R
ringil
Guest
I lean to the left and I love Benedict. 
- Status
S
sw85
Guest
It’s not a very useful schema. One of the hallmarks of a bad schema is that it makes it incredibly difficult to talk about reality. For instance, were the Nazis “right-wing” or “left-wing”? If you reduce “right” and “left” to a superficial laundry list of policy positions, you’re going to be inclined to say “right” or “left” based on which ones you think were more criterial to Nazidom. It doesn’t matter, apparently, that the distinction was irrelevant to the Nazis themselves – that they were hated on both right and left, and hated and persecuted both, and billed themselves as a third way, etc.
Political Compass is especially bad about this. I am routinely billed as a leftist authoritarian there, which, as anyone who knows me knows, is inaccurate. I am a monarchist, for Heaven’s sake. When you have a bad schema, you have to deform people’s beliefs to make them “fit” the schema. It reminds me of our absurd and unrepresentative schema about “sexual orientation,” which has given rise to ridiculous situations, such as the Mormon man recently who went about telling everyone he was a “homosexual,” despite having robust and fruitful sex with his wife all the time.
Thus you get, for instance, lots of good, devout Catholics on these forums running around telling everyone they’re leftists. Folks, if you are a good and devout Catholic, you are not a leftist. Anyone who knows anything about (a) Catholicism and (b) leftism, and their respective histories, knows full well these two movements are flatly incompatible with and opposed to one another, bitterly and to the end. Everywhere where genuine leftism and genuine Catholicism coexist, the result is exterminationist violence, e.g., the French Revolution, the “Republican” scum in the Spanish Civil War, Calles-era Mexico, etc.
Supporting welfare, opposing the death penalty, and thinking it’s wrong to beat up gays (or whatever) aren’t enough to make you a “leftist,” because leftism has metaphysical and ontological connotations that cannot be reduced to a bulleted list of “I believe” statements. If you don’t buy into its worldview, you’re not a leftist, no matter how much you want the government to nationalize banks or whatever. (BTW, I support nationalization of banks. Does that make me a “leftist”?)
F
FaithBuild18
Guest
I just want to say that it is not a particularly leftist viewpoint to end racial hatred and support the lower working class Americans.
I can just as easily be a conservative and say that my primary concern is to end racial hatred and support the lower working class of America, if I maintain (and I do maintain) that the free market is the single greatest elevator of class in the history of civilization. It is not a matter of doctrine, but a matter of opinion, on whether or not the free market is capable of doing this. I believe it is most capable of providing for the poor and the working man, therefore I advocate free market policies. Similarly, I think we can most easily achieve racial equality and truth in this country by not hiring people simply because of their color or gender, because I think this in effect promotes further racism in that it denies another that job, solely on the basis that he was not a particular color or gender. Again, it is not a matter of doctrine that affirmative action benefits the under-represented, but a matter of opinion, of which I chose to disagree.
It is not doctrine to advocate leftist politics for the sake of the poor and working. Rather it is doctrine that we must put the poor first. How we do that is another matter. Similarly it is not doctrine that we must fight for affirmative action. Rather it is doctrine that we fight to end racial hatred. How we do that, again, is another matter.
BUT, an issue such as abortion is non negotiable, as the doctrine is the policy itself, that abortion is murder and must be demonized as murder by a court of law and the society at large, no matter the circumstances. The same is true for same-sex marriage. The policy itself is the doctrine, that marriage is between one man and one woman. There is virtually no way a Catholic can be a full fledge leftist without dissenting from doctrinal teachings.
However, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that is necessarily contradictory about being a conservative Catholic, provided that the motives and honest intentions of the individual are correct - i.e. advocating austerity and laissez faire for the sake of the poor and working rather than the sake of oneself. Unfortunately this is getting to be rarely the case in mainstream political society.
I can just as easily be a conservative and say that my primary concern is to end racial hatred and support the lower working class of America, if I maintain (and I do maintain) that the free market is the single greatest elevator of class in the history of civilization. It is not a matter of doctrine, but a matter of opinion, on whether or not the free market is capable of doing this. I believe it is most capable of providing for the poor and the working man, therefore I advocate free market policies. Similarly, I think we can most easily achieve racial equality and truth in this country by not hiring people simply because of their color or gender, because I think this in effect promotes further racism in that it denies another that job, solely on the basis that he was not a particular color or gender. Again, it is not a matter of doctrine that affirmative action benefits the under-represented, but a matter of opinion, of which I chose to disagree.
It is not doctrine to advocate leftist politics for the sake of the poor and working. Rather it is doctrine that we must put the poor first. How we do that is another matter. Similarly it is not doctrine that we must fight for affirmative action. Rather it is doctrine that we fight to end racial hatred. How we do that, again, is another matter.
BUT, an issue such as abortion is non negotiable, as the doctrine is the policy itself, that abortion is murder and must be demonized as murder by a court of law and the society at large, no matter the circumstances. The same is true for same-sex marriage. The policy itself is the doctrine, that marriage is between one man and one woman. There is virtually no way a Catholic can be a full fledge leftist without dissenting from doctrinal teachings.
However, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that is necessarily contradictory about being a conservative Catholic, provided that the motives and honest intentions of the individual are correct - i.e. advocating austerity and laissez faire for the sake of the poor and working rather than the sake of oneself. Unfortunately this is getting to be rarely the case in mainstream political society.
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
As the OP on this thread, which has lasted a lot longer than I thought, let me mention a few things:
The original point of this thread was to point out the hypocrisy of many Americans who disdain Pope Benedict for his teachings on morality while giving a pass to the Dalai Lama, who holds very similar views. Not all leftists hate the Pope, and not all right-wingers like the Pope.
I recognize that many Catholics hold views that can be identified as those of both the left and the right. . We’re the original Big Tent. Increasingly, I would describe my political positions as neither right nor left, but Catholic.
The original point of this thread was to point out the hypocrisy of many Americans who disdain Pope Benedict for his teachings on morality while giving a pass to the Dalai Lama, who holds very similar views. Not all leftists hate the Pope, and not all right-wingers like the Pope.
I recognize that many Catholics hold views that can be identified as those of both the left and the right. . We’re the original Big Tent. Increasingly, I would describe my political positions as neither right nor left, but Catholic.
R
Robertwilliam
Guest
Lay Buddhists (those who live outside the monastery) are expected to adhere to Five Precepts, the third of which is a vow “not to engage in sexual misconduct.” But what is sexual misconduct? Right and wrong behavior in Buddhism is generally determined by considerations such as the following:
Universalibility principle - “How would I like it if someone did this to me?”
Consequences - Does the act causes harm and regret (in oneself or others) or benefit and joy?
Utilitarian principle - Will the act help or harm the attainment of goals (ultimately spiritual liberation)?
Intention - Is the act motivated by love, generosity and understanding?
“Sexual misconduct” has thus traditionally been interpreted to include actions like coercive sex, sexual harassment, child molestation and adultery. As Homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha’s sayings recorded in the Pali Canon (Tripitaka), most interpreters have taken this to mean that homosexuality should be evaluated in the same way as heterosexuality, in accordance with the above principles.
A Buddhist author of an article on homosexuality concludes:
In the case of the lay man and woman where there is mutual consent, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be breaking the third Precept. And it is the same when the two people are of the same gender. Likewise promiscuity, license and the disregard for the feelings of others would make a sexual act unskillful whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. All the principles we would use to evaluate a heterosexual relationship we would also use to evaluate a homosexual one. In Buddhism we could say that it is not the object of one’s sexual desire that determines whether a sexual act is unskillful or not, but rather the quality of the emotions and intentions involved. [1]
It is also worth noting that Buddhism does not traditionally place great value on procreation like many western religions. From the Buddhist viewpoint, being married with children is regarded as generally positive, but not compulsory (although social norms in various Buddhist countries often have different views). [3]
Despite all this, in practice, Theravada Buddhist countries are not terribly open to homosexual practice. This has much to do with cultural norms, as well as the notion of karma, which remains strong in countries such as Thailand. From this viewpoint, a person’s characteristics and situations are a result of past sins or good deeds. Homosexuality and other alternative forms of sexuality are often seen as karmic punishments for heterosexual misconduct in a past life. Thus far, the gay rights movement has not had great success in Theravada Buddhist countries. [7]
Homosexuality in Vajrayana/Tibetan Buddhism
In a 1997 interview, the Dalai Lama (the leader of Tibetan Buddhism and a widely-respected spiritual figure) was asked about homosexuality. He did not offer any strong answer either way, but noted that all monks are expected to refrain from sex. For laypeople, he commented that the purpose of sex in general is for procreation, so homosexual acts do seem a bit unnatural. He said that sexual desires in themselves are natural, perhaps including homosexual desires, but that one should not try to increase those desires or indulge them without self-control. [4]
In a 1993 talk given in Seattle, the Dalai Lama said:
nature arranged male and female organs “in such a manner that is very suitable… Same-sex organs cannot manage well.” But he stopped short of condemning homosexual relationships altogether, saying if two people agree to enter a relationship that is not sexually abusive, “then I don’t know. It’s difficult to say.” [5]
The Dalai Lama was more specific in a meeting with Buddhist leaders and human rights activists in San Francisco in 1997, where he commented that all forms of sex other than penile-vaginal sex are prohibited for Buddhists, whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals. At a press conference the day before the meeting, he said, “From a Buddhist point of view, [gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct.” But he did note that this rule is for Buddhists, and from society’s viewpoint, homosexual relationships can be “of mutual benefit, enjoyable, and harmless.” [6]
The Dalai Lama is well known for his activism for human rights, and this specifically includes equal rights for gays. According to an Office of Tibet spokeman, “His Holiness opposes violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation. He urges respect, tolerance, compassion, and the full recognition of human rights for all.” [6]
religionfacts.com/homosexuality/buddhism.htm
L
livingwordunity
Guest
The Catholic Church opposes violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Catholic Church just doesn’t agree that marriage should be redefined to something other than what God made it in the beginning. And we don’t like being called bigots by the left for believing in the word of God.
F
FaithBuild18
Guest
To add to what you said my good friend, people don’t seem to be able to think in any other terms beyond the extremes. What I mean by this is people erroneously assume that if the Church doesn’t condone violence or hatred towards gays, then it necessarily implies the Church is a full supporter of the LGBT agenda and culture. This simply isn’t true. While the Church doesn’t condone violence or hatred towards the individuals, it certainly condones intervention, reformation, and opposition to the gay culture.
Who is defining what the word tolerance means in the quote that guy provided? If tolerance means embracing every single thing about others as the left insists, then no, the Church does not teach tolerance towards any evil inclination. The Church teaches to love individuals as children of God, and to help them achieve righteousness. Doing so means fraternal correction and admonishment of sins. It doesn’t mean telling people that everything they do is morally acceptable, or claiming neutrality when we’re called to defend virtue.
In good conscience we can love what is good and hate what is evil. This does not contradict the commandment the Lord gave to love our neigherbors. Real love involves real hatred. See catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0014.html
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
“Left” is a vague term. People on the left and right revere the papacy and people on the left and right detest the papacy. Simply asking why the left hates the Pope is a generalization that all people who identify with a more liberal spectrum must be against the Pope.
S
sedonaman
Guest
Well?
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
Well, what?
S
sedonaman
Guest
Well, it’s true.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Can you give me one example of someone who is all the way to the left (as defined by current American politics) who reveres the papacy? Name one person who loves abortion and loves the Pope at the same time.
S
stewstew03
Guest
I’m also unaware of any liberals picketing outside of mosques, or publicly denouncing the teachings of Mohammed. When was the last time you heard Dan Savage call Christian teenagers, for example, “pansy-assed”? I guess because Islam is the religion of “peace”?
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
I’m on the left and I revere the papacy. And if you hear some of the Pope’s personal views, he’s certainly no Tea Partier
I don’t think there’s a single person who loves abortion and I don’t see how abortion is relevant to this thread, but there is probably someone who is in your parish who supports abortion
Proof?
S
sedonaman
Guest
“No man can serve two masters.”
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
Okay, so?
S
sedonaman
Guest
Liberals serve big government, the bigger the better. :sad_yes:
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
That statement is false. Liberals support a limited amount of government, not to serve it as a deity. The government is not the master, and this has nothing to do with the Pope
S
sedonaman
Guest
Excuse me while I
. Conservatives just went to the Supreme Court to stop government from getting bigger [via obamacare]. They lost to liberals who argued for it. If obamacare is not big government, I’d like to know what is.“By now, the obvious should be axiom: A state cannot run an economy, and a state-run economy cannot sustain its state. The more of its economy a government consumes, the less productive its economy becomes. And the more dependent its subpar economy then becomes on its government.”
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
You still haven’t proven the left hates the Pope. I’m waitingExcuse me while I
“By now, the obvious should be axiom: A state cannot run an economy, and a state-run economy cannot sustain its state. The more of its economy a government consumes, the less productive its economy becomes. And the more dependent its subpar economy then becomes on its government.”
- Status