Why are these Fora so overwhelming Conservative

[Jimmygill88]

I tend to find that many conservative Catholics on this forum hold views that tend to contradict Catholic social teaching.

There is an ultra-capitalism that tends to permeate the opinions of so-called devout Catholics/ American Catholics in particular. They tend to give the impression that private property and profit always comes first even before the lives of the most poorest in American society. They think they have an unconditional right to private property regardless of any harm it causes. They are always complaining about Government interference in their financial lives even when its for the benefit of those in poverty. I even see some of them say that the poor should not receive benefits from the government, and that the fate of their heath and existence should rest on the promise of charity alone; from the very same people who have a problem being taxed in-order to distribute money to the poor. They are quick to accuse anybody of communism as soon as somebody suggests that the rich ought to be taxed for the benefit and dignity of society as a whole.

Their excuse always rests on the idea that a fair distribution of wealth in society is theft.

Personally I think their views are not Catholic at all.

Well put!

 

[Gaber]

I tend to find that many conservative Catholics on this forum hold views that tend to contradict Catholic social teaching.

There is an ultra-capitalism that tends to permeate the opinions of so-called devout Catholics/ American Catholics in particular. They tend to give the impression that private property and profit always comes first even before the lives of the most poorest in American society. They think they have an unconditional right to private property regardless of any harm it causes. They are always complaining about Government interference in their financial lives even when its for the benefit of those in poverty. I even see some of them say that the poor should not receive benefits from the government, and that the fate of their heath and existence should rest on the promise of charity alone; from the very same people who have a problem being taxed in-order to distribute money to the poor. They are quick to accuse anybody of communism as soon as somebody suggests that the rich ought to be taxed for the benefit and dignity of society as a whole.

Their excuse always rests on the idea that a fair distribution of wealth in society is theft.

Personally I think their views are not Catholic at all.

i agree. Neither are they capitalist, according to Adam Smith, the guru of many such folks. But Adam Smith said that the nature of capitalism (now a religion, if you ask me,) is such that it tend to vacuum money to the top. And for this reason, in order to keep a capitalist society healthy, there needs to be a method for putting money back at the bottom so that it can continue to circulate.

The ideas of the Catholics, and others like them, that you point out, has to do with accumulation. In a healthy body, accumulation, excessive accumulation, is the sign of disease. Fat, edema, tumors, lumps, retention, etc, are all signs of ill health. but in our plutocracy, as it is falling into third world conditions, the accumulation by the very rich is taken as a sign of the success of the system, even as it falls.

And by all studies, peoples perception of how skewed our wealth distribution is, is vastly underestimated by every survey. Look up some of the graphs of where money actually is, even in the military budget:

‎"There is absolutely no evidence to support the statement that we are the greatest country in the world. We’re 7th in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, 3rd in median household income, number four in labor force and number four in exports. We lead the world in only three categories: Number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next 26 countries combined.* So when you ask what makes us the greatest Country in the world, I don’t know what the f*** you’re talking about."

~Jeff Foxworthy

And there is this from someone else, and it’s true too:

Thanks, Jeff; So many of us try to say this and get shouted down by people who want to remain asleep as money cows for something else we are first in: the 8 1/2 times higher than the next country ratio of CEO to wage earner pay, 475:1. Venezuela is next at 50:1.

and:

Anyone who looks for a better system, google Human Development Index , go to Income Inequality Adjusted HDI, and check which countries are on top. scandinavian countries. ALL of them are countries which have VERY high taxes, and high levels of social security. In short - high socialism… For anyone who may be still dabbling in the conditioning that is ‘socialism does not work’ - realize that in ANY cases in which some country tried socialism or communism, the ‘free west’ had either directly invaded, or bombed, or sent guerillas to terrorize, or outright blockaded. No system can succeed while you are being occupied, bombed, terrorized or blockaded. NO system can. However, it would be an outrage to invade or bomb scandinavian countries, so, they were left alone. and guess what happened - they are consistently on top of human development index. If you havent understood the idea until this point - you are asking for a better system - there is one : socialism. all you need to make it successful is to prevent countries like usa invading or bombing or importing guerillas to terrorize.

Now that’s more Catholic, if you ask me.

 

[St_Francis]

…Socialist Scandanavia… Now that’s more Catholic, if you ask me.

Except that socialism has been condemned by the Catholic Church …

…along with unregulated capitalism.

As to the military spending: The US is also te military go-to guy whenever the rest of the world wants something done. Because the US spent so much on its military, other nations did not have to spend so much on theirs, and then the US is criticized for having such high military spending relative to other nations

 

[Gaber]

Except that socialism has been condemned by the Catholic Church …
…along with unregulated capitalism.
As to the military spending: The US is also te military go-to guy whenever the rest of the world wants something done. Because the US spent so much on its military, other nations did not have to spend so much on theirs, and then the US is criticized for having such high military spending relative to other nations

Yes. We spend about 48% of the world’s military budget. Clearly that is in proportion, according to your sights, with our needs as an empire. All I’m saying is:

lcurve.org/LCurveVideo.htm

And

youtube.com/watch?v=H9kXPTwIO08

So while the Church might have a “moral” opinion on economics, fact is you’ve had, it seems, the kool-aid of unregulated capitalism and seem to think it’s fine, since the MI complex and the plutocracy of corporations is actually running our Country, just as Eisenhower predicted we needed to guard against. And those are the indicators of where we are at. And he was a Republican.

And perhaps what the Church is afraid of is that atheism is dominant in successful socialist countries. Is that what it is really about, not the economics?

 

[ManOnFire]

I tend to find that many conservative Catholics on this forum hold views that tend to contradict Catholic social teaching.

There is an ultra-capitalism that tends to permeate the opinions of so-called devout Catholics/ American Catholics in particular. They tend to give the impression that private property and profit always comes first even before the lives of the most poorest in American society. They think they have an unconditional right to private property regardless of any harm it causes. They are always complaining about Government interference in their financial lives even when its for the benefit of those in poverty. I even see some of them say that the poor should not receive benefits from the government, and that the fate of their heath and existence should rest on the promise of charity alone; from the very same people who have a problem being taxed in-order to distribute money to the poor. They are quick to accuse anybody of communism as soon as somebody suggests that the rich ought to be taxed for the benefit and dignity of society as a whole.

Their excuse always rests on the idea that a fair distribution of wealth in society is theft.

Personally I think their views are not Catholic at all.

You have it backwards. Social liberalism contradicts Catholic social teaching.

I’m a “clean” capitalist: I believe we should be selling clean lifestyles to people. The hypocrisy comes when certain people are selling unclean lifestyles. THOSE are the ultra-capitalists, because they take the profit with the knowledge that taxpayers will be called upon to bail out the fallen. Liberals own the media, so they’ll judge anyone who fails to march lockstep with thier judgments as being “too judgmental,” which only adds to the irony of their hypocrisy.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Jesus was liberal with forgiveness. Social liberalism is a good excuse for us to act on basic instincts. We all want to, but just imagine the mess we would have if the MAJORITY did. There would be few left to pay the tab. Just look at Europe. Some countries are paying people to have kids because much of the population wants the easy life which involves bullet proof birth control. Becoming a parent forced me to grow up.

Exactly.

 

[BobCatholic]

Jesus was socially conservative and economically liberal.

I don’t think Jesus would advocate big government, or Communism with government bureaucrats dictating economics… I think he would advocate Big Church. And the Church is the largest charitable organization in the whole wide world.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I don’t think Jesus would advocate big government, or Communism with government bureaucrats dictating economics… I think he would advocate Big Church. And the Church is the largest charitable organization in the whole wide world.

I honestly don’t think He’d advocate Big Church. We’ve seen what happens when Big Church is in charge of the government. It’s just as scary as the other way around.

 

[Gaber]

I honestly don’t think He’d advocate Big Church. We’ve seen what happens when Big Church is in charge of the government. It’s just as scary as the other way around.

And thus plops a heavy weight on the other pan of the scale. But what is its fulcrum?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

And thus plops a heavy weight on the other pan of the scale. But what is its fulcrum?

I think it’s partly about “freedom.”

An organism is going to seek to do its function … whether that function is by design, or learned. I think religious freedom is partly about being able to think and speak your mind and express what’s in your heart, without the government removing your physical freedoms or killing you, but more broadly I think it’s about being able to think what you want to think.

I think the law protects this religious freedom and other types of designated freedoms such as property rights and privacy.

The problem is, I think, the Church and State seem to think they they must overpower each other when in fact they have very different tools and do not need to act like mirror reflections of each other like they do now. The politicians want to capitalize on the religious and the moral wannabees for votes, and the Church wants to dominate elections, legislation, and even political rhetoric.

Alan

 

[BobCatholic]

I honestly don’t think He’d advocate Big Church. We’ve seen what happens when Big Church is in charge of the government. It’s just as scary as the other way around.

I didn’t say anything about Big Church being in charge of the government You will notice that Jesus did not want to be a secular king, nor did he want the Church to run the government.

He would advocate Big Church, definitely. You don’t think it is Christ’s will for everyone to be His follower? That’s 7 billion people. That’s a BIG CHURCH.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

He would advocate Big Church, definitely. You don’t think it is Christ’s will for everyone to be His follower? That’s 7 billion people. That’s a BIG CHURCH.

Oh, now, if you want to go all mystical on me, then I have to agree!

Alan

 

[BobCatholic]

Oh, now, if you want to go all mystical on me, then I have to agree!

Alan

Not just mystical, but also physical! We are physical beings too. And 7 billion people on planet Earth is going to make a BIG CHURCH too

 

[Al_Moritz]

I tend to find that many conservative Catholics on this forum hold views that tend to contradict Catholic social teaching.

There is an ultra-capitalism that tends to permeate the opinions of so-called devout Catholics/ American Catholics in particular. They tend to give the impression that private property and profit always comes first even before the lives of the most poorest in American society. They think they have an unconditional right to private property regardless of any harm it causes. They are always complaining about Government interference in their financial lives even when its for the benefit of those in poverty. I even see some of them say that the poor should not receive benefits from the government, and that the fate of their heath and existence should rest on the promise of charity alone; from the very same people who have a problem being taxed in-order to distribute money to the poor. They are quick to accuse anybody of communism as soon as somebody suggests that the rich ought to be taxed for the benefit and dignity of society as a whole.

Their excuse always rests on the idea that a fair distribution of wealth in society is theft.

Personally I think their views are not Catholic at all.

Well put indeed.

To be honest, I am rather shocked and disgusted at the hard-heartedness of many conservative Catholics here in the name of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’. This seems to me a typical American problem, since no Catholic poster from elsewhere in the world had such opinions on the recent thread “Catholics vs. healthcare: Morally embarrassing” (or similar title).

Young-Earth-Creationism is also a strange view espoused by many American Catholics that is simply a non-issue elsewhere.

Weird country, this.

I love the USA and I would not want to move back to Europe, but yes, in many aspects this country is just plain weird, lacking common sense.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

“Catholics vs. healthcare: Morally embarrassing” (or similar title).

Yeah. We strive to find morality in political platforms. Kind of like looking inside a grapefruit expecting to find pure orange juice.

Alan

 

[LisaA]

Well put indeed.

To be honest, I am rather shocked and disgusted at the hard-heartedness of many conservative Catholics here in the name of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’. This seems to me a typical American problem, since no Catholic poster from elsewhere in the world had such opinions on the recent thread “Catholics vs. healthcare: Morally embarrassing” (or similar title).

Young-Earth-Creationism is also a strange view espoused by many American Catholics that is simply a non-issue elsewhere.

Weird country, this.

I love the USA and I would not want to move back to Europe, but yes, in many aspects this country is just plain weird, lacking common sense.

You’re simply expressing an opinion here and I have to wonder what you interpret as 'hard heartedness?" Asking people to exhibit some personal responsibility for their own actions is not hard hearted. Fostering unnecessary dependence on government or even charity is demeaning to the human person. Is it ‘wierd’ or ‘lacking in common sense’ to limit or restrict payments to able bodied persons who would prefer not to support themselves or their families? Is it wierd or lacking in common sense to ask people to address their underlying problems (addictions, mental illness, educational gaps) rather than simply handing them a check? I think not.

I think if you actually read what is written or said by “conservative” Catholics you will not see so much hard heartedness as an understanding of human nature…which has not changed much has it? Just read the Bible and you can see our sinful behavior dates way back.

Also when you claim that conservatives are hard hearted you are speaking from complete ignorance of their charitable or volunteer activities and you claim to know what is in someone’s heart which is rather arrogant don’t you think?

Very curious if you could please find a “hard hearted” post and provide a concrete example? Is Marie Antoinette alive and well on CAF?

Lisa

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Also when you claim that conservatives are hard hearted you are speaking from complete ignorance of their charitable or volunteer activities and you claim to know what is in someone’s heart which is rather arrogant don’t you think?

Very curious if you could please find a “hard hearted” post and provide a concrete example? Is Marie Antoinette alive and well on CAF?

Lisa

We may not know what’s in the heart, except to the extent that the post exposes it. If the post is in harsh, condescending terms, then something about the person writing it or at least their speech-processing centers is adding these either consciously or subconsciously. But a sensitive person is good at noticing them.

As to the volunteer activities, I’m not impressed. How much money or time somebody gives a good cause does not give a person license to talk down to others, making ad hominem suggestions or accusations, accusing them of not caring about God, etc. By their tongues – as portrayed by their posts – are they betrayed.

Alan

 

[LisaA]

We may not know what’s in the heart, except to the extent that the post exposes it. If the post is in harsh, condescending terms, then something about the person writing it or at least their speech-processing centers is adding these either consciously or subconsciously. But a sensitive person is good at noticing them.

As to the volunteer activities, I’m not impressed. How much money or time somebody gives a good cause does not give a person cause to speak with haughty words. By their tongues – as imaged by their posts – are they betrayed.

Alan

And somehow you read that I suggest haughty words can be overcome by volunteer activities? Maybe read the post again and let me know what specifically you deemed haughty?

I rarely see haughty or condemning posts on this forum. As I said, where are all these Marie Anoinettes? We are all sinners and need to focus on our own shortcomings. Most Catholics seem quite aware of that reality.

OTOH what I see among what I deem the more liberal, progressive or left leaning posters is that if you don’t agree with ever increasing taxation and big government approaches to social problems, if you want people accept personal responsibility to the extent they are capable, if you make ANY demand on persons seeking assistance you are deemed a cruel and heartless CINO. I disagree with that characterization.

So those who claim that “conservative” posters are hateful or cold hearted exhibit the very same behavior they attribute to others.

I do agree that such fora are not the best way to communicate and we have to give some slack to the limitations of written discussions.

Lisa

 

[edwest2]

That’s one problem with the internet: a lack of face to face communication. Catholics are not required to carry a label. We recognize that we are all sinners, and here, many of us try to get the truth out as given to us by the teaching authority of the Church. But mention certain issues, and that’s when things go from discussing to name calling. Some of it is based on a lack of understanding about what the Church actually teaches, but others are trying to convince us “we’re wrong” and their views are right, which can lead to more name calling.

There are certain things that are non-negotiables, like abortion.

If Liberals, Progressives, Leftists, etc. could just pause for a moment and answer a simple yes or no question, we’d all be better off. Question: When a woman finds out she is pregnant, is there a baby in the womb or not? Question 2: Is the result of an abortion the death of a baby or a removal of a blob of tissue that is somehow not a baby?

An embryologist would say yes, that’s a baby. And what is prenatal care for?

Next, our culture has seen a gradual decline in morality in the last 40 years. Why? No particular or actual, purposeful acts that encouraged all people to slowly, gradually lower their standards to the point that some Catholics are living a worldly, non-Catholic life? There’s plenty of evidence and official history as to why we’ve reached this point.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ridgerunner]

I tend to find that many conservative Catholics on this forum hold views that tend to contradict Catholic social teaching.

There is an ultra-capitalism that tends to permeate the opinions of so-called devout Catholics/ American Catholics in particular. They tend to give the impression that private property and profit always comes first even before the lives of the most poorest in American society. They think they have an unconditional right to private property regardless of any harm it causes. They are always complaining about Government interference in their financial lives even when its for the benefit of those in poverty. I even see some of them say that the poor should not receive benefits from the government, and that the fate of their heath and existence should rest on the promise of charity alone; from the very same people who have a problem being taxed in-order to distribute money to the poor. They are quick to accuse anybody of communism as soon as somebody suggests that the rich ought to be taxed for the benefit and dignity of society as a whole.

Their excuse always rests on the idea that a fair distribution of wealth in society is theft.

Personally I think their views are not Catholic at all.

Personally, I think the above is pure subjectivism and comes very close to bigotry.

100% of the above is subjective interpretation and unwarranted extension of many bits of opinion regarding particular things; Obamacare for example. One can object to it without being opposed to many other things. One can be opposed to middle class welfare (as I am, for example) without being opposed to aid (even much more generous than it is presently) for those who are incapable of helping themselves.

There is a big difference between not wanting to do anything for the truly poor and opposing social programs that turn into monsters and effect transfer payments from people to others who are hardly any worse off than the givers.

One should not confuse resistance to economic liberalism with heartlessness, though liberals generally do equate the two.