Political labels


#1

As Catholics we are told to hold truth to Church teachings. We are told to be pro-life, against homosexual marriage and many other things that are against Church teaching. We are also told to help thy neighbor, as to embrace charity and have compassion for the poor.

These are things that make political lables difficult to give ourselves

Calling yourself a conservative would usually mean that you are for tradition values and are against big government. It means you are fiscally conservative. It also means you are against immigration.

Liberal usually means you support abortion and homosexuality. It also means you support the poor and needy. It means you support immigration.

So are we as Catholics Moderate?

I am registered as a Republican because I believe in fiscal responsibility, in traditional values such as being pro-life and against homosexuality. I am fiscally conservative, but I also believe in helping the needy, I support immigration and am against the death penalty.

Would that make me a moderate?

Should I just call myself a Catholic?


#2

Just call yourself a Catholic. The labels don't matter.

Peace,
Ed


#3

[quote="edwest2, post:2, topic:300895"]
Just call yourself a Catholic. The labels don't matter.

Peace,
Ed

[/quote]

Most of the time I just do that. I think that we should follow church teaching, and doing that means not being too liberal, nor too conservative. It means being against abortion and homosexual marriage, while at the same time having compassion for people in need.


#4

[quote="Arturo_Ortiz, post:1, topic:300895"]
As Catholics we are told to hold truth to Church teachings. We are told to be pro-life, against homosexual marriage and many other things that are against Church teaching. We are also told to help thy neighbor, as to embrace charity and have compassion for the poor.

These are things that make political lables difficult to give ourselves

Calling yourself a conservative would usually mean that you are for tradition values and are against big government. It means you are fiscally conservative. It also means you are against immigration.

Liberal usually means you support abortion and homosexuality. It also means you support the poor and needy. It means you support immigration.

So are we as Catholics Moderate?

I am registered as a Republican because I believe in fiscal responsibility, in traditional values such as being pro-life and against homosexuality. I am fiscally conservative, but I also believe in helping the needy, I support immigration and am against the death penalty.

Would that make me a moderate?

Should I just call myself a Catholic?

[/quote]

My take on things are Catholics are historically moderate when ever they are in predominantly Protestant societies. America, UK, and (Prussian) Germany are good examples imho.


#5

I agree, I think it would only be accurate to label oneself a Catholic, if one is faithfully Catholic. It would be ideologically inconsistent to do otherwise. When I am able to vote I will register as Independent, but will probably end up voting Republican, because Democrats support abortion which is proportionally the worst.


#6

I was a conservative in my late teens and early 20’s. I was actually a delegate at a state convention when conservative Governors were running against each other looking for their parties nomination.

IMO, the party of conservatives, when it comes down to it are NOT for not big government. They are for a different type of big government than liberals. They support the wars that cost a fortune.

How many support the ‘war on terror’?

Guess what, it’s logically impossible to have a ‘war on terror’. Terrorism is a military tactic. One can not have a war against a military tactic. A flanking maneuver is another valid example of a different military tactic. But one can not have a war on 'flanking maneuvers.

So if you’ve been duped into believing that one can actually have a war on terrorism you have signed up for a war that will last one million years. What will the cost of that be? How will it manifest itself 40 years from now?

This is aside from the fact that conservatives mostly (please correct me if I’m wrong and most all conservatives have been AGAINST the wars that the US has participated in during the past 40 years. The cost of these wars was enormous.

And now conservatives are buying into the falacy that one can have a war on terrorism? This is essentially singing up for the Patriot Act and every other erosion of my rights and your rights which will continue and continue as this so called war continues. Are you for everyone being ‘chipped’ with RFID chips to tell who are the good guys (and who are the…maybe…bad guys?) Are you for national ID cards. That reminds me of Nazi Germany “Das Papers!”

This all costs money, grows government, and erodes our freedoms all at the same time.

And if you have been duped inot believing that it’s possible to have a war on terror or terrorism, I don’t blame you. People don’t know what they don’t know.

But now you have been educated on the matter and if you continue to support a ‘war on terror’ or a war on terrorism you now have been told, have had it explained to you, why this is impossible in very simple and plain language. So I question the sanity and true motives of anyone who still supports a war on terror after learning that terrorism is a military tactic and one can NOT have a war on a military ***tactic. ***

Want big brother leaning over everyone’s shoulders to make sure they are where they are supposed to be and have the correct documents to prove it? This costs money, grows government, takes away freedoms. At what lengths will you go to along these lines? Will you have your grandkids ‘chipped’ when it’s pitched as a way to ‘track’ children so that if they are abducted they can be located by looking for their chip like a gps?

People were sold on the fact that a ss number would never be used to identify people. Big fat lie, used for that routinely.

People were told that asset forfeiture laws were to target the rare and elusive international drug lord with billions at his disposal, so much money the gov’t needed a special tool… one that allowed them to confiscate property without proving any guilt on the part of the party whose property they confiscated. Know how they use that law now? They use it to confiscate used cars of regular working citizens who might happen to have a small ammt of a drug in their car.
When that law was proposed, if they told me that it would be used to take away my neighbors son’s used car, a kid putting himself through college, because he had a joint in his car I would have NEVER been for it. If I was told that law would be used to conficate the residence of parents of a child who, unbeknownst to the parents, was selling pot out of their family home…I would never have been for it. The average asset forfeiture isn’t 20 million for a drug lords yacht, or their 250K farrari, it’s some poor schmucks used toyota worth like 3 grand.

People wer told that the extra punnishment for selling drugs in a school zone would be used not in the way they advertized on TV… which was by showing some very seedy looking character selling a vial of crack through a school yard fence to a 12 year old kid while the camera fanned out to show the basketball court littered with empty crack vials…if they told me that not only would it be used in those very rare instances…but it would be used in basially every single case where 2 people are involved in a drug transaction…even if it was in a car out of sight…even if it was in a house out of sight…even if it was done at night when no kids were out…even if it were done between 2 50 year old men who both believe that anyone who sells or gives any drugs to kids should receive the death penalty…if they told me it would be routinely used in all of those cases and adults selling drugs to 12 year olds on school yards basically never happpens in the first place…I never would have been for it.

So gov’t always makes a law then uses the law to cast a wider and wider net around more and more citizens. And conservatives are the ones who supported all of those laws.

And they will be the ones who want national ID cards and then want everyone chipped.

I like my freedom. If you want to give yours away, more power to you. But to think you have the right to give mine away makes me not trust or respect you.

Conservatives support big government. This is your wake up call. So WAKE UP and stop the madness. PALEASE!


#7

I am registered as a Republican but in reality I am more of an independent and I think I am going to affiliate myself as independent in the future.


#8

[quote="Arturo_Ortiz, post:1, topic:300895"]

Calling yourself a conservative would usually mean that you are for tradition values and are against big government. It means you are fiscally conservative. It also means you are against immigration.

[/quote]

I am afraid that you have accepted the Leftist tactic of conflating legal and illegal immigration. Almost all conservatives support legal immigration but oppose the crime of illegal immigration

Liberal usually means you support abortion and homosexuality. It also means you support the poor and needy. It means you support immigration.

Left liberals claim to support the "poor and needy" but actually do nothing more than create huge numbers of people in poverty. Free market conservatives, on the other hand, want to grow the economy and reduce poverty. Leftists generally support the crime and chaos of illegal immigration because it grows their voter base.

I am registered as a Republican because I believe in fiscal responsibility, in traditional values such as being pro-life and against homosexuality. I am fiscally conservative, but I also believe in helping the needy, I support immigration and am against the death penalty.

Would that make me a moderate?

No, you sound like a conservative, assuming that you support legal immigration and not illegal immigration.

Should I just call myself a Catholic?

Catholicism is above political labels. Having said that, every Catholic must be prolife and oppose homosexual marriage, must be compassionate towards the poor, must be interested in reducing poverty as opposed to spreading it, must be opposed to political corruption. These things are non-negotiable. Thus, a Catholic could never consider voting for an Obama-type atheistic socialist.


#9

I agree with this, and may be stating the obvious, but there can be no ‘free market’ when government controls it, which is most certainly the case in the usa. Governments INHIBIT trade. They set up tons of rules and regulations that intefere with ‘free trade’ and therefore the ‘free market’. This is the way ‘trade’ works in the usa. And often times big business actually induces government to set up particular rules and regulations that intefere with free trade, but in such a way so that they BENEFIT in ways that you and I can not and do not benefit. Since the rich (I’m talking hundreds of millions and billions) have government in their pockets I hope this doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

And I also wish that conservatives would stop comparing and contrasting themselves to liberals and vice versa and individuals actually think for themselves and investigate matters on their own rather than choosing one of those 2 sides and the being spoon fed it’s propaganda/information like a baby.

We need more free thinkers in this country. More who challenge and question the status quo (which is elect a conservative…then get upset and elect a liberal…then get upset and elect a conservative…etc every 4-8 years and think they are actually doing something that will change anything.

Inflation, the biggest tax BY FAR that you face, is not going away regardless of how many conservatives or how many liberals are in office or which the president happens to be.

God, please save the usa from the path of disaster it is on (or at least help me and my family get out before a really, really big crisis hits.


#10

[quote="laircy, post:5, topic:300895"]
I agree, I think it would only be accurate to label oneself a Catholic, if one is faithfully Catholic.

[/quote]

While I am not arguing against this, in a recent thread it was pointed out that if one is baptized Catholic, they are Catholic, and remain Catholic (exept I suppose if they actively denounce it). There was a lot of discussion about this, leading up to this. I forget if this was 'the consensus' or if some Catholic Doctrine or the CCC that people seem to be very fond of quoting (I wish people would quote the Bible more personally) deemed this to be so.

Anyone remember that discussion? What forum, what thread? It was pretty recent.


#11

I’m all political pooped-out…I’m gonna sit this one out.

:popcorn:


#12

You said that conservatives are against immigration. This is not true. Conservatives are for LEGAL immigration, that respects the laws of the nations involved. Either we are a nation of laws, or we are not, but the laws cannot apply to some people and not others. The borders of a nation are there for a reason. Right now, this country can't seem to make up its mind whether or not it really IS a sovereign nation, so the border laws are not being enforced. There is nothing wrong with having laws about immigration. Unjust laws can be changed. But leaving the borders open and allowing criminal elements to enter a country unabated is dangerous to the citizens of that country.

As for political affiliation. I am Catholic, first and foremost.


#13

My political status on Facebook has read “disgusted” for quite some time now. :mad:


#14

[quote="edwest2, post:2, topic:300895"]
Just call yourself a Catholic. The labels don't matter.

Peace,
Ed

[/quote]

:thumbsup:
It is the reason why I cannot call myself a centrist.


#15

This thread is now closed. Please remember that discussions of political parties or candidates are not allowed in the Social Justice forum. Thank you for your cooperation.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.