The rise of the religious left

[TheTrueCentrist]

Enlightened according to whom?

From his wikipedia bio:

Awards

In addition to more than 15 honorary degrees:

* 1977 – Pulitzer Prize for Commentary
* 1978 – Headliner Award for consistently outstanding feature columns
* 1979 – Finalist for National Magazine Award in essays and criticism
* 1980 – Silurian Award for editorial writing
* 1991 – Silurian Award for editorial writing
* 1991 – First Place in Interpretive Columns: Clarion Awards from Women in Communications
* 1991 – Cronkite Award, Arizona State University
* 1992 – Madison Medal Award, Princeton University
* 1993 – William Allen White Award, William Allen White School of Journalism at the University of Kansas
* 2003 – Walter B. Wriston Lecture Award, The Manhattan Institute
* 2005 – Bradley Prize, The Bradley Foundation 
* 2006 – Champion of Liberty Award, Goldwater Institute

 

[ishii]

Political ideologies have two dimensions:

1. Goals: how society should work (or be arranged).
2. Methods: the most appropriate ways to achieve the ideal arrangement.

–Wikipedia

So ones belief about the permissibility of abortion is part of ones ideology because it is a statement of how society should work.

Well, one might have a goal of how society ought to be arranged. A & B might think that children born in the ghettoes don’t much of a chance of succeeding in life, and think they will be more of a burden on society. A & B may agree with this part of an ideology. A takes it a step further and recommends abortion of unborn babies born in the ghettoes as a method of achieving the goal of decreasing the number of children born with little chance to succeed. B will not go that far, realizing that abortion is murder. A is ignoring morality, B is observing and acting correctly according to right moral principles. Its about morality, not ideology.

Ishii

 

[Catherine_D]

Political ideologies have two dimensions:

1. Goals: how society should work (or be arranged).
2. Methods: the most appropriate ways to achieve the ideal arrangement.

–Wikipedia

So ones belief about the permissibility of abortion is part of ones ideology because it is a statement of how society should work.

First, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source.

Second, in an issue such as abortion, for a Catholic at least, it is clearly a moral issue, not “ideology”. “Ideology” is a word you might apply to sort of political philosophy. Abortion is a grave sin.

Abortion is a moral issue.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

First, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source.

Second, in an issue such as abortion, for a Catholic at least, it is clearly a moral issue, not “ideology”. “Ideology” is a word you might apply to sort of political philosophy. Abortion is a grave sin.

Abortion is a moral issue.

I’m not really disagreeing with you, just saying that morality is a subset of ideology, not the other way around.

 

[Catherine_D]

I’m not really disagreeing with you, just saying that morality is a subset of ideology, not the other way around.

Ideology has a connotation that takes it out of the moral realm. Communism is an ideology.

In matters of faith and morals, we do not look to “ideology”, we look to the Church.

Abortion is a moral issue. It is not ideology.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Certainly: because the religious have decided to leave the left to its own devices and embrace the “religious right.” Gay rights and abortion are ideological causes, had the religious actively sought representation by the left, it is likely their policies would change. But its too late, most people who care enough about gay marriage to vote against it probably wouldn’t vote for a liberal candidate even if he were opposed to gay marriage.

The ‘religious right’ is not only a myth, but a buzz-word invented by socialists to stir up resentment.

 

[Dale_M]

The ‘religious right’ is not only a myth, but a buzz-word invented by socialists to stir up resentment.

I’m not so sure about that. Certainly the phrase “Moral Majority” stirred up more resentment, since it suggested that anyone opposed to it was immoral. To me “religious right” is a neutral phrase. Even Jerry Falwell used it when, in 1989, he closed down the Moral Majority.

“The purpose of the Moral Majority was to activate the religious right,” said Falwell. “Our mission is accomplished.”

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958023,00.html

However, phrases and words can sometimes change their meanings with the passage of time. If persons find it pejorative, that is reason enough to choose an alternative label. Would Christian Right be acceptable?

 

[CMatt25]

The left, on the other hand, has always been more aligned with religious concerns… The government is a powerful force for good, through the government we could help millions of the poor and suffering. But for some reason this idea has not yet stuck with the religious.

Maybe that’s because the left has tried to actually align themselves with the chief concerns of Jesus which He addressed in Matt 25:35-46. And with how blessed are the peacemakers taught to us from the Mount. Instead of aligning themselves to such a degree with a single “A” word not even found in Scripture. I’m reminded of my former priest who said his answer to the poor is to get a job. He missed the whole Jesus thing in my book. Peace.

 

[Catherine_D]

I, for one, am looking forward to this resurgence of religious appreciation.

Now that everyone is recognizing the need for tolerance of religion and advocating for it, we can obviously expect the end of protests and lawsuits against such things as Nativity displays, the Ten Commandments, Menorahs and other religious symbols in the public square. I applaud this expansion of religious freedom!

 

[Janet_S]

Maybe that’s because the left has tried to actually align themselves with the chief concerns of Jesus which He addressed in Matt 25:35-46. And with how blessed are the peacemakers taught to us from the Mount. Instead of aligning themselves to such a degree with a single “A” word not even found in Scripture. I’m reminded of my former priest who said his answer to the poor is to get a job. He missed the whole Jesus thing in my book. Peace.

As far as the A word (abortion I assume)–it falls under the category of killing, specifically killing the innocent, and that is forbidden in Scripture.

But as far as your claim that the left aligns itself with the chief concerns of Jesus, I don’t agree with that at all. The left, as it stands, is very hostile to religion and religious people. They do all they can to keep religion out of the public square. People of faith are deameaned and labelled as hate-mongers or bigots by the left. Religion and the left don’t mix well, particularly in the areas of marriage, the family, and sexuality. This is usually seen when the interests of religious people collide with the interests of 3 favorite special interest groups of the left: radical feminists, homosexual activists, and radical environmentalists. The left’s sex-education policies promote promiscuity and undermine parental authority within the family. If they really cared about reducing the number of abortions, they would support the crisis pregnancy centers, but they don’t. They just push for more abortion funding and removing all restructions on abortion. If they really cared about teen promiscuity and pregnancies, they would support at least some abstinence education, but they won’t. Just hand out more condoms to school children of younger age. And, of course, pushing birth control and abortion fits right in with the goals of the radical environmentalists, so all 3 are happy.

I don’t recall in what part of the Gospel Jesus pushed for same-sex marriage or for using tax money to experiment on human embryos. He never to my knowledge promoted legislation that would elevate abortion and homosexual marriage to the level of fundamental human rights. Did he ever say “Blessed are those who pass trillion dollar stimulus packages, for their children will face insurmountable debt?” But we are supposed to think Jesus and the left are of the same mind?

There are many approaches to life and many different solutions to the world’s problems. Just because non-leftists don’t support a government based solution in all cases and aren’t as quick to dole out other people’s money, does not mean they don’t care about the poor. It just means they think the poor might stand a better chance to achieve a good, dignified life in a world where they are free and can make their own decisions rather than in a world where they are taken care of by the government and have their decisions made for them.

 

[Janet_S]

I always found the religious right concept somewhat discordant. Conservatism is and always has been about protecting people against ideology (i.e. religious views.) The conservatives of today decry perceived attempts by the government to infringe upon individual liberties. This is proper conservatism: primarily concerned with freedom.

The problem is that they then turn around and are absolutely outraged by the suggestion that the US is anything but a Christian nation. They seek to pass morality laws (e.g. outlaw gay marriage and pornography.) Conservatism should reject the claim “Christianity made this country great” and instead preach “freedom made this country great.” A true conservative believes that we are not free unless we are free to ruin ourselves.

The left, on the other hand, has always been more aligned with religious concerns. Liberalism holds as its highest good equality. This is something that the religious should embrace. Has not God made us all equal in dignity? Doesn’t God command us to lower ourselves to lift up the least among us? The government is a powerful force for good, through the government we could help millions of the poor and suffering. But for some reason this idea has not yet stuck with the religious.

What you’re describing “freedom made this country great” sounds more like the libertarian view than the conservative one. Right now libertarians and conservatives are aligned in the tea party movement, but that could change depending on the situation. At this time they are both fighting against big government, but there could be be a time when the conservatives and libertarians clash and and libertarians will team up with the liberals. Like someone else said, conservatives conserve. They are people who study history and try to harmonize past, present, and future. They don’t worship “progress” and “change.” If something isn’t broke, don’t fix it. That’s why they don’t want to change the definition of marriage. Like Chesterton said:

Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.

The terms liberal and conservative as well as right wing and left wing change over time as well as the issues they stand for. GK Chesterton was called a liberal in his day, and he has very little in common with an American liberal from 2010. Hitler was considered right wing, but he was also a socialist, which I guess would make him left wing.

 

[Feanor2]

Actually the core ideology of modern day American conservatism is freedom and individualism and its really classical liberalism. Conservatism, on the other hand, may be better described by the political philosopher Russell Kirk:

*Kirk developed six “canons” of conservatism, which Russello (2004) described as follows:

1.A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
2.An affection for the “variety and mystery” of human existence;
3.A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize “natural” distinctions;
4.A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
5.A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and
6.A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.

(Russell Kirk) grounded his Burkean conservatism in tradition, political philosophy, belles lettres, and the strong religious faith of his later years; rather than libertarianism and free market economic reasoning*.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk

Going beyond wiki, perhaps what people today refer to as “conservatism” is really a kind of right-wing liberalism (focus on individualism), whereas what we call liberalism is really "left-wing liberalism which values the secular government at the expense of individuals (abortion, e.g.). It seems that traditional conservatism might be interested in social issues rather than economic ones.

Ishii

Canon number 3 is disturbing and even disgusting. . . Maybe I am not understanding it but is this guy talking about wealth and class difference as a sign of “natural” distinctions? If so this guy is messed up. . .

 

[CMatt25]

As far as the A word (abortion I assume)–it falls under the category of killing, specifically killing the innocent, and that is forbidden in Scripture.

But as far as your claim that the left aligns itself with the chief concerns of Jesus, I don’t agree with that at all. The left, as it stands, is very hostile to religion and religious people. They do all they can to keep religion out of the public square. People of faith are deameaned and labelled as hate-mongers or bigots by the left. Religion and the left don’t mix well, particularly in the areas of marriage, the family, and sexuality. This is usually seen when the interests of religious people collide with the interests of 3 favorite special interest groups of the left: radical feminists, homosexual activists, and radical environmentalists. The left’s sex-education policies promote promiscuity and undermine parental authority within the family. If they really cared about reducing the number of abortions, they would support the crisis pregnancy centers, but they don’t. They just push for more abortion funding and removing all restructions on abortion. If they really cared about teen promiscuity and pregnancies, they would support at least some abstinence education, but they won’t. Just hand out more condoms to school children of younger age. And, of course, pushing birth control and abortion fits right in with the goals of the radical environmentalists, so all 3 are happy.

I don’t recall in what part of the Gospel Jesus pushed for same-sex marriage or for using tax money to experiment on human embryos. He never to my knowledge promoted legislation that would elevate abortion and homosexual marriage to the level of fundamental human rights. Did he ever say “Blessed are those who pass trillion dollar stimulus packages, for their children will face insurmountable debt?” But we are supposed to think Jesus and the left are of the same mind?

There are many approaches to life and many different solutions to the world’s problems. Just because non-leftists don’t support a government based solution in all cases and aren’t as quick to dole out other people’s money, does not mean they don’t care about the poor. It just means they think the poor might stand a better chance to achieve a good, dignified life in a world where they are free and can make their own decisions rather than in a world where they are taken care of by the government and have their decisions made for them.

I have no idea what you’re talking about when you say the left is hostile to religion. As I am of the left and have a strong faith in Jesus.

Now in regards to your other statements. It might fall under the category of killing if we believe human life begins at conception and we then also believe on this issue we have the right to force our religious beliefs onto others who may believe something else in that regard while we live in a democracy of plural faith beliefs on this issue.

With gays, depends on what we believe as literal in Scripture and what we don’t. And depends if we’re going to deny civil rights in again a society of plural beliefs which the last I checked was still a democracy and not a theocracy.

If the right really cared about life, they would support programs to aid mothers after giving birth to their babies. They would support affordable, adequate healthcare for all. They would support programs to better the lives of the poor, the hungry, the sick. We certainly wouldn’t have a priest at my nearest parish saying his answer to the poor is simply to get a job.

Perhaps you don’t recall Jesus talking about abortion and same sex marriage because He was too busy talking about the poor, the hungry, the homeless, and the sick. I don’t recall Him either elevating abortion to the degree the Catholic Church has elevated it. Oh that’s right because the word abortion isn’t even mentioned in thousands of pages of Scripture. In Exodus 21:22, 23 however we do have passages which could suggest the death of a fetus is not as severe as killing a person.

And where did Jesus say to spend a billion dollars **a week **on wars for yrs without end, adding to that deficit? Oh that’s right Jesus was about peacemakers being blessed.

If individuals and the Church and faith groups have failed to provide, and the govt has to play a role and if that means “doling out other people’s money” in an effort to help those Jesus taught us about, then I guess you’ll have to render unto Caesar.

Oh well God bless you and peace.

 

[Janet_S]

Now in regards to your other statements. It might fall under the category of killing if we believe human life begins at conception and we then also believe on this issue we have the right to force our religious beliefs onto others who may believe something else in that regard while we live in a democracy of plural faith beliefs on this issue.

With a few qualifications, what you say about abortion today was once said about slavery. Life at conception is not human? Slaves were not persons either. Catholics don’t have a right to force their religious beliefs on others who may believe something else? The same went for the abolitionists.

While the Church might not recommend the death penalty for abortion, it has always taught against it. Don’t make the same mistake Nancy Pelosi did by bringing up the book of Exodus and St Augustine. You know she was corrected by the American bishops don’t you? The Church is very clear about abortion: *Gaudium et Spes *(document of Vatican II) calls it an “unspeakable crime”. Evangelium Vitae declares it as perhaps the worst crimes against humanity, and that it is an infallible truth.

Sorry that your eyes are not open to this atrocity which is the preeminent civil rights issue of the day. It’s not just an abstract “women’s reproductive health issue” issue like the left emphemistically calls it, it’s a bloody reality. Seriously, maybe you should spend some time volunteering at an abortion clinic, perhaps taking out the trash every day, so you can see it for what it is. The abortionists don’t deny that it’s human or that they are killing it. Why do you?

 

[CMatt25]

With a few qualifications, what you say about abortion today was once said about slavery. Life at conception is not human? Slaves were not persons either. Catholics don’t have a right to force their religious beliefs on others who may believe something else? The same went for the abolitionists.

While the Church might not recommend the death penalty for abortion, it has always taught against it. Don’t make the same mistake Nancy Pelosi did by bringing up the book of Exodus and St Augustine. You know she was corrected by the American bishops don’t you? The Church is very clear about abortion: *Gaudium et Spes *(document of Vatican II) calls it an “unspeakable crime”. Evangelium Vitae declares it as perhaps the worst crimes against humanity, and that it is an infallible truth.

Sorry that your eyes are not open to this atrocity which is the preeminent civil rights issue of the day. It’s not just an abstract “women’s reproductive health issue” issue like the left emphemistically calls it, it’s a bloody reality. Seriously, maybe you should spend some time volunteering at an abortion clinic, perhaps taking out the trash every day, so you can see it for what it is. The abortionists don’t deny that it’s human or that they are killing it. Why do you?

I’m not going to get into apples and oranges with you comparing human born slaves to another’s belief about the moment of conception in the womb.

I don’t though worry all that much anymore about Nancy Pelosi being corrected by bishops who had in their ranks men who preached about the sanctity of life but who knew no better or couldn’t even keep themselves from covering up child abuse.

Yes I know the Church places abortion above other issues Jesus talked more about. Above things like the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the sick. About peacemakers being blessed.

I certainly would hope the Church never recommends the death penalty. Jesus clearly taught against it when He said He knew we had heard an eye for eye but…

Finally never said **I ** deny anything of the such. God bless you and peace.

 

[donsnow]

Gee, a religious left. I’ve always deemed myself as a conservative Catholic. Or, is that an oxymoron? smile.

I agree with the conservatives who think that the government’s business is building roads and dams, guarding the border and preserving and gaurding our Constitution and the rights and liberties it grant to all of us. The other issues belong in the private markets.

There is no right to health, that’s a God given gift and people who abuse it deserve the maladies their abuse causes.

Until a careless supreme court judge said marriage was a right, it had never been a right but had always been a duty. It’s still a duty.

I have never understood how any Catholic could vote Democratic, once I saw the light.

Both major American parties have abused the public trust. That’s why I’m an Independent boter, careful of all propaganda, political or religious. There are good people in both Parties, but they are outweighed by the other politicians who do not listen to their electorate.

I’ve lived through the Adminstrations since FDR, and as an adult, since Nixon. At one time, the Republican and Democratic parties balanced each other in fulfilling the nation’s needs. No more, that balance has been gone since the '70’s of the Twentieth Century.

I am gravely depressed, watching the demise of free America, it’s sovereignty sabatoged by internationalist Democrats and internationalist Republicans and international academics. Nationalism has a many good points as bad, and internationalism has more bad points than good. So much for worldly politics.

All Christians are responsible to make the Kingdom of God a reality in this world, in accordance with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Apostles and disciples. The kingdom of God’s love includes tought love as well as charity.

 

[Carlan]

I understood Answers closed down that dreadful political forum.

Get over it people.

This is supposed to be a love your neighbor and promote Christianity place to be!

Peace, Carlan

 

[donsnow]

I’m not really disagreeing with you, just saying that morality is a subset of ideology, not the other way around.

Just because you prioritize morality as subsequent to idealogy doesn’t mean anybody else does nor has to.

I see the both of them as separate issues, and my reason (idealogy) I make serve as the handmaiden to my faith (morality). I have found that when reason strays from faith, then all types of maladies and evil abound, imho.

 

[donsnow]

I have no idea what you’re talking about when you say the left is hostile to religion. As I am of the left and have a strong faith in Jesus.

Now in regards to your other statements. It might fall under the category of killing if we believe human life begins at conception and we then also believe on this issue we have the right to force our religious beliefs onto others who may believe something else in that regard while we live in a democracy of plural faith beliefs on this issue.

Since you’re Catholic, you should accept Catholic reasoning and subsequent teaching aboutt abortion.

The Catholic Church on Earth is the Church Militant. It’s not only our responsibility and duty to present the teachings of our faith to individuals and politics, but also allowed by the First Amendment as to freedom of speech.

With gays, depends on what we believe as literal in Scripture and what we don’t. And depends if we’re going to deny civil rights in again a society of plural beliefs which the last I checked was still a democracy and not a theocracy.

Again, I would like to point to Catholic Magesterium and teachings, not academic nor political, “with gays…”

With you protesting Catholic teaching on such basic issues, I can’t help but wonder if you could be a closet Protestant.

If the right really cared about life, they would support programs to aid mothers after giving birth to their babies. They would support affordable, adequate healthcare for all. They would support programs to better the lives of the poor, the hungry, the sick. We certainly wouldn’t have a priest at my nearest parish saying his answer to the poor is simply to get a job.

Perhaps you don’t recall Jesus talking about abortion and same sex marriage because He was too busy talking about the poor, the hungry, the homeless, and the sick. I don’t recall Him either elevating abortion to the degree the Catholic Church has elevated it. Oh that’s right because the word abortion isn’t even mentioned in thousands of pages of Scripture. In Exodus 21:22, 23 however we do have passages which could suggest the death of a fetus is not as severe as killing a person.

And where did Jesus say to spend a billion dollars **a week **on wars for yrs without end, adding to that deficit? Oh that’s right Jesus was about peacemakers being blessed.

If individuals and the Church and faith groups have failed to provide, and the govt has to play a role and if that means “doling out other people’s money” in an effort to help those Jesus taught us about, then I guess you’ll have to render unto Caesar.

Oh well God bless you and peace.

The government cannot and should not replace Jesus Christ nor the Church nor individual and other private sectors activities with the poor, et al. If the government weren’t levying such atrocious taxes from businesses and individuals, we’d have the money to take care of the poor and all.

No, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s…” has as much to do with not protesting wars as your point.

In closing, I’d like to remind you that our Holy Roman Catholic Church encompasses all types of people, who shouldn’t have to and a lot of them don’t, agree with you nor whom you consider as “authorities”. Imho, Jesus Christ, through His Holy Roman Catholic Church is the first, or prime authority. After that the government, which in the USofA yet remains as “Of the people, for the people and by the people”, not elitists nor progressives nor internationalists.
We’re the government. We have government authority.
After the government, comes education.

In short, there is no earthly authority which may overrule the Magesterium, to a faithful Catholic. Imho.

And, peace be with your spirit.

 

[donsnow]

I understood Answers closed down that dreadful political forum.

Get over it people.

This is supposed to be a love your neighbor and promote Christianity place to be!

Peace, Carlan

I don’t know about any “Answers” forum. I’m posting here on Catholic Answers Forum.

Nah, you get over that politics remains vital to discuss by Christians. Maybe some of us can persuade CAF Administrators to reinstate some kind of forum where political discussions are allowed.

Under any type of government, we can love our neighbor and live Christian lives. Under anti-Catholic governments in Asia and such, it’s proven difficult to find priests to administer the Holy Eucharist.
That’s why it’s vital to discuss different forms of govenment.

And, peace be with your spirit.
Don