Why are these Fora so overwhelming Conservative

[AlanFromWichita]

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 said haughty words are obvious to sensitive people, and that I’m not impressed because somebody does some volunteer work and then comes here to tell me what’s what in a haughty tone.

And I don’t recall saying any words in your particular post were 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.

Then you haven’t been looking in the right places. Seriously, if you don’t see them, then good for you. I think …

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.

This is straight politics. I was talking about self-proclaimed “conservative” Catholics who like to play more-Catholic-than-you. I am so sick of liberal v. conservative in politics anyway because the parties are just sock puppets. The Fed and the other bankers, and China, are the puppeteers. As a Rothschild once said before his family took over the nation’s money supply, “Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.”

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Perhaps, Alan. Perhaps.

But what is one person’s “sensitive” is another person’s “judgmental”, eh?

IOW: someone may claim that he’s “sensitive” to haughty and condescending posts and another might find that person being a bit judgmental.

Now, of course, orthodox Catholics (as I see myself) are the first to claim that judging is good. We are commanded to judge (see John 7:24).

But are you not of the conviction that being judgmental is bad?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6799593&postcount=251

Originally posted by Alan:But don’t you see that your example here is judgmental? By assuming to know what CITH people are thinking, your giving energy to your own stereotype.

Also, I am curious if you believe that you know what’s in the heart of a person who posts a harsh and condemning post–does it speak to someone being consciously or unconsciously harsh?

 

[LisaA]

I said haughty words are obvious to sensitive people, and that I’m not impressed because somebody does some volunteer work and then comes here to tell me what’s what in a haughty tone.

And I don’t recall saying any words in your particular post were haughty.

Then you haven’t been looking in the right places. Seriously, if you don’t see them, then good for you. I think …

This is straight politics. I was talking about self-proclaimed “conservative” Catholics who like to play more-Catholic-than-you. I am so sick of liberal v. conservative in politics anyway because the parties are just sock puppets. The Fed and the other bankers, and China, are the puppeteers. As a Rothschild once said before his family took over the nation’s money supply, “Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.”

Alan

Welll I can’t base my life on consipracy theories or the idea we are totally helpless, just bits of driftwood floating on the sea of life. I disagree that parties are ‘sock puppets’ but that isn’t the subject of this thread.

I would like to challenge you once again to provide an actual post or example of the “more Catholic than thou” conservative approach. I suggest once again, that those from the liberal/progressive side of things tend to see resistence to large government programs, ever increasing taxes on “the rich” and increased involvement in our daily lives as “heartless” because we think there is a better way to approach social issues. I suggest the posts by the left side of the political sphere tend to have a knee jerk response to any resistence to the current administration’s focus on ever intrusive and expensive government response.

Lisa

 

[PRmerger]

I would like to challenge you once again to provide an actual post or example of the “more Catholic than thou” conservative approach

And if Alan could provide an example, would that not be harsh and condescending (and judgmental) of him to do so?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Perhaps, Alan. Perhaps.

But what is one person’s “sensitive” is another person’s “judgmental”, eh?

IOW: someone may claim that he’s “sensitive” to haughty and condescending posts and another might find that person being a bit judgmental.

That is an excellent point.

When I see this kind of thing, I try to look at alternate explanations, spellings, use of terms we don’t agree on, and the like. Also if I feel like I’ve been dissed I try to get the person to explain or rephrase. Sometimes it’s amazing how evil sounding a whole “suspicious” post can be if you just miss one key word, and it turns out innocuous.

Now, of course, orthodox Catholics (as I see myself) are the first to claim that judging is good. We are commanded to judge (see John 7:24).

But are you not of the conviction that being judgmental is bad?

I think judging is just fine, in terms of characterizing and responding to behavior. But the kind of judging where we say this person is a worse sinner than that person, or than ourselves, is when we are preventing ourselves from getting the full benefit of the “not judging” command Jesus gave us.

You can be the part of the body of Christ who judges, and some day maybe you’ll learn about how when you judge others you judge yourself. Me, I’ll trust you and others to do any judging that needs to be done. You come across as being fair, although I think logically biased at times, so I’d give you the credit of the doubt on the rush-to-judgment issue.

Also, I am curious if you believe that you know what’s in the heart of a person who posts a harsh and condemning post–does it speak to someone being consciously or unconsciously harsh?

I’m sorry I don’t understand the question. I don’t judge the heart of anyone who posts, because I know that the minds of all of us have been corrupted since original sin. But I do judge the language, and not judge the literal technical stand-up-in-court kind of truth, but honesty goes beyond that. One can see biases creeping in just based on word choice.

I’m not planning to do an scavenger hunt for offending posts, because I’ve seen enough of them and I’m not into dumpster diving because you want me to prove a point. I will keep an eye on posts from you, though, and let you know if I feel offended. Promise.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I would like to challenge you once again to provide an actual post or example of the “more Catholic than thou” conservative approach.

And if Alan could provide an example, would that not be harsh and condescending (and judgmental) of him to do so?

Actually that is correct.

Go stalking other threads for people to talk about behind their backs in this thread? I don’t think so. Homey don’t play that.

Alan

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

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

It must be working. As a conservative,I no longer feel comfortable either on CAF or in the church.

 

[LisaA]

Actually that is correct.

Go stalking other threads for people to talk about behind their backs in this thread? I don’t think so. Homey don’t play that.

Alan

No one suggested “stalking other threatds” although since they are all public, I don’t understand your objection to providing examples. You suggested that such harsh and haughty language was a common occurrance.

Again why accuse other posters of harsh or heartless words which would tend to demean their argument but be unwilling to actually provide examples? Also those who have been on this forum a while know that the Mods are pretty diligent about keeping the tone and tenor of the discussions relatively polite. So even if we don’t self patrol our own posts, if we go too far off the reservation we get one of those “private messages.”

Any response to my continued point that what is often deemed “heartless” is simply an objection to additonal and increasingly intrusive government programs? I am sorry to say more than a few Catholics, even clergy have become overly dependent upon and supportive of expansive government programs on a national level. Anyone daring to oppose continued growth and increased taxes is then deemed to be selfish, hateful or dismissive of the social ills of our society.

Lisa

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Any response to my continued point that what is often deemed “heartless” is simply an objection to additonal and increasingly intrusive government programs? I am sorry to say more than a few Catholics, even clergy have become overly dependent upon and supportive of expansive government programs on a national level. Anyone daring to oppose continued growth and increased taxes is then deemed to be selfish, hateful or dismissive of the social ills of our society.

Lisa

I used to pay taxes, back when I was a “producer” and not a “leech.” I made a lucrative career of electrical engineering with master’s degree for 20 years. Long story short, onset June 8, 2001, total and “permanent” disability due to severe psychosis which severed me from Bell Labs. Good news is, after 11 years it is cleared up now. Finally. And convincingly. :dancing:

So I am a recipient of “social security disability” which is not an entitlement program, but an insurance program. I get also get Medicare but is not needs-based like Medicaid but disability-based. However this disability income was too much for me to qualify for food stamps and medicaid for my kids, so now that I have disability I have a bit more cash but no insurance for my wife or kids. I ended up raising my six kids in poverty level, getting free school lunches, etc. So as a beneficiary of these programs, I can see how they are socialistic but they have helped me in time of legitimate and convincing disability. (This was a slam dunk case to the federal disability judge – nothing “borderline” about it.)

That said, I think “Obamacare” is quite possibly “abominable care” but I haven’t researched it thoroughly.

But it gave them a lot of character. They are doing very well now.

Honestly, I think that tying health care to only certain full time employees, in this day and age when there is no presumed loyalty on the part of the employee or the company, and in this economy, is really just a luck-of-the-draw situation with limited chance to influence. To certain classes of people who are highly employable at any given time, they have ways of tipping the odds in their favor.

The problem I have is, you who are still paying more social security taxes than me (I still pay a little bit as a church musician) are soon to be outnumbered by recipients (unless this has happened already). This is too much load per worker on the system. Something more efficient has to be done. Or we have to cut people from the government system … that raises the issue what about people who paid premiums under penalty of law, their whole working lives? Then we say sorry?

So yeah, these are complicated issues.

Alan

 

[Elizabeth502]

I was talking about self-proclaimed “conservative” Catholics who like to play more-Catholic-than-you.

…LIke that’s so much better than:

~more tolerant than thou
~more compassionate than thou
~more Gospel than thou
~more “socially just” than thou (according to a private interpretation of Social Justice not proclaimed by the U.S. Bishops or by the Bishop of Rome)
~less “judgmental” than thou
~more charitable than thou
~more “loving” than thou
~(and implied) more Christ-like than thou

(Shall I continue? )

If you don’t think that the rhetoric swings both ways, you have been very selectively reading.

The list above is every bit as judgmental and condemning (by virtue of either self-elevation or put-downs of others).

None of us is in a position to judge our brothers & sisters spiritually, and by no means can we compare ourselves to another poster in that regard, nor is it fair to “group” Catholics by categories & thus create factionalism. (Not the spirit of unity.)

However, it is our duty, especially when directly challenged on a discussion forum with Catholic in the title, to correct doctrinal error when/if we have knowledge to do so.

Most of the so-called “conservative” (orthodox) ‘overkill’ (not a fair word, but I’m trying to go with the flow here) is a response, or responses, to a series of challenges that have been gently answered initially, but the inquirer does not wish to know the actual answer. (Hmmm.) Some of those inquiries about moral theology (for example) come from poorly catechized Catholics (it’s obvious by the nature of their questions and by their confusion in terminology), or by barely self-identifying Catholics (also self-described). Other similar challenges come from inquirers hostile to Catholic doctrine (either affiliated with another religion, or non-believer).

Typical scenario:

OP: What the heck’s wrong with ___ behavior? It’s not “hurting” anyone. (Or, alternately, 'It doesn’t affect your life/your marriage/your church rituals/ fill-in-the-blank). IOW, there is a belligerent tone in the way the very question is framed.

First Respondent: Well (gently), here’s “what’s wrong”: [Insert quote from CCC, insert simply summary of orthodox doctrine & reasoning behind it, sometimes with link to different but recognizably Catholic source.]

Next Step: Flame war results. (The OP is often a set-up for a flame war.)

Second, 3rd, 4th respondents may chime in with how “insensitive” and “unforgiving” First Respondent is. (Refer to above list.) Those respondents may (again) be Catholic, atheist, whatever.

Above string of condemnation sets up defense mode for next respondent or set of respondents.

At some point --usually anywhere between page 2 and page 4-- invisible lines begin to be imaginatively drawn, lines characterized by labels. Much of this rhetoric is picked up from the media, such as subtly or overtly associating opposition to same-sex “marriage” as “hate.” This is despite the fact that no hateful words nor hateful tone can be attributed on the thread to those explaining Church doctrine in answer to an original post.

 

[LisaA]

I used to pay taxes, back when I was a “producer” and not a “leech.” I made a lucrative career of electrical engineering with master’s degree for 20 years. Long story short, onset June 8, 2001, total and “permanent” disability due to severe psychosis which severed me from Bell Labs. Good news is, after 11 years it is cleared up now. Finally. And convincingly. :dancing:

So I am a recipient of “social security disability” which is not an entitlement program, but an insurance program. I get also get Medicare but is not needs-based like Medicaid but disability-based. However this disability income was too much for me to qualify for food stamps and medicaid for my kids, so now that I have disability I have a bit more cash but no insurance for my wife or kids. I ended up raising my six kids in poverty level, getting free school lunches, etc. So as a beneficiary of these programs, I can see how they are socialistic but they have helped me in time of legitimate and convincing disability. (This was a slam dunk case to the federal disability judge – nothing “borderline” about it.)

That said, I think “Obamacare” is quite possibly “abominable care” but I haven’t researched it thoroughly.

But it gave them a lot of character. They are doing very well now.

Honestly, I think that tying health care to only certain full time employees, in this day and age when there is no presumed loyalty on the part of the employee or the company, and in this economy, is really just a luck-of-the-draw situation with limited chance to influence. To certain classes of people who are highly employable at any given time, they have ways of tipping the odds in their favor.

The problem I have is, you who are still paying more social security taxes than me (I still pay a little bit as a church musician) are soon to be outnumbered by recipients (unless this has happened already). This is too much load per worker on the system. Something more efficient has to be done. Or we have to cut people from the government system … that raises the issue what about people who paid premiums under penalty of law, their whole working lives? Then we say sorry?

So yeah, these are complicated issues.

Alan

You’ve brought up an excellent example of others’ (not yours) total over reaction to ANY potential means testing, reduction in benefits or increased age for eligibility on some of these government bennies.

Remember the reaction to the Ryan Budget? He simply reduced the proposed INCREASES in costs for certain programs and the Left went berserk, accompanied by a couple of our own Bishops sadly enough.

I think you like many have realized that SS and Medicare and some of the other programs were little more than a legal Ponzi scheme were originally there were sufficient young people to contribute and expected post retirement lifespan was much lower. Unfortunately many people refuse to even consider ways to change these programs to make them sustainable. Ryan is portrayed throwing granny off the cliff.

This is exactly what I referred to earlier, that any thought of touching SS or Medicare is met with near hysteria instead of reasoned discussion. People are living longer. I think when SS was first enacted people lived approximately five years after retiring. Now they are living 20 years. As the baby boomers retire, it’s like a huge meal going through a snake…suddenly there is a huge bulge as this group (I’m in it!) starts retiring in ever greater numbers…and fewer paying in.

Ditto with Medicare. They probably didnt’ anticipate either the length of time that people would be on Medicare or the expensive new technology that adds to the burden.

You’re right people pay in and expect to get their money back. OTOH the reality is that most people get back far more than they put in. Further without increasing the age of eligibility or means testing we are on our way to being Greece.

So do you think a discussion about means testing, tighter eligibility or increasing retirement age means we conservatives are being too harsh? (I don’t mean you personally but the greater ‘you’ out there). Unfortunately all too often the discussion is shut down as the name calling and demonization begins. Is it any wonder this issue never seems to be addressed seriously?

It’s time to quit chasing leprechauns. We have created a mess that even if we baby boomers get ours, is going to leave a huge mess to the subsequent generations…

Lisa

 

[Elizabeth502]

To expand slightly what I said in post #90, it is unfortunate but true that many people interpret boundaries as “hateful,” “intolerant,” etc. Even when those boundaries are merely reported on objectively (as requested in an OP), as opposed to created out of thin air.

lt reminds me of how teenagers often respond when limits are placed on their behavior: “You hate me,” “My parents hate me,” etc. Some people, though chronologically adults, seem to have trouble growing out of that immature adolescent outlook of responding emotionally (inappropriately) to an intellectual question.

Much of the rhetoric and dialogue in the media is often saturated with this as well (as I mentioned). Societal issues are reduced (often) to emotional needs & emotional desires, rather than looking with some maturity (& more objectivity) at benefits and harm to society of particular issues in the news. So I certainly think that the media owns much of the bllame for the devolution of public conversation, which can be mirrored in various blogs & discussion forums.

However, Catholics who are thoughtfully informing themselves about their faith should be able to discard such emotionally charged rhetoric and speak with an adult Catholicism., it seems to me.

 

[PRmerger]

When I see this kind of thing, I try to look at alternate explanations, spellings, use of terms we don’t agree on, and the like. Also if I feel like I’ve been dissed I try to get the person to explain or rephrase. Sometimes it’s amazing how evil sounding a whole “suspicious” post can be if you just miss one key word, and it turns out innocuous.

It is indeed amazing how, when someone looks for posts that are haughty and condescending, one may initially be convinced of such, until one applies the paradigm you provided above.

So, you’re saying that the above is your modus operandi, and yet you still find posts haughty and condescending?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

It is indeed amazing how, when someone looks for posts that are haughty and condescending, one may initially be convinced of such, until one applies the paradigm you provided above.

So, you’re saying that the above is your modus operandi, and yet you still find posts haughty and condescending?

Life gets better every day, no every hour. Things that bugged me yesterday have probably quit bugging me by now. But yes, I do. For example quick ad hominems like, "obviously you aren’t interested in understanding what I wrote … " or, “I don’t think you should call yourself a Catholic.” Again, if you haven’t seen posts like this power to you. It isn’t like Bigfoot or something. I really don’t care if you doubt me because I’m right.

Now of course neither “side” of any silly tit-for-tat debate is clean in these areas. Remember, do not argue with a fool for an onlooker may not be able to tell which is which.

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

Life gets better every day, no every hour. Things that bugged me yesterday have probably quit bugging me by now. But yes, I do. For example quick ad hominems like, "obviously you aren’t interested in understanding what I wrote … " or, “I don’t think you should call yourself a Catholic.”

Oh, I agree, Alan. Comments like that are obnoxious.

But as long as you’re not in the “The Biggest Sin Is To Be Judgmental” camp (and you’ve almost convinced me that you’re not), then we’re good to go.

It’s fine, in my Catholic paradigm, to judge posts to be haughty and condescending.

Again, if you haven’t seen posts like this power to you.

I think you’re confusing me with LisaA.

 

[PRmerger]

No one suggested “stalking other threatds” although since they are all public, I don’t understand your objection to providing examples.

This is a good point I hadn’t considered. At first I agreed with Alan not wanting to “dumpster dive.” But you make a good point.

I often wonder why people get uppity when a post from another thread, from months or even years ago, is provided as an example of All posts are public, are they not? And if this is a post written by a current poster-in-dialogue, is he not willing to stand by what he wrote, even if it’s months or years ago?

At any rate, there is nothing “stalky” about using the search function.

Again why accuse other posters of harsh or heartless words which would tend to demean their argument but be unwilling to actually provide examples?

And this is another good point I hadn’t considered.

 

[PRmerger]

…LIke that’s so much better than:

~more tolerant than thou
~more compassionate than thou
~more Gospel than thou
~more “socially just” than thou (according to a private interpretation of Social Justice not proclaimed by the U.S. Bishops or by the Bishop of Rome)
~less “judgmental” than thou
~more charitable than thou
~more “loving” than thou
~(and implied) more Christ-like than thou

Another good thought!

While I do hate it when Catholics, like Alan says, play the “I’m more Catholic than you” card, the above cards from another deck are equally orgulous and obnoxious.

Alan? What say you? Does not Elizabeth make a valid point?

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I’d just like to say how proud I am of the OT for using the correct plural form for “forum.”

 

[Zosimus41]

It’s fairly simple really. The highly devout are highly likely to be very conservative, and the highly devout are most likely to be regular visitors to a forum about Catholicism. Those who are less devout would be less likely to visit a board like this, and those who interpret the rules of the church more liberally are apt to be less concerned with official church teachings anyway.

Well said.

Crimson Tide Fan

 

[Zosimus41]

Was Jesus socially conservative. He consorted with Tax Colllectors and sinners. He prevented the execution of an adulteress. He seemed vastly more socially liberal than many of this website’s judgemental members

Jesus said I am not here to call the righteous but sinners to repentance as he told the woman accused of adultry go and sin no more.

They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

It wasnt liberism its was the calling of sinners like the adultress to repent.

Jesus also said donot think I have come here to abolish the law I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.