Too many right-wingers in this forum?

[Brendan]

I(who would Jesus bomb?) .

Sodom and Gemorrah, Jesus nuked them pretty well

 

[po18guy]

Sodom and Gemorrah, Jesus nuked them pretty well

But…but, those were tolerant, progressive cities! They had religion - every one you could think of, praising every god that came along. They believed… in everything, and in nothing. By the way, where are those cities?

Christ’s peace.

 

[surfinpure]

Oh, let’s not leave out the other major Leftist issues!

How about socialized medicine? Should the government be in charge of health care, or should that be left to the free market? Right-wingers come down on the side of freedom.

How about the right to bear arms? Should all guns be outlawed (except, of course, those that criminals buy underground and use on their victims), or should private citizens have the right to defend themselves and their families in their own homes? Right-wingers come down on the side of freedom.

What about affirmative action? Should the goverment require companies to hire individuals solely based on the color of their skin, or should companies be allowed the freedom to choose the applicants who are best equipped to do the job? Right-wingers come down on the side of freedom here, too.

What about welfare? Should the goverment be allowed to pick the pockets of private citizens and redistribute the money (mismanaging the larger portion of it) as they see fit, or should the people of God have the freedom to give as they choose to the needy, and the freedom to withhold their money from those who would exploit the system by refusing to work? Again, right-wingers come down on the side of freedom.

What about public education? Should the goverment be in charge of educating our children, teaching them not only reading, writing, and arithmetic, but also social doctrine and life values, or should parents have the freedom to choose to which school their money will go? Right-wingers come down on the side of freedom.

I could go on and on…

The truth is, aside from all the moral issues (and they are many, and of highest importance), most Conservatives seem to recognize that God gave us freedom, and the place of Goverment is to protect that freedom, not to dictate how we ought to live our lives!

Liberalism, in practice, is not about being liberated: it is about forming a big government and restricting freedom. It is about elitists deciding what’s good for us, and what’s not good. It’s a parental, domineering philosophy that presumes to know better than the common man.

 

[surfinpure]

democraticunderground.com

You will be safe from knuckle-draggers threre.

Blessings.

Wow – two forum violations in one single post. Linking to a political party’s website (albeit unofficial) and using a derrogatory term.

 

[SoCalRC]

Which is why I said “appears” to skew right. It doesn’t actually skew right. Church teaching is what it is, and when someone who thinks abortion is only evil circumstantially and sees the Church teaching that it is evil absolutely, then to them it looks conservative.

Helping the poor (which is different than welfare) and the obligation to safeguard peace are moral norms that have force, but they are not absolute moral norms like abortion, euthanasia ect. which take priority. This is why it is particularly frustrating at election time when some people try to attach riders of social entitlements to the life issues as if it would be ok to vote for someone who wanted to re-institute chattel slavery because he was in favor of universal health care.

Actually, the concept of ‘priority’ seems to be a form of political apologetics, not Church teaching. The Church seems to teach the exact opposite:

vatican.va/roman_curia//congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

From #4:

“In this context “limiting the harm”], it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.”

It then goes even further:

“When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning…”

It then goes on to list nine broad examples (highlighted in the text), of which abortion and euthanasia are each just one.

Elevating a small subset of the list to special status seems like an extreme form of moral relativism to me. First a system of priority is created to justify ignoring things that the Church calls “moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise, or derogation” and “the essence of moral law”. Then the elevated items themselves are compromised.

Case in point, the Federal Government still pays for abortions and the majority of ‘pro life’ (in the US political sense) politicians believe that there should be exceptions for abortion (health, rape, incest). A ‘pro life’ president still provides Federal funds for stem cell research. And a ‘pro life’ party, while controlling Congress and the White House, pass legislation making it easier to remove hydration and nutrition from patients who can’t pay (something we hold, “in principle”, to be direct euthanasia).

It is the ultimate slippery slope. First Catholicism is ‘pragmatically’ condensed, then what is left is treated as a moral relative, not an absolute imperitive.

What I find interesting is how intent each side is in rationalizing it’s compromises. But things like “abortion”, “torture”, and “modern forms of slavery” are all on the Vatican’s list. This makes perfect sense when one looks at how the Church defines “right to life” for the laity (see CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI #38). But each side first abridges our teachig on life, then condems the other for doing likewise…

I’m with several of the other posters, the Faith does not fit US political labels. It is either ‘ultra conservative’ or ‘ultra liberal’ depending on the topic. But while political parties are collections of mutual interest persuting earthly power, the Church is responding to a higher purpose.

 

[SoCalRC]

Wow – two forum violations in one single post. Linking to a political party’s website (albeit unofficial) and using a derrogatory term.

For what it is worth, “knuckle draggers” and “mouth breathers” are terms used in internal memorandums by the RNC to refer to religious values voters. We got quite a glimpse of this during evidence discovery for the various criminal convictions surrounding the activities of a particular political lobbiest.

I think it just goes to show what poor bed fellows politics and faith make.

 

[CapIV]

yea, I once saw on the Today show, Katie Couric criticizing John Paul II for being inconsistent since he was anti-abortion and anti-capital punishment.

I almost threw my shoe at the television in frustration.

 

[surfinpure]

For what it is worth, “knuckle draggers” and “mouth breathers” are terms used in internal memorandums by the RNC to refer to religious values voters. We got quite a glimpse of this during evidence discovery for the various criminal convictions surrounding the activities of a particular political lobbiest.

I think it just goes to show what poor bed fellows politics and faith make.

Agreed!!

 

[Crumpy]

When I went to college many years ago, I wanted to study the “isms” because I felt so intellectually backward. I studied them, but unfortunately I studied by people who largely advocated them, so they didn’t come out sounding so bad. So, I didn’t really learn enough about them, as I wanted to.

In reading the preceding posts, there are now even more “isms.” Cheesh.

I think Benedict XVI explained the problem with Marxism in a couple of his books, probably Jesus of Nazareth or Introduction to Christianity.

Like him, I think people give Marxism too much credit. I think too many people followed it because they didn’t understand it. It was just “different” in a time when something different was needed.

As Christians, we’re pretty much tied in to the idea of an ultimate monarchy. I’ve been trying to find some expression to this. Our Monarch is NOT infinitely forgiving and NOT infinitely merciful – is one thing I’m trying to sort out in my mind. Rather, God is CONDITIONALLY forgiving and merciful on His own terms, to whom He providentially decides to bring to faith and repentence – for starters.

I tend to agree that governments are necessary evils, and ours was started with some ideas of how God wanted things to be down here.

Somebody has to help me with the rest.

 

[surfinpure]

yea, I once saw on the Today show, Katie Couric criticizing John Paul II for being inconsistent since he was anti-abortion and anti-capital punishment.

I almost threw my shoe at the television in frustration.

LOL – that’s Katie Couric for you!

How can it be so hard to see pro-life link between these two positions? In both cases, the desire is to preserve life. The only difference is that one subject is innocent, and the other is very guilty.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Proudly Conservative…>faithfully Catholic!

 

[Adios_Adieu]

…

Too many?

That’s an interesting statement. What would you have done to “rebalance” what you see as an imbalance?

I can’t help but notice a good bit of anti-leftism hanging around.

I believe that “anti-leftism” is the official position of the Church, isn’t it?

Which parts of “leftism” ARE acceptable to the Church, which are in fact not “parts of leftism” at all, but simply parts of “what is right according to the Church”?

 

[SoCalRC]

Adios_Adieu:

I believe that “anti-leftism” is the official position of the Church, isn’t it?

Which parts of “leftism” ARE acceptable to the Church, which are in fact not “parts of leftism” at all, but simply parts of “what is right according to the Church”?

Rejecting “torture”, “modern forms of slavery”, socially just economic development of the “economy”, “freedom of religion”, “societies protection of minors”, and the “question of peace”…

These are all on the Vatican’s list of issues that, like abortion, do not permit compromise.

I actually think that euthanasia is a good example of the poor fit Catholicism makes for US politics. One party made a big production out of Teri S. From a distance, I would have to agree that it seemed like euthanasia. But I can’t be certain. The Church accepts the right to refuse medical treatment which has become (or would be) too burdensome. The Catachism and the Church’s declaration on Euthanasia both even note who should make the final decision:

"Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment.

Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted.
The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected." - CCC 2278

So I can’t ultimately judge. But when it comes to a health care provider removing nutrition and hydration simply because a patient cannot pay, there is no question in my mind that it is not licit (the declartion on Euthanasia specifically seems to agree). But the same party that rushed to the defense of the individual also has made it easier to do just that with several pieces of legislation.

On the flip side, the supposedly pro-death party is the one raising the issue of health care as a right, not a commodity. So we have two infallible teachings, which are as near as absolute that we can have, and which are promulgated in the same Encyclical using the same fundemental reasoning, and our two major parties are split on their support of them.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Rejecting “torture”, “modern forms of slavery”, socially just economic development of the “economy”, “freedom of religion”, “societies protection of minors”, and the “question of peace”…

These are all on the Vatican’s list of issues that, like abortion, do not permit compromise.

I actually think that euthanasia is a good example of the poor fit Catholicism makes for US politics. One party made a big production out of Teri S. From a distance, I would have to agree that it seemed like euthanasia. But I can’t be certain. The Church accepts the right to refuse medical treatment which has become (or would be) too burdensome. The Catachism and the Church’s declaration on Euthanasia both even note who should make the final decision:

So I can’t ultimately judge. But when it comes to a health care provider removing nutrition and hydration simply because a patient cannot pay, there is no question in my mind that it is not licit (the declartion on Euthanasia specifically seems to agree). But the same party that rushed to the defense of the individual also has made it easier to do just that with several pieces of legislation.

On the flip side, the supposedly pro-death party is the one raising the issue of health care as a right, not a commodity. So we have two infallible teachings, which are as near as absolute that we can have, and which are promulgated in the same Encyclical using the same fundemental reasoning, and our two major parties are split on their support of them.

Can you please cite the infallible document that makes health care an obligation of the government?

 

[tomarin]

I am a Christian, but aside from being pro-life, I would have to say my views lean leftwards. I am against the Iraq War (who would Jesus bomb?) and capital punishment. Remember, Jesus was killed under capital punishment.

Thumbing through some of the threads, I can’t help but notice a good bit of anti-leftism hanging around. There was once a guy who had some pretty radical views who didn’t get much respect from the churches either. I think his name was Jesus.

don’t you find that being pro-life, there is quite a bit that’s warped and hypocritical about the doctinaire so-called “progressive” point of view? if you have been cast out by friends and relatives for betraying the progressive cause by adopting a pro-life position, as i have, how can you condemn the entire “right-wing” contingent with so broad a brush?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Proudly Conservative…>faithfully Catholic!

Is that a mathematical formula? You’re using the “greater than” sign…which reads:

Proudly Conservative is greater than faithfully Catholic.

 

[SoCalRC]

Can you please cite the infallible document that makes health care an obligation of the government?

I’m sorry, we seem to have very different ideas on Catholic doctrine. I am not allowed to pay only attention to “infallible” teachings (assumption of Mary and a few other items). I am oblidged to stive to follow the Magesterium:

“Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” - LUMEN GENTIUM

It should be noted that LUMEN GENTIUM is “The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church”, and is not just the teachings of a Pope, but the findings of an eccumenical council:

“The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.” - LUMEN GENTIUM

And, for those who reject the Second Vatican Council:

"If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitutde of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema” - Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ

Picking and choosing which teachings to accept and reject is useful for political rationalization, but it is not good Catholicism. Pope Benedict condemns the practice as moral relativism and has identified it as “perhaps the single largest threat to the Church today”.

 

[SoCalRC]

don’t you find that being pro-life, there is quite a bit that’s warped and hypocritical about the doctinaire so-called “progressive” point of view? if you have been cast out by friends and relatives for betraying the progressive cause by adopting a pro-life position, as i have, how can you condemn the entire “right-wing” contingent with so broad a brush?

How is the ‘doctinaire of the right’ any less hypocritical? If certain issues are of superceding importance, why is it necessary to continue to compromise even on them?

‘Your sins are bigger than my sins’ is a form of reasoning that was seemingly rejected by Christ in the Gospels.

 

[Stratiotes]

One reason I dislike the labels is because it always seems to create a false dichotomy. There are more than just “left” or “right” as defined in American politics. For instance, I tend to the liberterian slant - so republicans call me “leftist!” and democrats call me “right-winger!” Neither one could be further from the truth. And I suspect most of us in this thread would not fit very neatly in either of the two categories being thrown around here.

Check it out:
Worlds Smallest Political Quiz

 

[Orionthehunter]

On the flip side, the supposedly pro-death party is the one raising the issue of health care as a right, not a commodity. So we have two infallible teachings, which are as near as absolute that we can have, and which are promulgated in the same Encyclical using the same fundemental reasoning, and our two major parties are split on their support of them.

Can you please cite the infallible document that makes health care an obligation of the government?

I’m sorry, we seem to have very different ideas on Catholic doctrine. I am not allowed to pay only attention to “infallible” teachings (assumption of Mary and a few other items). I am oblidged to stive to follow the Magesterium:
. . . .
Picking and choosing which teachings to accept and reject is useful for political rationalization, but it is not good Catholicism. Pope Benedict condemns the practice as moral relativism and has identified it as “perhaps the single largest threat to the Church today”.

I agree that we are to not only accept without question those teachings that are infallible but incorporate the moral teachings of the Church into our lives. I just took exception to your statement that it was an “infallible teaching” on health care being an obligation of the government. Unless you can provide a reference that is more specific, I believe that Catholics in good faith can hold a differing opinion on this matter in exercise of their prudential judgment and this is your opinion exercising your prudential judgment.

I also take extreme exception to your final comment that those who have in good faith reached a different conclusion using their prudential judgment are ignoring the preferential option to the poor, making political rationalization, and advocating moral relativism. This smacks of a self-righteous rash judgment which is grave matter and an offense against the Truth. CC2477.