Why do some Catholics lean politically conservative?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
blackforest said:
I self-identify as a pro-life, Left-leaning populist and do NOT consider myself a Democrat.
Click to expand...
Same here. I’m still registered Dem, but as the “Great Purge” of pro-lifers continues (it seems “Big Tent” includes every single possible -ism besides us), I’m getting closer and closer to going Independent. Unfortunately I’m on the West Coast where there are closed primaries. Since general elections nearly always go Dem here the only tiny bit of influence my vote can have is if I stay where I’m not really wanted.
 
Yes and no. I still think that PP’s treatment of poor and minority women is incredibly condescending and disempowering. But that’s a topic for another day, another thread.
 
Good to know.

And yet conservatives either overtly or tacitly support his calls for censorship. I hardly see modern conservativism as a champion for First Amendment rights.
 
I think there’s the idea that Liberals hate free speech because in Canada we have laws outlawing ‘hate speech’ and what defines hate speech is things like using the wrong gender pronoun, saying homosexual sex is disordered, saying that transgenderism is a mental illness.

Laws telling us we cannot have opinions separate from the government. That’s what that is.

And then in the US I’ve watched and listened to the left fight to remove all conservative speakers from campuses, I’ve watched them label anyone not Liberal as a ‘nazi’…

From the OUTSIDE, it really looks like the left abhors freedom and wants to force everyone via the law to fall in line.

whether that perception is true or not… it’s certainly the perception I’ve gotten from watching the Left and Right interact.

Don’t get me wrong, the Right has it’s problems too!
 
“Political Correctness” is a phenomena wholly owned and practiced by the Marxist left.
 
Cirdan_XII said:
I don’t really follow the argument that the messgae of the Gospel is left wing.

Jesus spoke of charity, of giving to the poor. On the surafce of it, that may sound like a left wing policy. But he also spoke of personal responsability. He wanted people to personally give to the poor, not to devolve that responsibility to the government.
Click to expand...
He was speaking to a world of subsistence farmers for the most part. How does wide scale personal responsibility look like in a world of much higher wealth gaps with people obsessed with (let’s be honest) unnecessary consumer junk? I’m serious because I think consumerism, vastly different birth privileges, and communal isolation from the poor (because we can do so) has warped our sense of community. Because of that I have no faith that enough individuals will do what is right by those in need, especially when we refuse to be their neighbors.

Love your neighbor as yourself.

-Jesus

Those who can give are often so isolated from the real needs of the poor that they don’t trust where their aid goes. They place strong stipulations on it or prescribe how the aid is given because of their beliefs. I’ve seen this play out personally Haiti and you would not believe how poorly much of the aid is actually applied because of stipulations or poor leg work on the ground.
 
Last edited:
I don’t agree with censorship but I’m not sad to see him go after liberal news outlets who claim to be unbiased.

But thank you for your general point about the right also pushing censorship in some contexts that’s a good and eye-opening point.
 
recognition that political conservatism is boring and that liberalism is exciting

abortion

subsidiarity

political correctness

2nd amendment

border control

energy independence

literal Constitutional reading

recognition that the KKK was the military arm of the Democratic Party

collapse of inner cities under Democrat Party leadership

fiscal/financial responsibility
 
Last edited:
I haven’t been paying attention to politics as long as some— but it’s been pretty obvious over the last 20, 25 years, the politicians have been pretty content to not really resolve the issues that drive people to their side. Which is why the Democrats are still acting like race relations are stuck in the 1950’s, and the Republicans have been dragging their feet on pro-life issues. It’s sort of like refrigerators or washing machines— they’re only built to last for 5, 10 years, because if you built the solid ones that lasted 30-40 years, like back-in-the-day, you’ll sell a whole lot less appliances.

So, that being said, there’s not a whole lot of difference between the majority of elected officials. They’ll all spout their own rhetoric to appeal to their base, when the cameras are on, but then everyone goes off and has lunch together and shows up to everyone else’s parties. And the ones who actually try to do stuff-- those are the ones who don’t get invited out to lunch or parties, and not being “in” is the worst punishment they can inflict upon a person, as though they’re like a high school clique that’s shunning the un-cool kid. 😉

Personally, I’m a big believer in states’ rights. I don’t think the US needs to be homogeneous. I think one of the cool things is, is that you can have 50 different cultural/social/economic/political experiments running at the same time. If Massachusetts wants mandatory healthcare and gay marriage, okay. If Tennessee opts for a $15/hr minimum wage, but no interracial marriage, okay. If Florida says no state income tax, and marriage is between one man and one woman, and everyone needs to go to mandatory shooting instruction, okay. And if Nevada has legalized prostitution and the drinking age is 16, okay. And people who like one state’s values move there, and people who dislike a state’s values go to a place that is more closely aligned with their priorities. And if one state is amazingly successful, people in other places can say, “Hm!” an see what they can copy; and if one state is a miserable cesspool that everyone is fleeing from, other places can say, “Hm!” and take notes. 😛

I would have been okay with being a Democrat in 1960. Here’s their platform from then. I also would have been okay with being a Republican in 1960. Here’s their platform from then. A lot of it would come down to fiscal issues-- matters of spending. But I wouldn’t be okay with being a Democrat in 2016. Here’s their platform from then. So I’m a Republican in 2016 (platform), even though I know so many people on the ballot are just giving lip service to things like “small government”, “fiscal responsibility”, “pro-life”, etc— but at least they’re not actively, hostile-ly working against what’s important to me in skewing the country more towards the secular/socialist/globalist side of the spectrum.
 
Do you mean why a catholic would favor sound financial management? Not spending money you don’t have. Strong defense? Obeying our laws? Not believing that the government should permit or fund immoral behavior. Gush, I don’t know.
 
He addressed social media censorship last Saturday.

Also, the NFL didn’t have to cave to Trump. They did that on their own.
 
MonteRCMS said:
recognition that the KKK was the military arm of the Democratic Party
Click to expand...
…right maybe in the South before the Civil Rights Era. I can pretty well doubt you’ll see support now by white supremacists.
Theo2 said:
Do you mean why a catholic would favor sound financial management? Not spending money you don’t have. Strong defense?
Click to expand...
It’s interesting to me that you’d put this all in the same statement. Military spending is one of the biggest drivers of our budget deficit (I’m not claiming all), especially because of unnecessary (Republican launched) recent wars. Little remembered fact…Bush Jr inherited a bipartisan balanced budget from the Clinton Era.
 
Last edited:
It is my belief that both Conservatives and Liberals seek similar ends, but disagree on the means to achieve those ends. Everyone wants poverty to end, for example. The socialist view is that we should all pay into a central pot and Government should redistribute it fairly. The conservative usually goes with more individualist solutions that involve people being encouraged to be materially successful and then giving voluntarily to aid the poor with the aim of the poor then being lifted out of poverty and so forth.

There are problems with both approaches. The conservative view can presume too much on the benevolent impulses of individuals, who can often be horribly selfish. But the socialist view can put too much faith in a state machine which is in the end run by those same flawed, selfish human beings.

Neither is more obviously ‘Catholic’ than the other - which is probably why Catholics so often fall in the centre ground and find themselves torn between ‘progressive’ and ‘conservative’ poles.
 
redbetta said:
Also, the NFL didn’t have to cave to Trump. They did that on their own.
Click to expand...
That’s about right.

President Trump isn’t “censoring” anyone. He isn’t silencing his enemies at CNN and MSNBC- in fact to the contrary, he baits them to produce fake news so he can skewer them, rhetorically of course.

As far as the NFL players kneeling, he isn’t stopping them at all, the President is just articulating his opinion on the phenomenon. If they would all stand at attention, I guess the President would be happy, but he would lose an issue that the average Joe understands.
 
Trump was elected by the Internet. It wouldn’t be in his best interest to be for censorship. Why people keeps insisting he’s a tyrant is beyond me.
 
yes, and the people who wrote the Constitution were not Catholics. Philosophically speaking, it is not a Catholic docment. Not in authorship and not in spirit. Catholics at the tiem would have sought to create a monarchy. But Catholics came to accept and embrace the constitution because of its justice aspects, and because catholicism itself evolved…

At the time, protestantism meant puritanism. Since then protentasim has evolved and become more Catholic.
 
grotto said:
. It isn’t very “nice” to suggest Antifa would describe his actions, nor that he and St. Peter would not have greeted each other on the street. Can’t imagine why your post would be so anti Simon the Zealot - he was a chosen apostle and was in attendance with the others. On behalf of Simon - we thank you for your service!
Click to expand...
He was a member of a revolutionary movement that for its time and place, could get pretty violent. Also, I said nothing about St. Peter. I mentioned St. Matthew, a tax collector, who would have been looked down on by many Jewish people and especially by the Zealots.

I have no idea why you are so worried about the feelings of deceased people who are now in Heaven. Honestly, that’s taking political correctness to a new level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top