Liberal Agenda

[Melchisedec]

What is this so-called 'Liberal agenda'. Whats its aim? Who are leading it? Who founded this movement? Whats the movement in oppose to this agenda?

[Socrates]

It might be helpful to give a context. Terms like "liberal agenda" (or "conservative agenda") can be pretty vague, to tell the truth. Usually socially (as would probably be used most often on this board), it refers to support of abortion, "gay rights," feminism, etc. Economically, it supports tax-and-spend solutions to problems, welfare, and big government.

Again, different people would proabably use the term to refer to different things - it's just a shorthand for a general polical/social mindset.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 22 2005, 03:24 PM'] It might be helpful to give a context. Terms like "liberal agenda" (or "conservative agenda") can be pretty vague, to tell the truth. Usually socially (as would probably be used most often on this board), it refers to support of abortion, "gay rights," feminism, etc. Economically, it supports tax-and-spend solutions to problems, welfare, and big government.

Again, different people would proabably use the term to refer to different things - it's just a shorthand for a general polical/social mindset. [/quote]
Well i dont know myself Socrates. I hear this often and really dont understand what all it encompasses. But your answer provided alot of info .Thanks.

[argent_paladin]

One of the clearest and most formal mainfestos of the liberal movement is the "humanist manifesto".
You can see all three versions here:
[url="http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html"]http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html[/url]

You can see the prominent signitories there as well. At its core, it is extremely anti-relgious.
There are two separate, additional strands of thought that are often considered part of the liberal agenda: Marxism and sexual liberation. The origins of Marxism are obvious. The origins of sexual liberation are as old as sex.

[curtins]

yeah basically the "libral agenda" would probably be anything that the democratic party stands for- big govt, big tax, abortion, gay marriage, taking "Under God" out of the pledge, starving a disabled woman to death, calling our brave soldiers baby killing murderous animals, oposing every single thing bush proposes, oposing the war in Iraq, and in many cases the war in Afganistan, calling bush a liar, saying he planned 911, being a bunch of hypocrytes by saying social security needs reform but when bush proposes reform, opposing it, to the extreme sence it could be anti american, communist, socialst etc. and last but not least- getting up onto a podium and screaming your lungs off like a little baby.

If bush said the world was round, librals would say it was flat.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 22 2005, 03:09 PM'] Whats the movement in oppose to this agenda? [/quote]
The Catholic Church, primarily. Christianity in general . . . and any conservative religious force is in direct opposition, including Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism.

Peace,
Joe

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Mar 22 2005, 09:57 PM'] One of the clearest and most formal mainfestos of the liberal movement is the "humanist manifesto".
You can see all three versions here:
[url="http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html"]http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html[/url]

You can see the prominent signitories there as well. At its core, it is extremely anti-relgious.
There are two separate, additional strands of thought that are often considered part of the liberal agenda: Marxism and sexual liberation. The origins of Marxism are obvious. The origins of sexual liberation are as old as sex. [/quote]
I though there were humanist who are still religious, how can this be if humanism is opposed to religion?

[desertwoman]

[quote name='MagiDragon' date='Mar 23 2005, 01:03 AM'] The Catholic Church, primarily. Christianity in general . . . and any conservative religious force is in direct opposition, including Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism.

Peace,
Joe [/quote]
What would you say to majority black churches/congregations that are democratic?

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='desertwoman' date='Mar 23 2005, 10:49 AM'] What would you say to majority black churches/congregations that are democratic? [/quote]
Good question. It seems anyone painted liberal is deomonized. While the opposition to liberalism is without flaws. But I hear this liberal this and that everso increasingly and I just dont see it. I see alot of conservatives in positions of power. I really dont see this liberal conspiracy around me and Im just trying to really discover what it all entails.

[Socrates]

Obviously, not all liberals are opposed to religion per se.
There are some on this phatmass who consider themselves liberals and good Catholics. Some of these are mostly economic liberals (think government programs are the best solution for helping the poor, as opposed to free-market economy and private charity).

However, there is a strain in liberalism ("social liberalism") which is adamently opposed to traditional religious (particular Christian) values, and is aggressively secularist. This has been increasingly the face of liberalism - most who consider themselves "liberal" are pro-abortion, pro-"gay rights," against public displays of religion, religous influence in policy, etc.

Many "religious liberals" stand against the traditional Christian positions on many moral issues such as abortion, sexuality, etc., adopting the secularist positions on these issues while maintaining that they have religious faith.

Again, words like "liberal" and "conservative" do not have clear fixed meanings and are often thrown about loosely. Thus, it is important to define the issues and positions clearly in a debate.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='curtins' date='Mar 22 2005, 10:08 PM'] yeah basically the "libral agenda" would probably be anything that the democratic party stands for- big govt, big tax, abortion, gay marriage, taking "Under God" out of the pledge, starving a disabled woman to death, calling our brave soldiers baby killing murderous animals, oposing every single thing bush proposes, oposing the war in Iraq, and in many cases the war in Afganistan, calling bush a liar, saying he planned 911, being a bunch of hypocrytes by saying social security needs reform but when bush proposes reform, opposing it, to the extreme sence it could be anti american, communist, socialst etc. and last but not least- getting up onto a podium and screaming your lungs off like a little baby.

If bush said the world was round, librals would say it was flat. [/quote]
That's the biggest load of bull-plop that I've ever seen come pouring from another person's fingers.

Your statement boils down to: liberals=demons, conservatives=angels. How constructive and useful.

And, if you think the democratic party is pro-marriage-equality you need to pull your head out of Fox News' hind end. Nor does the democratic party explicitly support the removal of "under god" from the pledge.

But, to directly address your issues: "big gov't" means what? big tax means what? Liberals are not necessarily pro-abortion, but they are generally pro-choice. It's an important distinction, learn how to make it. Some liberals are for marriage equality, others are not. It's a very mixed issue on all fronts. Much in the same way that some liberals are pro-euthanasia and others aren't. You'll find fewer and fewer who say that they are pro-euthanasia these days, though. However, liberals are for self-determination, which is why they support Mr. Schiavo's right to determine the course of Mrs. Schiavo's medical treatment. He's her husband and the one to whom she made her wished known. Some liberals are pacifists, thus all soldiers are murderers. We have seen that some of "our brave soldiers" are animals who torture prisoners, though. Liberals just aren't afraid to admit that. Generally what Bush proposes is the opposite of what liberals want -- thus their opposition. See, Bush is conservative, the opposite of liberal. What I love is that you make this statement as though it's a bad thing to oppose what the President wants. There are conservatives who oppose the war in Iraq as well. That's a sentiment that is not clear cut. Liberals can be more vocal about it because they don't have to appear to support a conservative. As an aside, one can oppose the war while still supporting the troops. Some do oppose the war in Afghanistan, some don't. Mixed bag issue. It's easy to someone a liar when they lie. It's mostly crazies who say that Bush planned "911" (by which I can only assume that you mean the attacks on NYC that happened on September 11, 2001). That Social Security needs reform can be seen by anyone with eyes to see. That Bush's plan is not the best can also be seen. Just because one feels that reform is needed doesn't mean that that person need accept the first plan for reform that comes before zir. Your last assertion is the most laughable of them all. You realize that the conservatives are made up of a lot of christians, right? Moreover there are a lot of fundamentalist/evangelical christans. They are notorious for gettin up on a podium and screaming their lungs out.

If Bush said the world was round, liberals would laugh at his ignorance because the world is spheroid.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='MagiDragon' date='Mar 23 2005, 01:03 AM'] The Catholic Church, primarily. Christianity in general . . . and any conservative religious force is in direct opposition, including Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism.

Peace,
Joe [/quote]
How would buddhism be in opposition to liberalism?

[Socrates]

It annoys me when liberals call President Bush a "right-wing extremist" and the like, or identify "conservatism" with whatever Bush's policies are.

While Bush may be conservative in some respects, in many ways his policies are not conservative at all (notably his embrace of big-government and his big federal spending). These are not traditionally the policies of conservatism.
Many hard-core "paleoconservatives" are not happy with this, and there is even a conservative case against the Iraq war.
Many of Bush's policies are influenced by the "neoconservatives," who in fact have little in common with traditional "paleo" conservatives.

But all this just goes to prove my point that words like "conservative" and "liberal" have different meanings for different people.

[Socrates]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 23 2005, 03:29 PM'] However, liberals are for self-determination, which is why they support Mr. Schiavo's right to determine the course of Mrs. Schiavo's medical treatment. [/quote]
However, liberals are for self-determination, which is why they support Mr. Schiavo's right to starve Mrs. Schiavo to death. Let's cut the euphemistic carp for once, and tell it like it is. You speak of deliberately starving someone to death as if it was choosing which medicine to take.

If liberals are so much for freedom and "self-determination," I suppose this explains why they are against gun-owner's rights, property-owner's rights, the choice to give a religious message in public, or any other individual liberties that happen to oppose their agenda.
For the most part, liberals seem to only be for "self-determination" when it involves sex or the taking of another human life.

[StPiusVPrayForUs]

[url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm"]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm[/url]

Sums things up pretty well.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='StPiusVPrayForUs' date='Mar 23 2005, 04:58 PM'] [url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm"]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm[/url]

Sums things up pretty well. [/quote]
Theocracy, No thanks. If that ever happens, you can expect very violent oppostion.

[StPiusVPrayForUs]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 23 2005, 05:01 PM'] Theocracy, No thanks. If that ever happens, you can expect very violent oppostion. [/quote]
Well, thankfully you don't speak for the Church.

[track2004]

I think it needs to be noted that "liberal" does not equal "democrat" and that "conservative" does not equal "republican".

I am not a neocon or a right-wing crazy (as I like to call certain extreemists) yet I vote one way or the other depending on who is running and what they are saying. If I ever voted a stright ticket I'd be terribly surprised. Where ever I fall in the political spectrum I think some things the democrats and republicans do are wrong and I think some things they do are right. The same goes for the liberals and the conservatives. To sum it up, just because I consider myself a conservative doesn't mean I loathe democrats or think republicans are the best thing since sliced bread and the Internet.

[curtins]

[quote] That's the biggest load of bull-plop that I've ever seen come pouring from another person's fingers.

Your statement boils down to: liberals=demons, conservatives=angels. How constructive and useful.[/quote]

no its actually just the truth

[MC Just]

Here ya go

[url="http://www.saint-mike.org/library/Liberalism/Liberalism/Liberalism_TOC.html"]http://www.saint-mike.org/library/Liberali...ralism_TOC.html[/url]

"Liberalism of all Shades Condemned by the Church" (Chapter 10)


Liberalism of every degree and all forms has been formally condemned--so much so that outside of the motives of its intrinsic malice, it stands under the formal ban of the Church, which is sufficient for all faithful Catholics. It would be impossible for an error so widespread and so radical to escape condemnation.

Upon its appearance in France at the time of the Revolution [1789-1799], the famous Declaration of the Rights of Man--which contains in germ all the follies of Liberalism--was condemned by Pius VI (1775-1799). Later, the baneful doctrine infected all the countries of Europe. In Spain it first took the name of Liberalism, under which it has since been known everywhere.

Upon the occasion of the appearance of the first errors of De Lamennais, Gregory XVI (1831- 1846), in his encyclical Mirarl Vos, explicitly condemned Liberalism as it was then understood, taught, and practiced by the constitutional governments of Europe. Later on, when the full tide of the deplorable deluge had submerged all Europe, carrying all before it, God raised up to His Church Pius IX (1846-1878), who has justly passed into history as the "Scourge of Liberalism."

Liberal error, under all its forms, shapes, and shades, has been unmasked by this Pope. That his words might carry, as it were, more authority on this question, Providence has willed that these reiterated condemnations of Liberalism should fall from the lips of a Pontiff who, at the beginning of his pontificate, was hailed by Liberalists as their own. But he left no refuge to which their error might have resort. The numerous briefs and allocutions of Plus IX have clearly shown to Christian peoples what this baneful heresy is, and The Syllabus of Errors (1864) has put on the final seal of condemnation. Let us see the principal contents of some of the Pontifical documents. Amongst all that we might place before our readers, we will cite only a few.

On the 18th of June, 1871, responding to a deputation of French Catholics, Pius IX spoke thus:

'Atheism in legislation, indifference in matters of religion, and the pernicious maxims which go under the name of Liberal Catholicism are the true causes of the destruction of states; they have been the ruin of France. Believe me, the evil I denounce is more terrible than the Revolution, more terrible even than The Commune. I have always condemned Liberal Catholicism, and I will condemn it again forty times over if it be necessary."

In a brief, 6th of March, 1873, addressed to the Circle of St. Ambrose of Milan, the Sovereign Pontiff thus expresses himself:

"People are not wanting who pretend to form an alliance between light and darkness and to associate justice with iniquity in favor of those doctrines called Liberal Catholicism, which, based on the most pernicious principles, show themselves favorable to the intrusion of secular power upon the domain of spirituals; they lead their partisans to esteem, or at least to tolerate, iniquitous laws, as if it were not written that no one can serve two masters. Those who thus conduct themselves are more dangerous and more baneful than declared enemies, not only because, without being warned of it, perhaps even without being conscious of it, they second the projects of wicked men, but also because, keeping within certain limits, they show themselves with some appearance of probity and sound doctrine. They thus deceive the indiscreet friends of conciliation and seduce honest people, who would otherwise have strenuously combatted a declared error."

In the Brief of the 8th of May of the same year, speaking to the Confederation of the Catholic Circle of Belgium, the same Holy Father said:

"What we praise above all in your religious enterprise is the absolute aversion which, as we are informed, you show towards the principles of Liberal Catholicism and your intrepid determination to root them out as soon as possible. In truth you will extirpate the fatal root of discord and you will efficaciously contribute to unite and strengthen the minds of all in so combatting this insidious error, much more dangerous than an open enemy because it hides itself under the specious veil of zeal and of charity, and is so endeavoring to protect the people in general from its contaminating influence. Surely you, who adhere with such complete submission to all decisions of this Apostolic Seat and who know its frequent reprobations of Liberal principles, have no need of these warnings."

In the Brief to the La Croix, a Belgium journal, on the 24th of May, 1874, the Pope expresses himself thus:

"We cannot do less than to praise the design expressed in this letter, which we know your journal will satisfactorily fulfill, the design to publish, to spread, to comment on and inculcate in all minds all that the Holy See teaches against the perverse or at least false doctrines professed in so many quarters, and particularly against Liberal Catholicism, bitterly striving to conciliate light with darkness and truth with error."

On the 9th of June, 1873, Pius IX wrote to the president of the Council of the Catholic Association of Orleans, and without mentioning its name, depicts pietistic and moderated Liberalism in the following terms:

"Although you have not, strictly speaking, to combat impiety, are you not perhaps menaced on this side by as great dangers as those of the group of friends deceived by that ambiguous doctrine, which, while rejecting the last consequence of error, obstinately retains the germs, and which, not willing to embrace the truth in its fullness, and not daring to abandon it entirely, exhausts itself in interpreting the traditions and teachings of the Church by running them through the mold of its own private opinions."

In an address to the Bishop of Quimper, and speaking in reference to the general assembly of the Catholic Association of that diocese, the Pope said:

"Assuredly these associations are not wanting in the obedience due to the Church, neither on account of the writings nor the actions of those who pursue them with invectives and abuse; but they might be pushed into the slippery path of error by the force of those opinions called Liberal; opinions accepted by many Catholics who are otherwise honest and pious, and who, even by the very influence which gives them their piety, are easily captivated and induced to profess the most pernicious maxims. Inculcate, therefore, Venerable Brother, in the minds of this Catholic assembly that, when we have so often rebuked the sectaries of these Liberal opinions, we have not had in view the declared enemies of the Church, whom it would have been idle to denounce, but rather that those of whom we are speaking are such as secretly guard the virus of Liberal principles which they have imbibed with their mother's milk. They boldly inoculate this virus into the people's minds, as if it were not impregnated with a manifest malice, and as if it were as harmless to religion as they think. They thus propagate the seed of those troubles which have held the world in revolution so long. Let them avoid these ambuscades. Let them endeavor to direct their blows against this perfidious enemy, and certainly they will merit much from their religion and their country."

With these utterances from the mouth of the Vicar of Jesus Christ our friends as well as our enemies must see that the Pope has said in diverse briefs, and particularly in the last citation, in a general way all that can be said on this question, which we are studying in its details..