good education to get a job in a factory but why bother working at all for $2 and hour. Do you agree with people getting paid $2 an hour? Cause their’s no limit to how low it can go. LIterally how do they suppport themselves on a significantly lower than current minimum wage? I think all this “it’s ineffecient” or “its actually bad for the poor” rationale is used just so employers can pay ALL their low level staff less than the current minimum. Whats next no lunch breaks, no minumum safety conditions? I suppose removing these things could also help employ more staff, making cheaper goods. And all this under the banner of morality and personal responsibilty.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

There are many problems involved with the government doing the income redistribution.

The minute you say this person has a “right” to this or that service from the government, then you create an obligation for someone to give it to them because the government cannot give anything it has not taken from others. If we say that one person has a “right” to dental care, for example, then who’s job it is to provide it? Do we make dentists treat that person without pay, or do we take money from third parties – at gunpoint I might add – to pay the dentist?

Now that a couple generations of the mentality of wealth redistribution has been with us, we don’t even help each other because that’s “the government’s job.” That’s what we pay taxes for, right? Nobody gets any blessings of stewardship because they were compelled under threat of worldly sanctions.

Essentially what I’m saying is that liberalism is the Church’s job, not the government’s. The government has taken it over because it empowers them. The rules are written in such a way to make it hard for recipients to get out on their own once they are in it. Why? Because the self-serving bureaucracies are funded an empowered by how many people they “serve” as opposed to how many people they “help” get out on their own.

Government: roads, military, police.
Church: take care of her widows and orphans and hungry.

When the government does the Church’s job to enforce morality and to perform wealth redistribution, we get socialism and the closer we get, the closer our whole financial system comes to collapse and then nobody is better off.

If we use the government to point guns at people to make them behave the way we think God wants them to, then there really isn’t much point in having a church. In the church we are led from the top down. In the government, the power flows from the people. Who wants it acting like a big church where what is “right” and “moral” is decided by popular election. We end up with stupid stuff like gay marriages. It certainly wouldn’t be a Catholic church.

Socialism in government: bad, dangerous.
Socialism in the Church: good, life giving.
Government doing God’s work: bad, dangerous.

Alan

 

[vern_humphrey]

cynic:

the minimum wage is exactly what it implies, that absolute minimum needed for full time workers to pay for food and a modest rent.

That’s what YOU say it is. In actuality, it is an artificially established wage which:

1. Reduces the number of entry-level jobs, thus ensuring that many people with a poor education and no job skills can never set their foot on the economic ladder.
2. Raises prices to the consumer, thus ensuring that the poorest citizens will have to pay more for basic necessities.
3. Compresses wages, ensuring that those who manage to get an entry-level job and work hard are not properly rewarded for their hard work.
4. Promotes entry-level jobs as a way to support a family and encourages people to start families when they cannot afford to support them.

You have to wonder about people who are willing to visit these evils on the poor.

cynic:

You do not need a good education to get a job in a factory

Bingo! The poor don’t NEED an education. If you gave them an education, they might start thinking they’re as good as the liveral elite!!

cynic:

but why bother working at all for $2 and hour. Do you agree with people getting paid $2 an hour? Cause their’s no limit to how low it can go. LIterally how do they suppport themselves on a significantly lower than current minimum wage?

Liberal elitism at work again – you pretend that the poor aren’t capable of climbing the economic ladder. So throw them a bone (and in the process, keep them poor.)

cynic:

I think all this “it’s ineffecient” or “its actually bad for the poor” rationale is used just so employers can pay ALL their low level staff less than the current minimum. Whats next no lunch breaks, no minumum safety conditions? I suppose removing these things could also help employ more staff, making cheaper goods. And all this under the banner of morality and personal responsibilty.

Look around and see what liberalism has done – look at your own post, “You do not need a good education to get a job in a factory.”

Cynic, indeed!

 

[Ghostgirl]

Wow. Thanks for reminding me why I quit the Church.

 

[Dr.Colossus]

Ghostgirl:

Wow. Thanks for reminding me why I quit the Church.

This is the first time I’ve seen you post, so a belated welcome to the forums!

So you quit the Church because it says that making yourself out to be the sole judge on right and wrong is bad?

 

[fix]

Ghostgirl:

Wow. Thanks for reminding me why I quit the Church.

What part of objective truth do you find unreasonable?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Just wait till TNT sees this page!

 

[cynic]

vern humphrey:

That’s what YOU say it is. In actuality, it is an artificially established wage:!

So?

!
You have to wonder about people who are willing to visit these evils on the poor.!

Worse than the evil of not having enough money to eat and pay rent?

!
Bingo! The poor don’t NEED an education. If you gave them an education, they might start thinking they’re as good as the liveral elite!!!

I was replying to irrelevant assertion you made, and I’m assuming you also believe in a completely privatised education system, that would cost thousands of $ a year for one child to be educated at primary and high school level, making that argument void

!
Liberal elitism at work again – you pretend that the poor aren’t capable of climbing the economic ladder. So throw them a bone (and in the process, keep them poor.)!

Why would you assume that? Anyway, people need to put food in their mouths no matter where on the ladder they might be

!
Look around and see what liberalism has done – look at your own post, “You do not need a good education to get a job in a factory.”

Cynic, indeed!

oh yeah I’m a effete liberal elitist, got any more cliches?
the minimun wage has been around for ages, it isn’t anything to do with liberalism. As I said It recognises that people need to put food in their mouths no matter what work they do. Under libertarianism there is no guarantee for that. I’d also say that jobs a little further up the ladder are tied to the minimum, not just entry level work, lose the minumum and lower-middle and low paid workers wages drop like a stone…

 

[vern_humphrey]

cynic:

Worse than the evil of not having enough money to eat and pay rent?

The lack of money is directly due to two things – no skills and no jobs. Raising the minimum wage dries up jobs for people with no skills.

cynic:

I was replying to irrelevant assertion you made,

And in the process, tipped your hand. It was an elitist remark, and showed your disdain for those less fortunate than yourself.

cynic:

and I’m assuming you also believe in a completely privatised education system, that would cost thousands of $ a year for one child to be educated at primary and high school level, making that argument void

The word “assume” is spelled *** U ME. Do I need to explain that? http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

cynic:

Why would you assume that? Anyway, people need to put food in their mouths no matter where on the ladder they might be

And without a good education, and with few jobs for people in that status, they’ll stay at the bottom – right where you want them.

cynic:

oh yeah I’m a effete liberal elitist, got any more cliches?

It isn’t often we see someone who so clearly exemplifies the type.

cynic:

the minimun wage has been around for ages, it isn’t anything to do with liberalism. As I said It recognises that people need to put food in their mouths no matter what work they do. Under libertarianism there is no guarantee for that. I’d also say that jobs a little further up the ladder are tied to the minimum, not just entry level work, lose the minumum and lower-middle and low paid workers wages drop like a stone…

The minimum wage is a made-up idea, left over from the radical leftism of the '30s. It was a bad idea then, and a worse one now.

But it lets liberals cynically tax someone else as cover for their failed economic, social and educational policies.

 

[cynic]

vern humphrey:

The lack of money is directly due to two things – no skills and no jobs. Raising the minimum wage dries up jobs for people with no skills.

And in the process, tipped your hand. It was an elitist remark, and showed your disdain for those less fortunate than yourself.

The word “assume” is spelled *** U ME. Do I need to explain that? http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

And without a good education, and with few jobs for people in that status, they’ll stay at the bottom – right where you want them.

It isn’t often we see someone who so clearly exemplifies the type.

The minimum wage is a made-up idea, left over from the radical leftism of the '30s. It was a bad idea then, and a worse one now.

But it lets liberals cynically tax someone else as cover for their failed economic, social and educational policies.

sheesh you are like a dog with a bone. reverting to tired labels and mudslinging because you disagree with somone elses point of view. Actually no, my parents are poor, I had to take out a loan to go to uni, and at the moment I barely earn enough to get by week to week while trying to do both… but don’t let reality get in the way of some arbitrary rant at the ‘liberals’…
Wage competition has no significant effect on semi or unskilled labour. Yet these jobs have to be done, and even if it’s temporary people need to eat while doing them. The whole point of removing the minimum is so that employers can pay less than this. That’s not good for workers no matter how you look at it, plenty of unkilled jobs, but no way to live on the wages provided, well that makes sense. But your pretense at caring about people in these situations is touching. It wouldn’t just be about wanting to pay them less would it? Of course not. It’s for their own good.

I never suggested raisng the minumum, but it’s you who wants to have it removed altogether

I put it to you, you work soldering parts for a small electronics firm, you get 50 cents more then the minimum wage. Suddenly the minimum wage is removed and your employer decides to pay you $3.00 an hour. You now can’t afford the combined cost of food and the rent on your 1 bedroom flat. The short answer is you don’t care about this sort of thing, everyday reality gets in the way of a blinkered idealogical opposition to anything perceived as left. What worse is that I have NEVER heard anyone say this kind of thing unless they were in a position to benefit from lower wages, you never hear the poor say it, only those from a comfy insular environment - what you accuse me of.

 

[David_Paul]

cynic:

The short answer is you don’t care about this sort of thing, everyday reality gets in the way of a blinkered idealogical opposition to anything perceived as left.

Good grief. Get out of the William Jennings Bryan/New Deal mentality. Minimum wage…sheesh.

I know immigrants who speak little English who make $400 to $500 a week. How? They think. They don’t take minimum wage jobs. They work for themselves. They find what somebody needs and offer to do it. Day labor in my town gets ten bucks and hour and up. That isn’t for ditch digging. Its leaf blowing type landscape work. Mexican guy in Vegas I know was clearing over $400 a Saturday and Sunday selling tomatos for two bucks a bucket (a great deal…he didn’t even have to sell them). Where did he get the tomatos? He made a deal to glean a farmer’s field.

You are stuck in the marxist employer/employee rut. But that is what is taught in our government schools so its to be expected most fall for it.

Bottom line is if you work for somebody else you don’t have time to make any money.

Those who dwell on raising the mininum wage are playing people for suckers. A whole half a buck or buck more an hour. Maybe a whole two dollars more! Whoopie-de-doo.

 

[cynic]

David_Paul:

You are stuck in the marxist employer/employee rut. But that is what is taught in our government schools so its to be expected most fall for it.

Bottom line is if you work for somebody else you don’t have time to make any money.

Not everybody can work for themselves, unless we’re all givin a plot of land at birth most of us will be (and are) reliant on the wages we recieve to buy basic neccessities. Libertarian arguments fall flat because they totally rely on unpredictable economic forces like wage competition to keep the low paid at a surivable level of income. They open the door to the possiblity of full time workers being unable to afford these basics, good luck looking for a better job or trying to get training whem your living on the street, havn’t showered for a month…If keeping the minimum is marxist then the Bush administration is marxist… everyone but libertarians are marxist… I’m happy to be a marxist pansy then… Ahh stupid lables, aren’t they just grand?, no need to make a coherent argument at all…just use some anecdotal examples of people making it on their own, as if the market is big enough for everyone to do this, some morality arguments thrown in (implying that people you disagree with are immoral, hence the 'liberal elitist" tag), and you’re there… absolutely no obligation at all to provide funds for schools, hospitals…

 

[David_Paul]

cynic:

Not everybody can work for themselves, unless we’re all givin a plot of land at birth most of us will be (and are) reliant on the wages we recieve to buy basic neccessities.

Yes they can. I’ve had dealings with thousands of people who started with nothing. Been trading, dealing, wholesaling to sole proprietorships for decades. We socialize a lot. Endless shop talk. Many had no other choice except welfare as they were more or less unemployable or so buried in debt the only way they could get out was to work for themselves and make some real money.

My grandfather lost his dad when he was 15. He took care of his mother and sister. By the time he was 30, he had 6 kids of his own and a house (that was pre-FDR so it was a lot easier but it still can be done).

 

[cynic]

well maybe in your home town, but a modern idustrial economy requires labour.