I used to be a liberal

[triumphguy]

but I failed the litmus test: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/br...edneck-masses/

It's been coming for a while actually.

The feeling that once you've said yes to most things, you have to say yes to everything: Therefore you can't be a liberal and NOT support abortion.

Anyway: Here I stand (as Luther once said!)

I think many Catholics feel the same. For decades we tried to be nice and accommodating, Hip to this and hip to that! But things have gone too far. We have to stand for something, and so we have to stand for EVERYTHING of our faith.

No! To gay marriage.
No! To abortion.
No! To the culture of death.
No! To consumerism.

Yes to Christ and the Teachings of the Church.

Here I stand, and I'm sure many others do.

[LovePatience]

The feeling that once you've said yes to most things, you have to say yes to everything: Therefore you can't be a liberal and NOT support abortion.

On one hand, free and legal abortion won't end abortion so restrictions are necessary; that is in favor of conservatism. On the other hand, societal conditions that devalue people in society will keep the demand for abortion high; that is in favor of liberalism. Keeping BOTH of these values in mind, will be a quest for sainthood. Keeping only ONE of these values makes it easy to get on a high horse for one party or the other.

The abortion rate reduced faster during Clinton's time in office than Bush's. By the end of Bush's time in office, the abortion rate had stopped decreasing and was increasing. One reason why: because his actions never reduced the rate at which poor women had abortions, and they make up the highest demand. So closing one's eyes to the impact of poverty on abortion and simply saying - they may be poor but they can still be moral; this approach puts one in the position of God to judge another person's morality and excuses one from any effective action on abortion.

[Captain America]

Be careful of the "either/or" stuff. Why not opt to reduce people's bad economic conditions AND ALSO restrict abortion? BOTH are good for people, no?

I STILL view myself as liberal. But I think I know some things that are positive goods for people. . . rather than let the system run willy-nilly here and there chasing nonsense. Catholics are a bit better at knowing what people really need, rather than, say, more chemicals or consumerism.

Ecologically, some day liberals will see the damaging value of rampant chemical contraception on our water environments (and perhaps, fingers crossed, on families), as well as on female bodies. This is a two-ton elephant for today's liberals: the environmental impact of the policies.

I also say no to gay marriage (what nonsense there! what a road downhill) and to abortion. These two things just don't make real sense.

The big problem the Catholic Church faces is being a NO voice to such things. In a tickle myself purple, please my tummy and genitals, me-first and me-only society, ANY one who dares say no to the satisfaction of animal pleasure runs the risk of being condemned. (We see it now in the HHS mandate: expect more spears tossed at the church).

[_Abyssinia]

Originally Posted by LovePatience

On one hand, free and legal abortion won't end abortion so restrictions are necessary; that is in favor of conservatism. On the other hand, societal conditions that devalue people in society will keep the demand for abortion high; that is in favor of liberalism. Keeping BOTH of these values in mind, will be a quest for sainthood. Keeping only ONE of these values makes it easy to get on a high horse for one party or the other.

The abortion rate reduced faster during Clinton's time in office than Bush's. By the end of Bush's time in office, the abortion rate had stopped decreasing and was increasing. One reason why: because his actions never reduced the rate at which poor women had abortions, and they make up the highest demand. So closing one's eyes to the impact of poverty on abortion and simply saying - they may be poor but they can still be moral; this approach puts one in the position of God to judge another person's morality and excuses one from any effective action on abortion.

Dr. Randy O’Bannon, director of education at the National Right to Life Committee says the rate of decline of abortion as faster during the Bush years that during Clinton's presidency:

http://www.lifenews.com/2004/10/20/nat-886/

[Sailor Kenshin]

I never wanted to be 'hip' or 'with it' in regards to either faith or politics, so I guess I'm voted off EVERY island.

[manualman]

Originally Posted by LovePatience

The abortion rate reduced faster during Clinton's time in office than Bush's. By the end of Bush's time in office, the abortion rate had stopped decreasing and was increasing. One reason why: because his actions never reduced the rate at which poor women had abortions, and they make up the highest demand.

This is fatally bad logic. Just change the subject away from the emotionally charged issue of abortion, but keep the underlying logic the same and look how absurd it gets:

Domestic violence occurs when men have never learned to deal with their emotions and frustrations in productive and healthy ways and when they have not learned to respect women as their equals. It is clear, therefore, that the financial resources America spends imprisoning men who have commited acts of domestic violence is a serious misallocation of resources. These men should all be freed immediately and the money saved spent on counseling and anger management therapy. After all, if the causes of domestic violence are reduced, there will be less 'demand' for wife battery. It is clear that if we decriminalize domestic violence and use those resources to address the causes, we will reduce domestic violence.

I hope you see the absurdity. There can be no criticism of those who would jail abusive husbands because they have failed to adequately fund counseling. Those who commit crimes are the ones primarily responsible for them, even if the crime arises from difficult circumstances.


And to the OP topic, I'd have been a big time Democrat in 1940 or so. FDR would have kicked Obama's heine (polio and all). Too bad Democrats today have strayed so far off into looneyville.

[DavidFilmer]

Conservatives typically support capital punishment and oppose abortion. Liberals are the other way around.

So conservatives want to kill the guilty and save the innocent. Liberals want to kill the innocent and save the guilty.

Catholics don't want to kill anybody.

[LovePatience]

Originally Posted by _Abyssinia

Dr. Randy O’Bannon, director of education at the National Right to Life Committee says the rate of decline of abortion as faster during the Bush years that during Clinton's presidency:

http://www.lifenews.com/2004/10/20/nat-886/

He did this analysis in 2004 so he couldn't evaluate Bush's whole presidency, which had more years to continue. By the end of Bush's presidency, from 2006-2008, the abortion rate was increasing.

[BlindManWalking]

Originally Posted by DavidFilmer

Conservatives typically support capital punishment and oppose abortion. Liberals are the other way around.

So conservatives want to kill the guilty and save the innocent. Liberals want to kill the innocent and save the guilty.

Catholics don't want to kill anybody.

Show me in Catholic doctrine that the Death Penalty is abolished for Catholics to support.

You can't.

Conservatives don't argue for bloodthirsty deaths like it's some sport, David.

They're dispatching consistently blatant criminals who will never, ever, be good members of society. Repeat rapists, murderers, first-time heinous murderers, child molestors (depending on the case), etc. Ronny from the corner who stole a few hubcaps doesn't get put to death.

These criminals are sick and twisted but aren't clinical. If they were, they wouldn't be put to death.

Conservatives do want to kill the guilty- who are guilty under the law and whose sentence demands death.

[Swiss Guy]

Originally Posted by BlindManWalking

Show me in Catholic doctrine that the Death Penalty is abolished for Catholics to support.

You can't.

Conservatives don't argue for bloodthirsty deaths like it's some sport, David.

They're dispatching consistently blatant criminals who will never, ever, be good members of society. Repeat rapists, murderers, first-time heinous murderers, child molestors (depending on the case), etc. Ronny from the corner who stole a few hubcaps doesn't get put to death.

These criminals are sick and twisted but aren't clinical. If they were, they wouldn't be put to death.

Conservatives do want to kill the guilty- who are guilty under the law and whose sentence demands death.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2267.htm

The USCCB also supports an end to the death penalty in the US because there is no need for it.

[BlindManWalking]

Originally Posted by Swiss Guy

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2267.htm

The USCCB also supports an end to the death penalty in the US because there is no need for it.

You did not show me anything I haven't already read.

This passage doesn't abolish the death penalty.

It is pulled from Evangelium Vitae by BPJPII:http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo...-vitae_en.html

Specifically paragraph 56.

No abolishing of the death penalty, and like most Ecclesiastical language, is vague enough to make one think that could be the case. It's not.

Very clearly the Death Penalty is left to the authority in charge of execution in regards to the complexities of each system that the Pope cannot possibly touch on without writing entire libraries.

The idea of rehabilitation for certain crimes is just out of line with reality and the DP must be used.

The USCCB also didn't do much the last 40 years regarding abortion aside from cowering in the shadows of the political behemoth they allowed themselves to be subject to; as such, I could really care less what the USCCB has to say when doctrine itself leaves that open. I don't care for the opinions of men, just the bare bones of Church teaching.

The USCCB is ridiculous in its political slant. If they'd been doing their job, issues like we face currently would be in theory and not reality.

[Sailor Kenshin]

Originally Posted by BlindManWalking

You did not show me anything I haven't already read.

This passage doesn't abolish the death penalty.

It is pulled from Evangelium Vitae by BPJPII:http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo...-vitae_en.html

Specifically paragraph 56.

No abolishing of the death penalty, and like most Ecclesiastical language, is vague enough to make one think that could be the case. It's not.

Very clearly the Death Penalty is left to the authority in charge of execution in regards to the complexities of each system that the Pope cannot possibly touch on without writing entire libraries.

The idea of rehabilitation for certain crimes is just out of line with reality and the DP must be used.

The USCCB also didn't do much the last 40 years regarding abortion aside from cowering in the shadows of the political behemoth they allowed themselves to be subject to; as such, I could really care less what the USCCB has to say when doctrine itself leaves that open. I don't care for the opinions of men, just the bare bones of Church teaching.

The USCCB is ridiculous in its political slant. If they'd been doing their job, issues like we face currently would be in theory and not reality.

Sad but true. I think we are about to learn just how far Caesar will go to destroy our Constitution.

[manualman]

The last time I fell for the old "the pope is trespassing in political areas that aren't his jurisdiction" routine I got suckered into supporting a war over WMDs that never were located.

Sorry, I'm not being persuaded into ignoring the input of our apostolic successors that easily ever again. Fool me once....

[mark a]

Originally Posted by triumphguy

No! To gay marriage.
No! To abortion.
No! To the culture of death.
No! To consumerism.

Yes to Christ and the Teachings of the Church.

Here I stand, and I'm sure many others do.

[BlindManWalking]

Originally Posted by manualman

The last time I fell for the old "the pope is trespassing in political areas that aren't his jurisdiction" routine I got suckered into supporting a war over WMDs that never were located.

Sorry, I'm not being persuaded into ignoring the input of our apostolic successors that easily ever again. Fool me once....

Well, in all fairness, Saddam did heavily intimate he had them in an effort to throw off the Iranians. He had a history of using them, and had programs for them.

Outside of "the smoking gun", what exactly did you expect?

We had troops in the Kuwaiti desert for over 3 months before attacking. Special Forces and CIA assets reported massive movements of convoys to Syria. Something tells me they weren't delivering Ramadan cards Damascus.

My issue isn't the Bishops or the Pope being in political arenas, but that they do so smartly.

The USCCB ain't exactly been a bastion of solid defense of the faith in the US.

Cowering while whispering "this is wrong" isn't defense, it's pathetic.

The problem came when Bishops decided to be politicians instead of Bishops.

Doctrine > Opinion