Too many right-wingers in this forum?

  • Thread starter Thread starter durndurn14
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
It’s not enough to see things as leaning to left or right wing. As Christians we are called upon to be faithful to Church teachings, period. People who distinguish left or right wings tend to hide behind labels and conventions to advance their true agenda. Was Jesus a right winger when discouraged divorce? Was he left-leaning when he fought against hypocrisy of High Priests? Love, Truth and justice have no leanings.
 
It’s hard being a Catholic voter. :o

I would never vote for a Democrat. But at the same time I would never vote for a neoconservative like the guys I’m seeing come of the of the Republican party today.

I’m staunchly pro-life, but also staunchly against the Iraq war and the death penalty. I like conservative ideas about taxation, but their huge spending plans are too big to match their smaller tax plans.

I think I’ll be voting libertarian this election (which will be my first ever, by the by). It’s as close as I can get, really.
 
No, the red herring is all this talk of torture.
In case you missed it, Orionthehunter brought up the subject of torture, as a specific scenario for a point of reference. In the spirit of actual discussion, I responded in kind, as did other posters.

When commenting on a discussion, it is customary to familiarize yourself with what has already been said. It is also poor manners to indireclty insult people. If you have an issue with Orionthehunters mechanism for furthering disucssion, you should discuss it in a civil manner with him.
Fair enough. I will not vote for a pro-torture candidate. I will also pass on the pro-pedophilia candidates.
A laudable goal, but I will not hold my breath. Only two GOP presidential candidates openly spoke out about torture in the various debates, both were consistantly booed. Remember, we are not talking about a sliding scale of whatever you consider torture, the Church specifically notes compliance with international laws and standards.

I also would like to see some real ‘house cleaning’ on the pedophilia side as well. You may recall that a certain GOP congressman resigned in disgrace when it became publicized that there was a long standing problem with sexually predatory practices towards underage pages. However, it also became clear that complaints had been coming to GOP congressional leaders since at least 1996, but they covered the matter up. I’d like people who put their political objectives in front of protecting children that people had entrusted to them for the page program to be held accountable. But, again, I’m not holding my breath.
Are these really issues you struggle with?
Because I take them seriously, yes. It might seem odd to you, since you have already stated that you not only disagree with Rome on some teachings, you challenge the Pope’s authority to even make them. Also, you have previously stated that even compromises on abortion and euthanasia are acceptable to you.

For me “non-negotiable” means “non-negotiable”. So compromise or complicency with abortion, or compromise on euthanasia, etc. are not acceptable to me. Likewise, when the Church tells me that what is stake is the “essence of moral law”, I agree and accept. So, all things considered I’d have to say yes, it is quite a bit harder to be an obedient Catholic than, say, a “dittohead”.
 
It’s hard being a Catholic voter. :o

I would never vote for a Democrat. But at the same time I would never vote for a neoconservative like the guys I’m seeing come of the of the Republican party today.

I’m staunchly pro-life, but also staunchly against the Iraq war and the death penalty. I like conservative ideas about taxation, but their huge spending plans are too big to match their smaller tax plans.

I think I’ll be voting libertarian this election (which will be my first ever, by the by). It’s as close as I can get, really.
Having strived to fully vote my faith for awhile now, you have my sympathies. Living in California, it is probably easier for me. It isn’t as if I am sacrificing a lot of political clout. On rare occassions we do elect a Republican, they are either pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage types like our Gov., or they seem to wind up resigning in disgrace (if not going to jail like the ‘Dukestir’).
 
It’s not enough to see things as leaning to left or right wing. As Christians we are called upon to be faithful to Church teachings, period. People who distinguish left or right wings tend to hide behind labels and conventions to advance their true agenda. Was Jesus a right winger when discouraged divorce? Was he left-leaning when he fought against hypocrisy of High Priests? Love, Truth and justice have no leanings.
Bravo.
 
A laudable goal, but I will not hold my breath. Only two GOP presidential candidates openly spoke out about torture in the various debates, both were consistantly booed. Remember, we are not talking about a sliding scale of whatever you consider torture, the Church specifically notes compliance with international laws and standards.
Thankfully, it appears the last of the pro-torture candidates have dropped out – and I agree that there were a couple. I also agree that its tough to vote as a Catholic because no party, and few if any candidates, line up on all the issues. But the Church says that we have to do our best to do so, and that it is not enough to abandon that determination to another. We can’t just sign on to a party or a group or list provided by someone else, we have to think about all the issues, especially those identified as fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, and do our best.
 
Many Catholics believe the government should be in charge of welfare, social security, health care. (which I disagree with). But it isn’t right to attack the goals of liberals on these issues. At least with these, they want the same basic ends that conservatives do. More affordable healthcare, a reduction of poverty, etc. They just differ on the means to get those ends. The problem is that officially, the democratic party will only nominate pro-abortion candidates. In this situation, the democrats want a different end than conservatives. A gravely evil end I might add.
I agree with you on this, which is why I have no problem with Pro-Life Democrats, who believe in more welfare, nationalized healthcare, etc. These are acceptable positions for a Catholic to take, just as a Republican Catholic’s position on subsidiarity and private charity over government is an acceptable position.

I would love for us to get to the point that both major parties in this country are pro-life, so we can commence with arguing about all of the small stuff!
 
I would love for us to get to the point that both major parties in this country are pro-life, so we can commence with arguing about all of the small stuff!
I would like to see any party in this country fully embrace the Catholic position on pro-life. Even when Catholics collapse our teachings to just a few issues, we still have to compromise.

Take stem cell research, the current choices are unlimited stem cell research, but with only some Federal money or unlimited stem cell research with lots of Federal money. Not really much of a choice. Likewise, both major parties appear uninterested in addressing the use of fetal tissue in vaccine development.
 
These are acceptable positions for a Catholic to take, just as a Republican Catholic’s position on subsidiarity and private charity over government is an acceptable position.
I do not agree with the position of subsidiarity as my position on this was based on a book named after a probability density function and its publisher published the Behe books (Guess the name of that book now) as I do not think some people are capable of caring for themselves.

Some people might doubt the efficacy of private charity. Personally, I want to see my contributions make large scale macro changes. I do not think it is within my means to do that (but I will donate some of my money to charity when I start earning it because Singer encourages it.) I just feel extremely disappointed that my actions would not contribute much good in the world when compared to the acts of benevolence of others. It seems this feeling might discourage charity in some.

I am extremely jealous of Soros, Buffett, and Gates… I wish I had the ability to cause large changes in the world. I would not indulge in for my own benefit, but I would want to support noble causes. However, I do not harbor any feeling of malice or resentment towards them because of their assets.

Furthermore, not all wealthy people have the benevolence of George Soros and Bill Gates.
 
Furthermore, not all wealthy people have the benevolence of George Soros and Bill Gates.
Yeah, some of those rich jerks actually oppose sterilizing Peruvian Indians without their consent (which one of the NGOs Gates funds was doing, by the way).

Selfish.:dts:
 
We have freedom. ‘Socialized’ healthcare and medicine are simply a free publicly funded option. Individuals are free to purchase health insurance and go to private hospitals, and free to send their children to private schools. Our governments do not own or control access to these things. This is misrepresentation, which sometimes seems like the only way the right can argue.
 
We have freedom. ‘Socialized’ healthcare and medicine are simply a free publicly funded option. Individuals are free to purchase health insurance and go to private hospitals, and free to send their children to private schools. Our governments do not own or control access to these things. This is misrepresentation, which sometimes seems like the only way the right can argue.
:rotfl:

First off, where are you from? In several European countries home schooling is illegal, and religious schools are almost as tightly regulated as the state schools.

And what if you displease the state?

You will perhaps recall the German woman whose welfare checks stopped coming–which they do when you turn down a job offer (they call that slavery, by the way, being compelled to take work by positive law; we have it in the States too)–because she refused to go to work in a brothel. I think they changed the law, but it should never have existed in the first place.

The state holds off crushing you for the moment. Forgive me if I do not desire to trust that it always will.
 
I live in New Zealand. Homeschooling is not illegal, religious schools are free to teach their values - and still receive public funding - and people can purchase insurance and go to a private hospital here or in Australia. Let’s be honest this isn’t about the state oppressing it’s citizens, it’s about your money going to fund services you personally have no need for.
 
Let’s be honest this isn’t about the state oppressing it’s citizens, it’s about your money going to fund services you personally have no need for.
People are generally opposed to that… but thanks for eviscerating the rhetoric here.
 
Actually much of the middle class in our ‘socialist’ democracies can see the value in free publicly funded health and education for low income workers and their families. Many send their kids to public schools and are happy to help fund healthcare - as long as it’s provided efficiently and effectively, which is always up for debate ofcourse. Even the most right of the main parties believes in *vouchers *for such things. Guess we are just miles apart philosophically from your average american conservative.
 
I am extremely jealous of Soros, Buffett, and Gates… I wish I had the ability to cause large changes in the world.
It’s easy. Just create a product which doesn’t always work as advertised, charge a high price for it, limit the usage of that high-priced product to one user, structure it so that upgrades are a near-necessity, and charge users to help them make the product do what you already told them it would do.
 
I live in New Zealand. Homeschooling is not illegal, religious schools are free to teach their values - and still receive public funding - and people can purchase insurance and go to a private hospital here or in Australia. Let’s be honest this isn’t about the state oppressing it’s citizens, it’s about your money going to fund services you personally have no need for.
I don’t have any medical insurance whatsoever and I have a chronic disease in my brain.

Out of curiosity, have you ever been paranoid, delusional, and terrified of your own mother because of an anxiety disorder caused by your brain under-producing seratonin? And not been able to pay for medicine or counseling?

No?

Then maybe you should junk the self-righteous tone.

I oppose the idea–and not terribly vehemently–because I don’t think it’s a terribly good idea economically. I do think that checkups and shots could be gov’t funded–for everything else there’s “catastrophic health insurance” (Don’t know if Kiwis call it that; I mean the stuff that doesn’t cover procedures under a certain cost), which is pretty cheap.
 
What is a “neoconservative”?

Please define “neoconservative”.

Thanks.

[These labels are very confusing.]
It’s hard being a Catholic voter. :o

I would never vote for a Democrat. But at the same time I would never vote for a neoconservative like the guys I’m seeing come of the of the Republican party today.

I’m staunchly pro-life, but also staunchly against the Iraq war and the death penalty. I like conservative ideas about taxation, but their huge spending plans are too big to match their smaller tax plans.

I think I’ll be voting libertarian this election (which will be my first ever, by the by). It’s as close as I can get, really.
 
The whole “right wing” vs. “left wing” model of describing political positions & policies is inherently flawed.
Don’t believe it? Try this:
Please write a paper of at least 2500 words, but less than 25,000 words on the topic,“George Washington–the Political-Economic Child of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin”.
Get back to me, when its written. I’ll:rolleyes: try not to die of old age in the meantime…
 
Oh, dear! I suppose I just won’t be able to vote this time around then. I mean, really, a bunch of closet Weird Al listeners. Surely there is a Papal document somewhere…
A few years ago, when I had some surgery, I brought my own music to the operating room. I had assembled a collection of Weird Al parodies … “Like A Surgeon”, “Living with a Hernia”, and the like.

It caused a few startling situations. One surgeon started dancing with one of the nurses. We found in the discussion that followed that we were all Catholic … so there was a long discussion on Church politics. Followed by a long discussion on real estate (which doctors owned which medical office buildings) and scheduling issues for operating rooms.

The surgery was successful. We exited the operating room laughing and everybody talking at once. Much to the consternation of the next group waiting outside ready to roll in. You should have seen the strange looks we got.

All thanks to Weird Al.

[They asked if they could keep the tape. And later I got a report that they played it so often, that the tape wore out.]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top