J
- Status
K
koda
Guest
Perfect example of gross generalization and name calling. Like saying: conservatives promote inequality and have no use for the good of humanity. Imagine if somebody’d said that!
J
Jay74
Guest
It’s a little different. He didn’t say “liberals promote evil and have no use for freedom.”
It would be a fairer example to say “conservatives hate evil more than they hate inequality, and would rather be free and unequal than controlled and equal.”
I believe he speaks the truth. Most liberals do hate inequality more than evil. Some people may find this a good thing, the writer doesn’t.
Also, generalizations aren’t always bad. People side with conservative movements and liberal movements due to generally common values. Also, I fail to see where he resorted to name calling.
S
sea_oat
Guest
Actually, I really liked that article. Thanks for posting it.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
The left doesn’t hate inequality. They are comfortable with inequality as long as they don’t get the short end of the stick.
W
walstan
Guest
If that’s a “Moral” insight, thank God I’m Christian!!
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Why is the Left so comfortable with Totalitarianism?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Stop and think about it – the issue is justice. If we do not dispense justice to the oppressor, we show cruelty to the oppressed. A good example is judges who give drunk drivers chance after chance.
K
koda
Guest
vern humphrey:
Didn’t Jesus tell us to be merciful to our oppressors? And I think there was something about the level of mercy we receive will be equal to that we dispense. Yes, I think that was one of his main points.
G
gilliam
Guest
St. Thomas teaches:
Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion *Ep. ad Marcel. cxxxviii]: “If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: ‘Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay’ *Lk. 3:14]. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering.”
Such like precepts, as Augustine observes (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19), should always be borne in readiness of mind, so that we be ready to obey them, and, if necessary, to refrain from resistance or self-defense. Nevertheless it is necessary sometimes for a man to act otherwise for the common good, or for the good of those with whom he is fighting. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Marcellin. cxxxviii): “Those whom we have to punish with a kindly severity, it is necessary to handle in many ways against their will. For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy.”
Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord “came not to send upon earth” (Mt. 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): “We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace.”
Manly exercises in warlike feats of arms are not all forbidden, but those which are inordinate and perilous, and end in slaying or plundering. In olden times warlike exercises presented no such danger, and hence they were called “exercises of arms” or “bloodless wars,” as Jerome states in an epistle
From: **St. Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica, Part II, Question 40 **
A
Agricola
Guest
Amen,
The terms must be scrutinized with every usage it seems. Traditionally, to be a “liberal” was to look for the greatest amount of liberty for the greatest number of people without treading upon the liberty of others.
Today the meanings of the terms in question have been changed. To be conservative now means what to be liberal meant in the past, and to be liberal means what to be libertine meant in the past. Confusing, isn’t it.
Anyway, without some generalization there can be no discussion of relevant politics. After all, what is a polity ? When speaking of a group of people one has to overlook the small differences between the individuals within the group and assess the core beliefs or positions held by the group as a whole.
… to use what seems a dreadful cliche in forums… that’s my two cents.
God bless,
Agricola
T
thestickman
Guest
GREAT article!!!
I concur!
I concur!
- Status