The Tea Party is a turn-off for US moderates

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7842229/The-Tea-Party-is-a-turn-off-for-US-moderates.html

[quote="ProVobis, post:1, topic:202674"]
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7842229/The-Tea-Party-is-a-turn-off-for-US-moderates.html

[/quote]

If anybody has their finger on the pulse of conservativsm, it's David Frum, former Dede Scozzafava supporter.

Yes, the irony is intended.

It's too bad if "moderates" are ashamed of the U.S. Constitution. There are those of us who understand that our founding documents are responsible for the prosperity and freedoms that Americans once took for granted and enjoyed. :o Rob

[quote="RACJ, post:3, topic:202674"]
It's too bad if "moderates" are ashamed of the U.S. Constitution. There are those of us who understand that our founding documents are responsible for the prosperity and freedoms that Americans once took for granted and enjoyed. :o Rob

[/quote]

The Constitution is nothing to be ashamed of, but whereas conservatives consider it a document frozen in time over 200 years ago, we on the left consider it a living document that can be interpreted in light of the present. Not starting a debate; this isn't the subject of this thread; just noting that there are two quite contradictory opinions on how the Constitution is to be interpreted.

David Frum speaks of "tea party radicals". If defense of the constitution is radical, then so be it. Maybe Frum would like business as usual Republicans to win so the country can continue its downward slide into bankruptcy but a little bit more slowly. Frum mentions that Rand Paul wants to privatize social security. Horrors! Frum would rather everyone keep paying into programs like social security and medicare so that when they go bankrupt, (and they will) we will have nothing to show for all of the money we put into those programs. Frum manages to blame the passage of the healthcare bill on Pat Toomey, of all people. If Toomey hadn't challenged Arlen Spector, the latter wouldn't have defected to the Democrat party and then voted for the health care bill. Blah Blah Blah... Come next year, Specter will no longer be a senator and that is a good thing.

The tea partiers are doing this country a service - by raising the issues of fiscal responsibility and rallying around the country, they are actually helping to give the country a chance to turn things around next election. They are not the establishment, and that is what I think bothers David Frum - the tea partiers are not your typical Republicans (or even all Republicans) but they are raising important issues.

Ishii

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:4, topic:202674"]
The Constitution is nothing to be ashamed of, but whereas conservatives consider it a document frozen in time over 200 years ago, we on the left consider it a living document that can be interpreted in light of the present. Not starting a debate; this isn't the subject of this thread; just noting that there are two quite contradictory opinions on how the Constitution is to be interpreted.

[/quote]

I agree that the left believes the constitution to be a "living document". Perhaps those on the left (and some moderates) are ashamed of the view that the constitution is not a living document, but rather the law of the land which protects our rights. To think of it as "living" is to open it up to all sorts of misinterpretations (to use it to further the modern trends of the day) and also is to cause it to lose any value and meaning as a guarentor of our freedoms and rights.

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:4, topic:202674"]
The Constitution is nothing to be ashamed of, but whereas conservatives consider it a document frozen in time over 200 years ago, we on the left consider it a living document that can be interpreted in light of the present. Not starting a debate; this isn't the subject of this thread; just noting that there are two quite contradictory opinions on how the Constitution is to be interpreted.

[/quote]

Unfortunatley many on the Left believe Church dogma is a living document that should be interpreted in light of the present.

[quote="estesbob, post:7, topic:202674"]
Unfortunatley many on the Left believe Church dogma is a living document that should be interpreted in light of the present.

[/quote]

No, not those on the "Left." Being a political liberal doesn't keep you from being any less an orthodox Catholic than if you are on the "Right." The dogma interpreters are the heterodox, and they can include "traditionalists" as well as those who might be called "liberal" Catholics.

[quote="ishii, post:6, topic:202674"]
I agree that the left believes the constitution to be a "living document". Perhaps those on the left (and some moderates) are ashamed of the view that the constitution is not a living document, but rather the law of the land which protects our rights. To think of it as "living" is to open it up to all sorts of misinterpretations (to use it to further the modern trends of the day) and also is to cause it to lose any value and meaning as a guarentor of our freedoms and rights.

[/quote]

Believing that the Constitution can be re-interpreted in light of present realities does not mean that it loses its value as a protector of our rights. Consider 1st Amendment rights that have been expanded by modern circumstances. I'm no fan of pornography, but I agree with the Court when it afforded that means of expression 1st Amendment protection.

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:8, topic:202674"]
No, not those on the "Left." Being a political liberal doesn't keep you from being any less an orthodox Catholic than if you are on the "Right."

[/quote]

I disagree. The left is steeped in moral relativism. You know, "What's true for you, might not be true for me." This attitude, when extended to Church teaching, causes many to reject or downplay orthodox Church teachings.

The Church, by its very nature, is conservative (not as in politically conservative, but conserving the status quo). As Peter Kreeft eloquently put it (I'm transcribing from his talk on Priestesses; see peterkreeft.com/audio.htm):

"The Catholic Church claims less authority than any other Christian church in the world. That is why she is so conservative, so stuck in the mud.... The Church then cannot change the nature of her priesthood simply because she is not its author. Or even its editor. Only its mail carrier."

While this talk is about the priesthood, and the desire by some for the Church to redefine its nature to include women, it demonstrates the conservative nature of the Church itself. It is living and breathing, but not subject to the whims and desires of its body (us Christians). It is living and breathing with Christ as its head, and it acts and lives according to His will, not the will of its members.

Now, those on the left are wont to discard the notion of objective truths and man's ability to know and understand those truths. And when this occurs, it conflicts squarely with the conservative nature of the Church. And so we get groups like Catholics for a Free Choice, Call to Action, and NETWORK. Those Catholics that have entrenched themselves in the thought processes that are predominant in leftists circles will have trouble being orthodox.

Only those that submit to the authority of Christ and His Church, can be orthodox. To deny that authority, or even that it exists, is problematic. And I think the left rejects the existence of Church authority.

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:8, topic:202674"]
The dogma interpreters are the heterodox, and they can include "traditionalists" as well as those who might be called "liberal" Catholics.

[/quote]

I think you are being too broad calling dogma interpreters heterodox. Dogma is interpreted by the Church. And the Church is not heterodox. Nor can it be, for the Church itself is orthodoxy. I think perhaps you mis-typed, and means "Some dogma interpreters are heterodox...." I'll assume that is what you meant to say for the purposes of discussion.

I quite agree that "traditionalists" are just as guilty of heterodoxy as leftists. But for a different reason. They don't reject the authority of the Church out of any misguided notion of relativism, but out of pride. They know what Christ's church should really be like. They know the objective truth better than the successors of Peter and Christ's apostles. Thus, unlike the left in rejecting that the Church's authority exists, the right denies the Church's claim to authority, claiming it for themselves.

[quote="Suudy, post:10, topic:202674"]
And I think the left rejects the existence of Church authority.

[/quote]

Ah yes. We political liberals all reject Church authority. What self-righteous presumption on your part to paint everyone not a rightwinger as such. But, believe what you will.

I quite agree that "traditionalists" are just as guilty of heterodoxy as leftists. But for a different reason. They don't reject the authority of the Church out of any misguided notion of relativism, but out of pride. They know what Christ's church should really be like. They know the objective truth better than the successors of Peter and Christ's apostles. Thus, unlike the left in rejecting that the Church's authority exists, the right denies the Church's claim to authority, claiming it for themselves.

You confuse political liberalism with religious liberalism, but again, believe what you will.

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:11, topic:202674"]
Ah yes. We political liberals all reject Church authority. What self-righteous presumption on your part to paint everyone not a rightwinger as such. But, believe what you will.

[/quote]

That's not at all what I said. Where did I say "everyone"? I said the left is steeped in moral relativism. I didn't say all were, only that most are. And nor did I say that those that are moral relativists always reject Church authority. I only said they are more likely to do so.

Believe it or not, I agreed with your point that being "political liberal doesn't keep you from being any less an orthodox Catholic...." I only pointed out that it not as likely as those on the right because of the conservative nature of the Church.

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:11, topic:202674"]
You confuse political liberalism with religious liberalism, but again, believe what you will.

[/quote]

No, I was pointing out that many who hold leftists views (note that I never said liberal) are likely to apply the same principles they use for their political views for their religious views. Hence my examples of Catholic for a Free Choice, Call to Action, NETWORK, etc.

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:11, topic:202674"]
Ah yes. We political liberals all reject Church authority.

[/quote]

One other point. I didn't say the left rejects Church authority, I said the left rejects the existence of Church authority. Two different things. (Note when I say "the left rejects," I mean in general, not all, but most). Those on the left that do believe there is some objective authority that the Church, I do believe are less likely to view the Church as some living, breathing entity that is subject to the whims of its members, and thus more likely to be orthodox.

I do not think that all political liberals are heterodox. I do think, however, that most are. Of those that had Obama/Biden bumper stickers in our parking lots on Sunday, every single one that I know thinks that the Church is too strict regarding distribution of communion and disagrees with the Church's stance on contraception. Most think women should be allowed to be priests. And a majority think abortion is a "personal choice" that women should be allowed to make. These are not orthodox positions.

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:4, topic:202674"]
we on the left consider it a living document that can be interpreted in light of the present

[/quote]

Does it ever occur to anyone on the left that, since the original designers of the Constitution provided for the process of changing it, they never intended for their original words to change meaning?

In the 1930s, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes said, "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." The problem is -- as the Declaration of Independence asserts -- government "derives its powers from the consent of the governed." How can judges who are unelected by the governed decide to increase those powers?

[quote="Erich, post:14, topic:202674"]
Does it ever occur to anyone on the left that, since the original designers of the Constitution provided for the process of changing it, they never intended for their original words to change meaning?

In the 1930s, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes said, "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." The problem is -- as the Declaration of Independence asserts -- government "derives its powers from the consent of the governed." How can judges who are unelected by the governed decide to increase those powers?

[/quote]

The tuth is that once you decide the Constitution should be interpreted in the light of the present all sorts of evil can result-like the death of 50 million children.

"VIRGINIA BEACH -- The story of the 2010 election so far has been the challenge to the Republican establishment by the party's angry and impassioned grass roots.

In Virginia, the establishment is winning.

Here in the 2nd Congressional District, car dealer Scott Rigell has ridden a wave of big-name endorsements and a hefty bank account into the lead position before Tuesday's Republican primary, even as five other candidates snipe that he is not conservative enough to deserve the nomination.

The dynamic is similar in the 5th District, where state Sen. Robert Hurt has the cash, the name recognition and the tacit blessing of Washington and Richmond luminaries in the crowded contest to face Rep. Tom Perriello (D). In the 1st District, Republican Rep. Robert J. Wittman's "tea party"-backed opponent appears not to have raised the $5,000 necessary to trigger federal reporting requirements. "

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/05/AR2010060503568.html

Rigell and Hurt won.

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:4, topic:202674"]
The Constitution is nothing to be ashamed of, but whereas conservatives consider it a document frozen in time over 200 years ago, we on the left consider it a living document that can be interpreted in light of the present. Not starting a debate; this isn't the subject of this thread; just noting that there are two quite contradictory opinions on how the Constitution is to be interpreted.

[/quote]

 The Constitution is NOT "frozen in time", but rather timeless. The principles held within are ignored by the Ginsburgs and Breyers when they fail to support the radical, big government agenda. Thus, there can be absurd decisions such as Kelo and Roe which can rip the nation asunder. To me, why have a Constitution when you have nutty judges who can ignore it on a whim?  Rob

So if the constitution cannot be changed ever do we undo all the changes to it?

Example: Go back to only male land owners being allowed to vote. That was changed just to give an example.

The procedure to amend the constitution is set in the constitution itself.

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.