Why do some Catholics lean politically conservative?

[vz71]

Point? Voting does not guarantee pro-life amendments and/or laws

True.
But let’s not deceive ourselves into believing any other vote will not harm.

Remember that the agenda for the democratic party includes support for abortion. So support of that party comes with that baggage.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Too many ad hominems and crass assumptions to sort through there.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Except that the opposite of left is not conservative, it is right .

The opposite of conservative is liberal.

A lot of people use right/conservative and left/liberal interchangeably. This sounds an awful lot like hairsplitting.

 

[yankeesouth]

Yeah or you get the seamless garment nonsense and things like the ‘new’ pro life movement otherwise known as ‘ how one forms their conscience and gets to vote for pro abortion politicians’ lol

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Except that the opposite of left is not conservative, it is right .

The opposite of conservative is liberal.

A lot of people use right/conservative and left/liberal interchangeably. This sounds an awful lot like hairsplitting.

All of science, philosophy and theology are hair-splitting, then.

Distinguishing truth from fiction and good from evil might be considered “hair-splitting” if you are not very concerned about the differences between them.

I suppose the very definition of ignorance is to not know or understand the distinctions between things of significance.

A lot of people may just not know better.

You aren’t arguing that when distinctions need to be made and important matters understood, what we ought to do is just look to what “a lot of people” think and say about those, are you?

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Dude…

(12345)

 

[HarryStotle]

Too many ad hominems and crass assumptions to sort through there.

What, you don’t want to “split hairs?”

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Not interested in indulging anyone’s presuppositional Islamophobia and persecution complexes at this juncture.

 

[Annie]

Much as i agree with your desire for clarity among terms used to describe various groups of political players, the way words are defined is through how they are used, and liberal and left are often used interchangeably.

While we can propose definitions for use in discussion, they must be agreed to by the rest of the participants and are good only for the purpose to which the participants agree.

 

[HarryStotle]

Not interested in indulging anyone’s presuppositional Islamophobia and persecution complexes at this juncture.

I see. So you are claiming that Muslims don’t mistreat women and don’t behead homosexuals? That is purely a function of presuppositional Islamophobia and persecution complexes?

What about presuppositional naïveté?

Is there such a thing?

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

So you are claiming that Muslims don’t mistreat women and don’t behead homosexuals?

Are you claiming that all Muslims engage in these behaviors? Are you claiming that homophobic violence and misogyny are unique to Muslims?

 

[HarryStotle]

Much as i agree with your desire for clarity among terms used to describe various groups of political players, the way words are defined is through how they are used, and liberal and left are often used interchangeably.

While we can propose definitions for use in discussion, they must be agreed to by the rest of the participants and are good only for the purpose to which the participants agree.

I suppose the assumption that liberal and left can be properly conflated (or confused) is also a “proposal” in terms of how those words are to be used for the purposes of THIS discussion.

Ergo, my post was to express disagreement that such a conflation is good for the purposes of any discussion because to do so is to lack precision, which is the fundamental ground rule for any discussion.

Since some participants aren’t really interested in anything like a fruitful discussion, the point is purely an academic one.

So, if we were interested in having a discussion – which clearly we are not – the first task would be to define left and liberal in such a way as to recognize that they are not the same thing, despite what common usage indicates. Otherwise we risk being confused about a whole lot of stuff.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

So you are claiming that Muslims don’t mistreat women and don’t behead homosexuals?

Are you claiming that all Muslims engage in these behaviors? Are you claiming that homophobic violence and misogyny are unique to Muslims?

Clearly your inability to “split hairs” leads you to think that certain implications derive from certain propositions when they, in fact, do not.

Unfortunately, to clear up your problem would involve a whole lot of instruction in the rules of logic and deduction, which you consider to be “hair splitting,” and about which you have indicated you have no interest.

Short answers:
No, but some do because they have the belief that Allah commands it. Why would they have that belief, do you think?
No, but both of those behaviours are directly prescribed in the Qur’an, so it isn’t surprising that an inordinate number of Muslims take those behaviours to be their duty.

What led you to think that I was claiming those things, in the way that you phrased them, is entirely another matter, which we could get into, but would require a great deal of “hair splitting.”

My questions to you would be:

Why would you jump to the assumption that I was claiming those two things unless you were predisposed to think the worst of me?

And why would you be so predisposed, other than because you believe you hold some kind of high moral ground and presume to know precisely what anyone who disagrees with you must think?

Serious questions.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

No, but some do because they have the belief that Allah commands it. Why would they have that belief, do you think?
No, but both of those behaviours are directly prescribed in the Qur’an, so it isn’t surprising that an inordinate number of Muslims take those behaviours to be their duty.

…because at no point in the Bible was execution ever prescribed for homosexuals.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Why would you jump to the assumption that I was claiming those two things unless you were predisposed to think the worst of me?

You asked an extremely loaded question that really can’t be taken as anything other than indicative of how you personally regard Muslims, as evidenced by your latter post.

No, but some do because they have the belief that Allah commands it. Why would they have that belief, do you think?
No, but both of those behaviours are directly prescribed in the Qur’an, so it isn’t surprising that an inordinate number of Muslims take those behaviours to be their duty.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

And why would you be so predisposed, other than because you believe you hold some kind of high moral ground and presume to know precisely what anyone who disagrees with you must think?

Speaking of making assumptions…

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

And why would you be so predisposed, other than because you believe you hold some kind of high moral ground and presume to know precisely what anyone who disagrees with you must think?

Speaking of making assumptions…

Yes, speaking of which…

You asked an extremely loaded question that really can’t be taken as anything other than indicative of how you personally regard Muslims, as evidenced by your latter post.

To be clear, this is where your lack of hair splitting skills gets you into trouble.
I don’t “personally regard Muslims” as anything as a group, just as I don’t personally regard whites or blacks or Latinos or any other identifiable group as anything. I regard individuals at a personal level – at the only level that counts.

Groups don’t think and act as one cohesive homogeneous unit, and the colour of one’s skin doesn’t create the content of one’s character. Ergo, it doesn’t make any sense to group all whites together, or all Latnos together or all blacks together as if they think and act as one.

It is actually prejudiced to do so.

Now, Islam is not a skin colour, it is an ideological perspective, so we would expect some homogeneity of thought. It s proper to ask questions about where that thought or belief system leads people to and where certain common actions and beliefs among people in that cohort come from, no?

Is it “prejudiced” merely to ask about the origin or possible causes of certain behaviours towards, for example, women or gays, if those behaviours or beliefs are actually promoted by a significant proportion of Muslims?

Perhaps it is some deep-seated prejudice (the proclivity to make judgements based on a paucity of evidence or none at all, along with a lack of willingness to think deeply about reality, I.e., not split hairs) that prevents you from honestly asking or wondering why those behaviours occur more frequently among some groups than others.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

No, but some do because they have the belief that Allah commands it. Why would they have that belief, do you think?
No, but both of those behaviours are directly prescribed in the Qur’an, so it isn’t surprising that an inordinate number of Muslims take those behaviours to be their duty.

…because at no point in the Bible was execution ever prescribed for homosexuals.

This is the intellectual equivalent of crying, “Well, John did it too!” when you are caught in the act of committing some wrong.

It’s an evasion.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

I am concerned that the civility level of this thread is spiraling out of control, please everyone watch your tone and focus on the issues at hand. I know what I was getting into when discussing politics but I rather would appreciate just having engaging discussion. I think I have my answer now (multiple answers actually) and see that people have disagreements (which can spiral out). @Camoderator, if you feel this needs ot be closed, I don’t blame you.

 

[IWantGod]

Hello, how are you?

Hello human, I’m fine thank-you.

I just want to ask why some Catholics lean conservative or libertarian on many political or policy issues?

The conservative party is very good at making it appear as if they have their voters religious interests in mind, by making the left appear to be an immoral choice. The abortion debate is a prime example of this. So you have a situation where people will vote conservative under pain of hell regardless of whether conservatives have their interests in mind or not. Emotional blackmail works wonders. Many people are fooled by this behavior.

But then there are some Catholic conservatives that really do agree with the conservative view of things. But i do find that a lot of what the left stands for is more in line with Catholic social teaching.