Why do many take "don't judge" to mean that we should start judging "conservative" orthodox Catholics?

[livingwordunity]

When folks on the left ridicule us “right-wingers” for us “clinging to our guns and our religion” who is to blame for the left being strongly associated with secular atheism?

 

[Hobbes42]

When folks on the left ridicule us “right-wingers” for us “clinging to our guns and our religion” who is to blame for the left being strongly associated with secular atheism?

Much as I agree with the point about the left being secular atheists, I don’t think the offhand comment the President made about ‘guns and religion’ quite describes the issue here. The issue here is the calling of orthodox Catholics bigots, not firearm rights.

 

[edwest2]

When did I say you can tell just by looking at someone?

Sorry. What I was trying to say is that you cannot tell what kind of Catholic you are looking at in a Church full of people.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ishii]

When A wrongs B, should civil society show tolerance towards B's wronging of B?

Bill wrongs Ted. Should civil society show tolerance towards Ted’s wronging of… Ted? Please explain more clearly what you mean.

I mean, discriminating, insulting ("You're going to hell", "You're sick", "Your lifestyle is an abomination", etc) and otherwise denying liberties to a group of people, sort of ruins their day, to put it mildly. These are vexations,    limitations and vilification on said group of people.

As opposed to - discriminating, insulting - “you’re a bigot” , “you’re a racist,” “you’re a homophobe,” “you’re a hater”, etc. More to the point, look who has the power: it is the ones accusing conservatives or traditionalists of being haters. They are the onses who have the power to ostracize. I have never been one to tell people “you’re going to hell.” I don’t believe that is a very effective strategy.

Should society be tolerant of these people or on those who scorn them? Also, you are comparing the word war against conservatives (which conservatives also participate in opposite direction but with no less force) with actual kicking out, ostracizing, using the law to segregate, motivating the murder of, and driving to suicide of countless gay people? Seriously?

As I said, the secular left (which is allied with the militant gay lobby) has the power to ostracize or not - as they see fit.

If you feel out of sync with the times and criticized, understand that whatever you're going to is a tiny fraction of the suffering of gay people in the past and present.

Not to belittle the suffering of gay people - but this isn’t about that. Its about tolerance of others’ views and freedom of speech - for which the left increasingly shows its disdain.

It’s a public debate. In it, both sides are heard, and both sides criticize, instead of being a monologue of vexation against the other side, as things used to be for thousands of years. So get used to it. We’re not going back, unless public liberties, such as freedom of speech, go back to what they were in 1600, 1200 or even 5 B.C.E.

Nature will correct itself. I think demographics (and simple biology) are on the side of the traditionalists. There will be a going back. A society based on decadence and libertinism will collapse.

Ishii

 

[livingwordunity]

Much as I agree with the point about the left being secular atheists, I don’t think the offhand comment the President made about ‘guns and religion’ quite describes the issue here. The issue here is the calling of orthodox Catholics bigots, not firearm rights.

I only quoted the whole phrase so it would be recognizable. I agree that religious liberty is more important than firearm rights. Although there’s a strong argument that firearm rights help with other rights in that it’s what keeps a government from becoming tyrannical. For example, I would bet that only the military, and none of the average citizens of North Korea, are allowed to own a firearm.

 

[Brendan_64]

The left even tries to label orthodox Catholics as “fundamentalists”, sometimes taking that one step further to compare us to Islamic “fundamentalist” terrorists.

Is this the ‘left’ outside the Church or inside the Church?

And what do you mean by ‘orthodox’? Do you mean someone who prefers the OF Mass, likes guitars at Mass, has no real issue with priests not wearing their Roman collars, supports the concept of increased participation of the laity at Mass, prefers modern church buildings etc.? Because none of the above is heterodox.

 

[Brendan_64]

I only quoted the whole phrase so it would be recognizable. I agree that religious liberty is more important than firearm rights. Although there’s a strong argument that firearm rights help with other rights in that it’s what keeps a government from becoming tyrannical. For example, I would bet that only the military, and none of the average citizens of North Korea, are allowed to own a firearm.

So you’re all much safer for having firearms. No link between the amount of guns available and the number of people getting killed then? So in the UK since the public don’t have a right to own a firearm, we’re in danger of our government becoming a tyrannical regime like North Korea? The UK would be a much safer place if we all had guns?

There is no link between owning a gun (or supporting the right to do so) and Christianity. None whatsoever.

 

[livingwordunity]

Is this the ‘left’ outside the Church or inside the Church?

And what do you mean by ‘orthodox’? Do you mean someone who prefers the OF Mass, likes guitars at Mass, has no real issue with priests not wearing their Roman collars, supports the concept of increased participation of the laity at Mass, prefers modern church buildings etc.? Because none of the above is heterodox.

By orthodox I mean the opposite of heterodox. And I defined what I mean by heterodox in post #6 when I said:

An orthodox Catholic is often labeled as “conservative”. And the heterodox Catholics (those for female ordination, abortion, so-called same-sex “marriage”, etc.) just about always identify themselves with the left. I don’t like today’s political labeling either, but it is what it is.

 

[Brendan_64]

The opposite of how I defined what I mean by heterodox is what I mean when I say orthodox. And I defined what I meant in post #6 when I said:

OK fair enough then.

An orthodox Catholic is often labeled as “conservative”. And the heterodox Catholics (those for female ordination, abortion, so-called same-sex “marriage”, etc.) just about always identify themselves with the left. I don’t like today’s political labeling either, but it is what it is.

The description you give above as ‘orthodox’ is fair enough as that those positions are merely Church teaching. They are however not positions of ‘conservative’ Catholics, they are positions of all Catholics who follow Church teaching. I have never yet met (in person) a Catholic who support abortion. I know that many Catholic politicians do (and I feel they ought to be excommunicated) but I have never met any of them. A similar situation applies to gay-marriage and female ordination (although I’ve met two or three that would support female ordination). Perhaps, despite appearances, and the very secular and actively anti-religious society that surrounds us, Catholics in the UK are actually more orthodox than Catholics in the USA?

Lumping the terms ‘conservative’ and ‘orthodox’ together and making them synonymous suggests that only ‘conservative’ Catholics are orthodox. The implication then is that those Catholics who prefer less formality, a more relaxed ‘liturgical style’, increased role for the laity etc. are (since they are not 'conservative) not orthodox (and therefore heterodox).

 

[ringil]

It is because the left is intolerant. Look at the leftists on college campuses and how they shout down anyone not in lockstep with their views.

Underneath every left-wing liberal is a fascist waiting to come out.

Ishii

Closet fascist just checking in!

:tiphat:

 

[Brendan_64]

Closet fascist just checking in!

:tiphat:

If Ishi’s definition is correct the there’s a fair few of us within the Church, that’s for sure.

Although I wonder if he includes those of us ‘left-wingers’ who aren’t liberal? There is as much difference between socialism and liberalism as there is between liberalism and conservatism. And how then do libertarians fit into things? They’re pretty liberal on many things, does that make them ‘left-wing’.

The terms ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ are meaningless terms for classifying political viewpoints.

 

[Catolico65]

Regarding liberal Catholics after many years they generally fall into two groups, those who outright support homosexual indoctrination and child sacrifice and those who are unaware that 3500 children are sacrificed everyday in the US.

Generally after they are informed they are disbelieving or accept the truth and disassociate themselves with such a pagan ideology.

I’m not saying the conservative don’t have their issues but all good Christians need to run from state sponsored violence and debauchery as this offends God.

 

[Brendan_64]

Regarding liberal Catholics after many years they generally fall into two groups, those who outright support homosexual indoctrination and child sacrifice.

If a person supports abortion then they aren’t a liberal Catholic, if a person supports abortion then they aren’t a Catholic at all. If a Catholic supports abortion then they have excommunicated themself.

 

[livingwordunity]

If a person supports abortion then they aren’t a liberal Catholic, if a person supports abortion then they aren’t a Catholic at all. If a Catholic supports abortion then they have excommunicated themself.

For anyone interested, here’s something that goes into detail about abortion and automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication: Abortion - Excommunication

 

[LogosSokratikos]

Spot on. Let’s not politicise our Faith.

Exactly. There are Catholics on all sides of any political fence. Most of the ones I knew are definitely not American-style right-wingers. I don’t live in the US by the way, and so they don’t live in the country that invented that to be godly is to go against the poor and support any form and fashion of discrimination, a country that allows Fox News to dictate what it means to be a Christian. Politicizing religion only makes religion look worse, effectively helping to secularize the world as newer generations who don’t want to be identified with groups who use god-talk to support political movements they don’t agree with.

Basically.

 

[LogosSokratikos]

Here’s another example of what I was talking about in post #8:

Lesbian couple pleads guilty to faking hate crime

In Spanish there’s a saying that goes “Una golondrina no hace verano”, which translates “A swallow (bird) doesn’t a summer make”.

I gave you statistics, which are basically thousands of reports compiled over decades and compared with the use of mathematical tools, you give me a few news snippets.

There will always be liars. But the force of thousands of reports will always smash the few anecdotes about those few liars.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

 

[livingwordunity]

In Spanish there’s a saying that goes “Una golondrina no hace verano”, which translates “A swallow (bird) doesn’t a summer make”.
I gave you statistics, which are basically thousands of reports compiled over decades and compared with the use of mathematical tools, you give me a few news snippets.
There will always be liars. But the force of thousands of reports will always smash the few anecdotes about those few liars.

I guess I’m using a higher standard since I’m comparing these anti-gay hoaxes to the fact that in 2,000 years Christians have never had to fake their own persecution.

 

[Brendan_64]

For anyone interested, here’s something that goes into detail about abortion and automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication: Abortion - Excommunication

That’s really interesting, thanks for posting that.

Those also subject to latae sententiae excommunication would include politicians who have voted in favour of abortion legislation, thus facilitating abortion. It would help sometimes if the Church would speak out and make this very clear, as many Catholic politicians seem to be under the illusion that because it is ‘politics’ and their party wants them to, or their constituents want them to, that it is OK for them to vote in favour of abortion legislation.

 

[Catolico65]

If a person supports abortion then they aren’t a liberal Catholic, if a person supports abortion then they aren’t a Catholic at all. If a Catholic supports abortion then they have excommunicated themself.

You got that one right my friend. God bless.

 

[CrossofChrist]

has no real issue with priests not wearing their Roman collars

http://www.30giorni.it/upload/articoli_immagini_interne/1159868784143.jpg

prefers modern church buildings etc.

This is something I will probably never understand though.