The impact of liberalism, secularism, and atheism on Catholicism

[Latias]

alimprogram.org/articles/impact-of-liberalism-secularism-atheism-on-american-mosque/

I came across this article written by Professor Sherman Jackson. It was written by a Muslim for a Muslim audience, but one could switch some terms around, such as replacing “Muslim” with “Catholic”, and the article would mostly be relevant to Catholics. I also like the article because it describes how liberalism, secularism, and atheism affect the civil climate and how that would reflect religious institutions and practices in the US (or the “West” in general). Unlike Catholic conservatives, it does not take a particularly hostile stance towards them, but it does not how a societal milieu where those ideological orientation is predominant and enshrined can enervate religious practice. The article implores Muslims to be wary of these three interconnected ideologies and not to embrace the current zeitgeist.

Of course, conservative Catholics would talk about liberalism leads to the decadence of the “moral values” of society, since it does not condemn sexual licentiousness and abortion. The restoration of “traditional” values over liberalism would supposedly enrich family life and prevent individuals into falling into various decadent habits such as consumerism, sexual promiscuity, and drug use. Jackson’s article does not advocate that, but again, provides an outline of how these three ideologies affect how one views their own religious faith, in particular Islam.

 

[CatholicSpirit]

Liberalism is called “a disease” by many conservatives. There are persons who call themselves “they” when it is clear that God made us from dust and breathed life into our nostrils. We are not a “they.” We are not to compare ourselves so much to others that demonstrate “what we don’t want to be like” to redefine our existence. Liberalism taunts religious persons on abortion and euthanasia, unwarranted deaths. Many Catholics cannot stand those practices. So many issues, all the way to the removal of a mention of God in the pledge of allegiance to “accommodate those who do not have such a belief.” We are trying to indulge in the blood of Jesus Christ which reunited us with God and provided us with mercy. Yet, as we work on this relationship, we have liberals behaving as a disgrace to our species in amending that relationship. Our disadvantage is that while we acknowledge that their behaviors anger God, we have to deal with it while simultaneously following our own directives of not being judgemental. The battles we have are argued as hypocritical because we are supposed to be the understanding ones not comparing ourselves to others. As you now see in this response, the paradox we have in correcting the human race by Jesus Christ’s example.

So yes, Catholics and other conservative religious persons do feel burdened in a species with certain behaviors.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Bishop Fulton Sheen said that we should not be fooled by any assertion to the contrary: the final battle will be between atheism and Catholicism.

Or, to put it in other words: between the Church of God and the Church of Nogod.

 

[PJH_74]

What is “liberal” and what is “conservative”? Those distressed by God being removed to some degree from the public square or the pledge of allegiance and therefore what is a good American with good values must consider a few things.

First the Founding Fathers contained a number of people who were nominally attached to a church or a decent number of the most central ones were basically Deists. Certainly not Christian Orthodoxy and definitely liberal elites for the day. There are the people who defined what is was to be an American.

Religious devotion does not really have a time immemorial from which we have fallen. We’ve had 3 “Great Awakenings” prior to the turn of the 20th century including a great rise in religiosity after the death an destruction of the Civil War. The period of religiousness most of us remember was a result of Communism, WWII, and the Great Depression. The veterans of the war were great joiners and creators of social organizations; churches were no exception. Like it or not, many people attending church really did so because it was the social and politically correct thing to do. The Pledge of Allegiance is a bit of holdover propaganda from WWII when it was introduced in 1942 and later finding life in defining American identity against Communism. By the way, under God was only added in 1954.

Catholics should remember that the wide introduction of Catholicism was also considered and affront to Americanism by the mostly “Mainline” protestants who came before. Support of Catholics, women’s suffrage, and the Civil Rights movement were all considered liberal causes not so long ago. Heck even mini skirts and flappers were the end of conservatism in decades past.

 

[Bradski]

I think that secular attitudes impact on Catholics. But not necessarily on Catholicism.

 

[Russell_SA]

Secularism and Liberalism are all about group discussion for the ideas of what would make a better society. It involves everyone on every level of the discussion. It does not allow for presupposed traditional values to be passed along without scrutiny to see if they pass the sniff test of a moral society as we understand it today. Everything and everyone is to be discussed and mutually agreed upon for how to move forward. So I can see why this would be a discussion with any group of “traditional” values based on bronze age morality and why that will not be tolerated in the 21st century regardless of it’s affiliation with religion. Feel free to practice your religion as long as it’s benign to everyone else. Once your religion affects anyone other than yourself, we get to put limits on it.

 

[Bradski]

Them’s fightin’ words where I comes from…

 

[Vonsalza]

Once your religion affects anyone other than yourself, we get to put limits on it.

Does that include when your “religion” affects the exercise of mine? Like making me bake a wedding cake for a couple whose “marriage” is an affront to my religious view on marriage?

Incoming: A discussion about conflict theory.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

That’s a lot of isms

 

[Bradski]

Does that include when your “religion” affects the exercise of mine? Like making me bake a wedding cake for a couple whose “marriage” is an affront to my religious view on marriage?

This is why we have the separation between church and state. Or in this case, religious beliefs and a secular business.

If the business was called Kristian Kakes and was specifically associated with a church or religious group and run to benefit said church or religious group, then I would fully expect them to be able to refuse to make a cake celebrating a gay marriage. I’m thinking of a business run like those run by some Belgian monks, brewing some really great beer. I’m pretty certain that they would decline to directly supply beer to the Bruges Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras for example. And I wouldn’t expect anyone to complain about that.

That said, if you are in a business that is meant to serve the general population as opposed to a religious group, then that population will contain people who may well want a cake to celebrate something with which you have a religiously based objection. If you were allowed to discriminate, then consider this scenario:

There’s a guy working in a tool shop. An order comes in for a part that is going to be used on a valve. ‘No way’, he says. ‘Do you know that the valve is going to be used on a derrick that will pump oil which will be used to make diesel that will be used on the farm to harvest the wheat that will used to make flour that will be delivered to a bakery to make a cake that will be used to celebrate a gay marriage’.

And what if a gay couple came in and ordered a cake? Does the owner have the right to ask them personal questions about who it is for? Maybe it’s for a straight couple. So what about the couple’s relationship? Have they been divorced? Are they planning on having sex before the ceremony? Will they be using contraception? To what does the message ‘Congrats’ on the cake refer? A birth out of wedlock?

If there is anything that could be described as unnatural in the context of sex, it would be the fixation that so many Christians have with it. I’m a healthy heterosexual Australian male who lives a couple of streets from the beach where the majority of women wear very little indeed (just Google Bondi girls if you’re not too prudish and see what I have to put up with*) and I’m pretty certain that you guys spend more time thinking about sex than I do.

Bake the damn cake for heaven’s sake!

• That wasn’t a complaint by the way.

 

[KingAlfred]

In this crazy world, it’s a true challenge for me to “keep the faith”. I get so caught up in politics, that I often take positions that clearly are not Catholic. Often, waist-deep in ideological warfare, I feel morally lost. It is then that I scramble back to my Catholic faith, forever grateful that I have it. In those instances, I tell myself, “Just stay Catholic. Who are you to forge your own path?”

 

[Russell_SA]

Does that include when your “religion” affects the exercise of mine? Like making me bake a wedding cake for a couple whose “marriage” is an affront to my religious view on marriage?

Incoming: A discussion about conflict theory.

Our society has deemed businesses as a service to all the public, so it’s a public service. We ran this experiment against the blacks and were wrong here, or did you forget this? Separate but equal? etc. What you do in your private home, to yourself, is your own. But not if it affects your spouse or child or anyone else other than you.

 

[Vonsalza]

If the business was called Kristian Kakes and was specifically associated with a church or religious group and run to benefit said church or religious group, then I would fully expect them to be able to refuse to make a cake celebrating a gay marriage.

And we see that, to some degree. However, it appears to be a bit of a battlefield. How strong and clear does this association need to be in order to bequeath the desired benefit on the part of the theist?

I’m a healthy heterosexual Australian male who lives a couple of streets from the beach where the majority of women wear very little indeed (just Google Bondi girls if you’re not too prudish and see what I have to put up with*) and I’m pretty certain that you guys spend more time thinking about sex than I do.

Oh come now, I can say for myself that I certainly don’t give the topic much thought. At least, not as much as I did when I was 18. What is important to a Catholic is the definition of a family and the roles of men and women within it. Sex is just a topic that is intimately linked

And if what you say about your proximity to a beach and your description of the locals is true, any houses for sale nearby?

Our society has deemed businesses as a service to all the public, so it’s a public service. We ran this experiment against the blacks and were wrong here, or did you forget this? Separate but equal? etc. What you do in your private home, to yourself, is your own. But not if it affects your spouse or child or anyone else other than you.

Re-read Bradksi’s post. Particularly the part about the monks.

And in your mind, a person defending their religious practices is analogous to the historical institutional discrimination against black Americans? Is this the sort of mind I’m talking to?

Good grief, man.

 

[Russell_SA]

And in your mind, a person defending their religious practices is analogous to the historical institutional discrimination against black Americans? Is this the sort of mind I’m talking to?

Good grief, man.

I really don’t see a difference between “No Blacks Allowed” and “No Gay’s Allowed” in the cake business. Could you explain how that’s different because they seem to be the same to me, obviously.

 

[Darryl_B]

Secularism and Liberalism are all about group discussion for the ideas of what would make a better society. It involves everyone on every level of the discussion. It does not allow for presupposed traditional values to be passed along without scrutiny to see if they pass the sniff test of a moral society as we understand it today. Everything and everyone is to be discussed and mutually agreed upon for how to move forward. So I can see why this would be a discussion with any group of “traditional” values based on bronze age morality and why that will not be tolerated in the 21st century regardless of it’s affiliation with religion. Feel free to practice your religion as long as it’s benign to everyone else. Once your religion affects anyone other than yourself, we get to put limits on it.

Ah. The recently taught premise upon the minds of the innocent that society is a victim and therefore one is justified in their perpetration as that would be true enlightenment.

 

[Bradski]

And we see that, to some degree. However, it appears to be a bit of a battlefield. How strong and clear does this association need to be in order to bequeath the desired benefit on the part of the theist?.

It needs to be specific and distinct. Do you class yourself as a Christian business dealing with and for the Christian community only.

Now that’s off the top of my head, so feel free to revise that as you feel fit.

I don’t know how a company would fare in the US putting itself in that position, but in Australia, if the business was also expecting a cut of the secukar market as well, it would go out of business in a very short time.

You might be aware of one of our tennis greats from the sixties, Margaret Court, recently going public with the news that she wouldn’t be flying Qantas again because they support equal rights for all, specifically including gay people.

There are now moves to have a stadium that bears her name renamed. Bigots get short thrift down in these oarts.

And I’ll be leasing my place early next year. If you’re interested…

 

[edwest2]

Them’s fightin’ words where I comes from…

Yeah, what he said…

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Study military psychological warfare techniques. The simplistic idea that “our group has better ideas than your group” is a cover story. Oh sure, people don’t have to be Christians to have a workable idea that many could benefit from, but in the end, who is God? Man is god or God is God. Or is politics god? Which needs to be manipulated by the most well-funded and evangelical lobbyists until we “have the votes”?

Just be honest with yourself. Serve God or serve the god created by men. Here is the current impact as words are invented and old words/labels are relabeled. And old ideas repackaged.

"Pope Benedict XVI goes on to say:

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]

Commentary from The Practical Catholic:

“Pope Benedict does not play language games, he is unconcerned with the postmodernist’s corner on untruth. Neither should we be. Notice how he calls relativism a “dictatorship” instead of agreeing that no values and no Truth are the way forward for society. What many fail to recognize is that imposing nihilism and arbitrary tribalism is a form of dictatorship. Where untruth or half truth is the common order, there can only be oppression. Political correctness has asked us to abandon our value-laden language and to pick up a new language proper to the secular forum. However, this secular newspeak is value-laden against the traditional claims of the Western world and as such, is a poison rather than a new order. We can and should bring our own conviction laden language to the table, if we’re going to have any sort of real dialogue at all. Misinformation and restrained convictions are not the proper building blocks for a democracy.”

I watched as the mass media gradually dripped poison into the Body of Christ over a 40 year period in the West. It didn’t happen by itself. The slow, gradual poison was accepted at first because it didn’t feel that bad but decade after decade, it kept getting worse. And worse.

Turn your back on it my brothers and sisters. Renounce it. Because it is literally not good for you.

Ed

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Study military psychological warfare techniques. The simplistic idea that “our group has better ideas than your group” is a cover story. Oh sure, people don’t have to be Christians to have a workable idea that many could benefit from, but in the end, who is God? Man is god or God is God. Or is politics god? Which needs to be manipulated by the most well-funded and evangelical lobbyists until we “have the votes”?

Just be honest with yourself. Serve God or serve the god created by men. Here is the current impact as words are invented and old words/labels are relabeled. And old ideas repackaged.

"Pope Benedict XVI goes on to say:

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]

Commentary from The Practical Catholic:

“Pope Benedict does not play language games, he is unconcerned with the postmodernist’s corner on untruth. Neither should we be. Notice how he calls relativism a “dictatorship” instead of agreeing that no values and no Truth are the way forward for society. What many fail to recognize is that imposing nihilism and arbitrary tribalism is a form of dictatorship. Where untruth or half truth is the common order, there can only be oppression. Political correctness has asked us to abandon our value-laden language and to pick up a new language proper to the secular forum. However, this secular newspeak is value-laden against the traditional claims of the Western world and as such, is a poison rather than a new order. We can and should bring our own conviction laden language to the table, if we’re going to have any sort of real dialogue at all. Misinformation and restrained convictions are not the proper building blocks for a democracy.”

I watched as the mass media gradually dripped poison into the Body of Christ over a 40 year period in the West. It didn’t happen by itself. The slow, gradual poison was accepted at first because it didn’t feel that bad but decade after decade, it kept getting worse. And worse.

Turn your back on it my brothers and sisters. Renounce it. Because it is literally not good for you.

Ed

:thumbsup:amen

 

[Darryl_B]

Yeah, what he said…

Ed

I disagree that them were fighting words. Those words were vigilante lynching words. It is like a resurrected KKK with a different dress code and a slightly different creed but with the same essence. And as I tried to state in my earlier post. That is what our innocent children are being educated with.