PROOF: Liberalism is a sin AND a mental disorder

[cynic]

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

typical libertarianism, socialism=bad, government= beurocracy, government wants to control our minds etc… But on the other hand theocracy is good though eh? Its all about who’s in control, not control itself.
aside from welfare someone has to pay tax for services, that’s the price for living in a first world country, things like schools come out of tax, and people pay tax. Do you agree with private education ie education for only those who can afford it? I don’t, kids have a right to decent education no matter how much their parents earn.

The reason i don’t agree with contracting it out to churches is that it forces people of all different beliefs to become beggers at a religiose institutions door. What if your from a different denomination (by’church’, you mean catholic church), or a different religion. If services are to be provided why should everyone be forced into such an obligatory relationhip with the catholic church? It’s inappropriate. It also doesn’t solve practical problems like providing job training, helping find work for the unemployed. These things are done by government. I’d rather have inefficient beurocracy doing these things than not having them done at all.

 

[bluezone7]

I have a graduate degree in the Political Science field also … but I have not read his book so I cannot come to any conclusions about the author’s theory. First we must decide what is “Liberalism”? How is he measuring “Liberalism”? Is it just a horizontal (political) measurement or a vertical (social) and horizontal (economic) measurement? If I were to use the first measurement then JPII and BXVI would be considered conservatives. If the second measurement were to be used both Popes would be considered socially conservative but economically liberal. So I think it is too easy to brand someone liberal or conservative these days. I support Catholicism 100%, I know abortion is murder, homosexuality is wrong, but I still would be a “Liberal” – politically, socially, and economically. Instead I think the real question should be “are you moral or immoral?” Hmmmm…were Martin Luther King Jr. and the Catholic priests who marched with him sinners who suffered from a mental disorders?

:yawn: I’m tired good night

 

[jimmy]

"Liberalism Is A Sin" - by Fr. Felix Sarda Salvany

THIS BOOK WAS OFFICIALLY APPROVED BY ROME!

You may read it online here:
ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/libissin.htm

Or you may purchase it here (best $6 you’ll ever spend!):
tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/394/

"Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" - by Dr. Michael Savage

Mr. Savage is a scientist and holds:

**A Master’s degree **in medical botany
A Master’s degree in medical anthropology
A Ph.D. in Epidemiology and Nutritional Science

You may purchase his book here at:
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/book_store_1a.html

I agree with Michael Savage. Just look at this picture from his website.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Ghostgirl:

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

Dear Ghostgirl,

Several people have made assumptions about what this means, but I am curious to know what you were talking about.

What was it about one or more posts that reminded you of your quitting the Church? For example, was it a perceived attitude, a falsehood stated as fact, or converstional style?

Can you either point to the exact quote, or describe it in general if you can’t pin it down? I’m interested to know if your reasons for leaving the Church are anything like the reasons for which I am sometimes tempted to do so.

Alan

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Let me contribute another “L” word into the mix here… “Libertinism”, which is basically acting without moral restraint.

I think that’s closer to what people here are caricaturing as “Liberalism”, which I much prefer in its classical sense, as it would apply to the founding fathers of the U.S.

 

[feather]

There is a passage in the bible that says something like this “Whatsoever you do unto the least of your brothers, you do unto me”. Whoever put that bright and big and shiny statement for all to see and almost hear, it hurts someone, and it hurts God too. I am not a liberalist and I am sure glad I am not, to see something like that. We are here to love not to judge. God is the judge.

 

[fix]

feather:

There is a passage in the bible that says something like this “Whatsoever you do unto the least of your brothers, you do unto me”. Whoever put that bright and big and shiny statement for all to see and almost hear, it hurts someone, and it hurts God too. I am not a liberalist and I am sure glad I am not, to see something like that. We are here to love not to judge. God is the judge.

Can you explain what you are referring to?

 

[Lisa_N]

feather:

There is a passage in the bible that says something like this “Whatsoever you do unto the least of your brothers, you do unto me”. Whoever put that bright and big and shiny statement for all to see and almost hear, it hurts someone, and it hurts God too. I am not a liberalist and I am sure glad I am not, to see something like that. We are here to love not to judge. God is the judge.

Really? Where did you find that passage? Of COURSE we judge. Do you accept any behavior from anyone?

Lisa N

 

[vern_humphrey]

Lisa N:

Really? Where did you find that passage? Of COURSE we judge. Do you accept any behavior from anyone?

Lisa N

I read an article by a college professor who cited a student essay that said, "Hitler did some controversial things, but who are we to judge?’

If we can’t judge Hitler, we are no better that he was.

 

[feather]

I don’t call people names and I don’t like seeing people called names, regardless of what they believe.

I believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church and I was called a heretic and a non-Christian on another board because I was Catholic. That hurt and I am sure someone with liberal beliefs also hurts to see themselves called mentally ill.

Making someone else look bad doesn’t make you look good, not at all.

I think I was in the right thread here.:ehh:

 

[feather]

vern humphrey:

I read an article by a college professor who cited a student essay that said, "Hitler did some controversial things, but who are we to judge?’

If we can’t judge Hitler, we are no better that he was.

And if you do judge Hitler, you are no better than he was. After all he judged all the Jews, right.

 

[fix]

feather:

I don’t call people names and I don’t like seeing people called names, regardless of what they believe.

I believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church and I was called a heretic and a non-Christian on another board because I was Catholic. That hurt and I am sure someone with liberal beliefs also hurts to see themselves called mentally ill.

Making someone else look bad doesn’t make you look good, not at all.

I think I was in the right thread here.:ehh:

I think name calling is usually in bad taste if used inaccurately and with malice. The author of the book claiming liberalism is a mental disorder may be making a statement of fact. I have not read the book, but he may have references to back it up.

 

[feather]

vern humphrey:

I read an article by a college professor who cited a student essay that said, "Hitler did some controversial things, but who are we to judge?’

If we can’t judge Hitler, we are no better that he was.

And if you do judge Hitler, you are no better than he was. After all he judged all the Jews, right.

 

[fix]

feather:

And if you do judge Hitler, you are no better than he was. After all he judged all the Jews, right.

If one may not judge another’s words or actions, then why did you judge the man who wrote the title calling liberalism a mental disorder?

We are all called to judge and Christ told us we should. Not another’s eternal soul, but we should judge their actions and words.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

feather:

And if you do judge Hitler, you are no better than he was. After all he judged all the Jews, right.

It goes both ways. That makes him no worse or better than us.

Don’t we want to be able to praise God that we are not like him?

Alan

P.S. The real question is, am I bluffing? Sometimes I’m not sure myself. :whacky:

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

IP.S. The real question is, am I bluffing? Sometimes I’m not sure myself. :whacky:

We will never know, because we may not* judge*…:banghead:

 

[vern_humphrey]

feather:

And if you do judge Hitler, you are no better than he was. After all he judged all the Jews, right.

Hitler KILLED Jews.

If you cannot comprehend that as an evil act, and recognize that the men who did it are evil, then I feel sorry for you.

 

[feather]

vern humphrey:

Hitler KILLED Jews.

If you cannot comprehend that as an evil act, and recognize that the men who did it are evil, then I feel sorry for you.

He KILLED them because he JUDGED them unfit which isn’t too far from mentally disordered.

 

[vern_humphrey]

feather:

He KILLED them because he JUDGED them unfit which isn’t too far from mentally disordered.

What part of “killed” are you having problems understanding?

Hitler killed about 6 million Jews, and about 6 million other people in the holocaust.

Now, are you saying that was NOT an evil act?

It was. And it was perpetrated by evil men.

 

[feather]

In answer to your question “No”.

Excuse me, that is two negatives and could be misread.

Hitler most certainly committed a grevious and evil act, in my opinion, in judging and killing a multitude of people.