Snarf Posted February 5, 2006 Author Posted February 5, 2006 [i]It seems you are simply picking and choosing which areas you believe the government should and should not recognize Christian morality.[/i] How much Thomas Hobbes have you read? I don't agree with much of his conclusions, but his observations of the natural state of man are pretty astute. I've said clearly that the state should dispense justice and promote equity. The reasons for this is that with these precepts all people mutually benefit and the human species can be propogated. There are plenty of instances where preservation of the state and recognition of Christian morality coalesce. But where they don't, then morality should fall to the individual. [i]You have acknowledged that you do believe in some forms of government morality. But then you also condemn recognition of morality by the government in other areas as "imposing a subjective judgment upon the individual" and "restricting personal liberties." Again, inconsistancy. [/i] How many times to I have to explain it? Morality should be state-imposed where it benefits the state. There are plenty of instances where this is the case. Where spiritual directives don't concern the state, the state shouldn't be concerned. No matter how many times you call it inconsistent, you fail to prove anything other than your ability to pick and choose what limited facet of an argument you can argue against. That's not debate, that's masturbation. [i]What is "Preservation of the State" and why is it to be the main goal of government? And it seems that you only want certain comandments to be reflected in law while ignoring others.[/I Preservation of the State is the point of government, as dictated by Locke, Hobbes, Mill, and many other folks conservatives love to discriminately refer to. Preservation of the State is the assurance that all people can live in a world without fear of being dominated by their oppressors. I fail to see how that violates Christian principles. [I]Once you resort to nam9e-calling, it's clear you've already lost the debate.[/i] Name calling? I apologize I didn't realize how sensitive you were. As if there were a debate here. If I don't agree with you, I'm a bad Catholic, I hate America, and what else? "Debate" implies a sharing of ideas... what this is has been my proclamation of what I believe, added to which is your insistence that I'm a bad Christian for espousing such views. As for my Catholicity, I need prove myself only to God. Nothing I believe contradicts the essential teachings of the Catechism, which, by the way, tells us NOT to be homophobic.
Socrates Posted February 5, 2006 Posted February 5, 2006 [quote name='sraf' date='Feb 4 2006, 08:44 PM']However, as I grew more aware, I realized that to fight for the [i]rights [/i]of the bunch of cells and ignore the rights of the mother is cruel to both of them. [b]I can't decide whether or not a life lived in poverty with a mother who never wanted you is better or worse than not living at all.[/b] But I think it is best if the responsibility for the choice was given to the person whom it really matters the most - the mother. But here's the key: she has got to decide on behalf of herself [i]and [/i]the fetus. If she chooses to abort the fetus, I would not agree with her. It is something I would never do to my own child. I might try to persuade her against it and I might succeed or I might not. [b]But I will not take away the woman's right to decide for herself. [/b][right][snapback]876010[/snapback][/right] [/quote] What you're saying here is absurd. Nobody has a [b]right [/b]to murder an innocent human life!! Would you say: "If she chooses to murder her three-year-old daughter, I would not agree with her. It is something I would never do to my own child. I might try to persuade her against it and I might succeed or I might not. But I will not take away the woman's right to decide for herself."? Would you say that as long as people are going to keep committing murders, we should try to lower murder rates, but still "respect the murderers' right to decide for themselves whether to murder"??? And implying that murder may be justified to prevent a life lived in poverty or hardship is totally wrong and contrary in every way to the Catholic doctrine of the sacredness of human life. Countless people have grown up in poverty or with uncaring parents, but have been able to overcome their hardships. The mentality that says it is justifiable to kill innocent human beings in order to prevent possible suffering is contrary to everything Christ and His Church teaches, and is a prime example of the "Culture of Death" decried by the Church.
Socrates Posted February 5, 2006 Posted February 5, 2006 [quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 5 2006, 02:00 PM'][i]It seems you are simply picking and choosing which areas you believe the government should and should not recognize Christian morality.[/i] How much Thomas Hobbes have you read? I don't agree with much of his conclusions, but his observations of the natural state of man are pretty astute. I've said clearly that the state should dispense justice and promote equity. The reasons for this is that with these precepts all people mutually benefit and the human species can be propogated. There are plenty of instances where preservation of the state and recognition of Christian morality coalesce. But where they don't, then morality should fall to the individual.[/quote] I've studied some of what Hobbes taught back in college, though I'll admit I'm not an expert on him. I do not agree with his basic theory of the nature of man and the "social contract" theory of government, which was in several ways contrary to the traditional Catholic theory of government. I'm sorry, but simply appealing to the authority of Hobbes to support your views won't work here. Hobbes was far from infallible. [quote][i]You have acknowledged that you do believe in some forms of government morality. But then you also condemn recognition of morality by the government in other areas as "imposing a subjective judgment upon the individual" and "restricting personal liberties." Again, inconsistancy. [/i] How many times to I have to explain it? Morality should be state-imposed where it benefits the state. There are plenty of instances where this is the case. Where spiritual directives don't concern the state, the state shouldn't be concerned. No matter how many times you call it inconsistent, you fail to prove anything other than your ability to pick and choose what limited facet of an argument you can argue against. That's not debate, that's masturbation.[/quote] Morality should be state-imposed where it benefits the state???!! Since when is "benefitting the state" the goal of government?? The philosophy which makes "the State" a goal unto itself is wrong, contrary to the consistant teaching of the Church, and quite dangerous. The state should not exist for itself, but for the common good of society. The state should ideally be a servant to the Church and to morality, not only follow morality when it suits its own goals of "self-preservation." The idea that the state is its own goal, unbeholden to any outside morality, finds its purest fulfillment in such systems as Nazism and Communism. So I'm a jack-off? That's very mature of you. [quote][i]What is "Preservation of the State" and why is it to be the main goal of government? And it seems that you only want certain comandments to be reflected in law while ignoring others.[/i] Preservation of the State is the point of government, as dictated by Locke, Hobbes, Mill, and many other folks conservatives love to discriminately refer to. Preservation of the State is the assurance that all people can live in a world without fear of being dominated by their oppressors. I fail to see how that violates Christian principles.[/quote] Note that I haven't cited any of these people. Preservation of the State is not the point ot government as dictated by the Church, which should be what matters to a Catholic. And your defintition is vague enough as to be interpreted to mean anything. The state can just as easy [b]be[/b] an oppressor, as guarantee freedom from oppression. [quote][i]Once you resort to nam9e-calling, it's clear you've already lost the debate.[/i] Name calling? I apologize I didn't realize how sensitive you were. As if there were a debate here. If I don't agree with you, I'm a bad Catholic, I hate America, and what else? "Debate" implies a sharing of ideas... what this is has been my proclamation of what I believe, added to which is your insistence that I'm a bad Christian for espousing such views. As for my Catholicity, I need prove myself only to God. Nothing I believe contradicts the essential teachings of the Catechism, which, by the way, tells us NOT to be homophobic. [right][snapback]876432[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Blah, Blah, blah. And where is "homophobia" (whatever that means) condemned in the Catechism? I fail to see how that even relates to this particular debate.
Snarf Posted February 6, 2006 Author Posted February 6, 2006 If it were up to me, people would live in sustainable harmony that wouldn't require a "State". Aside from saying that it's not in line with Church thining, what exactly is wrong with the Social Contract theory? Most conservatives I know love it. And before you say I don't know any real conservatives, I went to one of the most politically conservative (particularly libertarian) schools in the country. I had classes taught by Neocons and I partied with Neocons. [i]Since when is "benefitting the state" the goal of government??[/i] It's been years since I've taken PIR, so I'm a bit rusty with all the different definitions and attributes of the classical image of the State. How I use it basically refers to the amalgamation of society, culture, and government. The state is what administers justice, and government is what gives it form. Both communism and anarcho-capitalism, the polar extremes representing a departure from formal government, espouse their own views of how government can be made superfluous. Obviously, neither route will work in practicality. [i]I'm sorry, but simply appealing to the authority of Hobbes to support your views won't work here. Hobbes was far from infallible.[/i] You must be referring to that part wherein I said that I agree with everything there is to say with Hobbes, not just his common sense assertions. [i]The philosophy which makes "the State" a goal unto itself is wrong, contrary to the consistant teaching of the Church, and quite dangerous.[/i] I agree absolutely that the state is dangerous, but being afraid of it won't make it go away. If anything, conservativism favors the State moreso than the contemporary Left. Small government, big society--that's what you want, isn't it? What I'm saying is that the State is more dangerous when it lacks a strong body to regulate it. It's just that I find more danger in suppression of worker's rights and the formation of monopolies than I do in men have sex together and schools not teaching that dinosaurs rode on Noah's ark. [i]The state should not exist for itself, but for the common good of society.[/i] Agreed. But your idea of "common good" encroaches far too deeply into personal liberty. So, what is it? The state is too powerful, it should be powerless... and yet dominate what people do behind closed doors? Your stance is as consistent as pancake batter that really wasn't stirred very well at all. [i]The idea that the state is its own goal, unbeholden to any outside morality, finds its purest fulfillment in such systems as Nazism and Communism.[/i] I'm not asking if you agree with Marx, because I sure as hell don't. But do you know what he had to say? Lenin wasn't chosen as premier because he had a bitchin' goatee, but because he bastardized communism into something that was feasible. Stalin then took it from there, which brings up, why do you think Trotsky was assassinated by his home government? Historical communism does to Marxism what the French Revolution did to Utopianism. Nazis, on the other hand, were fond of the idea of regulating consensus morality. So, although your discussion of communism strikes me as pointless, it carries the air of condescension in that you assume I don't know what I'm talking about. [i]So I'm a jack-off? That's very mature of you.[/i] I fail to see what my maturity has to do with your calling yourself a jack-off. [i]Note that I haven't cited any of these people.[/I I didn't say you did, but it's just one of my personal pleasures when conservatives do--and they do it quite often. Especially when conservatives scream "1984, Big Brother!" as if Eric Blair hadn't been an ardent socialist. [I]Preservation of the State is not the point ot government as dictated by the Church, which should be what matters to a Catholic.[/i] So. What does government do, then? [i]The state can just as easy be an oppressor, as guarantee freedom from oppression.[/i] I'm sorry, but I'd rather see the oppression of billionaires who attend board meetings twice a year than I would like to see the oppression of people who were born with the attraction to their own gender. [i]And where is "homophobia" (whatever that means) condemned in the Catechism? I fail to see how that even relates to this particular debate.[/i] It relates just as far as my slight incongruity with doctrine does--it's extraneous, but hey, you started it. [b]2358[/b]: The number of men and women who have deep=seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. Thiss inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They [b]must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided[/b]. That doesn't mean they should be able to get married, but you confessed that the test "Are you a homophobe?" revealed that you lack sensitivity. No, I don't put much stock in online tests. I put stock in what you have to say, which is neither charitable nor sensitive.
Socrates Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 [quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 5 2006, 07:29 PM']If it were up to me, people would live in sustainable harmony that wouldn't require a "State". Aside from saying that it's not in line with Church thining, what exactly is wrong with the Social Contract theory? Most conservatives I know love it. And before you say I don't know any real conservatives, I went to one of the most politically conservative (particularly libertarian) schools in the country. I had classes taught by Neocons and I partied with Neocons.[/quote] In short, the problem is that it does not acknowledge the divine authority of God. It says the state derives its power solely from the consent of the governed. While this is good insofar as it (in theory) places limits on the power of the state, it does not acknowledge that the state is under the Divine Rule of God, and should conform to God's Law, not usurp it. And I tend to lean more "paleo-con" than "neo-con" on most issues, and am not a libertarian (though I lean towards them in some areas). If you want to debate me, address what I actually post, not what "most conservatives you know" or any other people say. [quote][i]Since when is "benefitting the state" the goal of government??[/i] It's been years since I've taken PIR, so I'm a bit rusty with all the different definitions and attributes of the classical image of the State. How I use it basically refers to the amalgamation of society, culture, and government. The state is what administers justice, and government is what gives it form. Both communism and anarcho-capitalism, the polar extremes representing a departure from formal government, espouse their own views of how government can be made superfluous. Obviously, neither route will work in practicality.[/quote] I don't agree that the state is the ultimate expression of society. Statism is a dangerous and false philosophy, which has had disasterous consequences in the past century. [quote][i]I'm sorry, but simply appealing to the authority of Hobbes to support your views won't work here. Hobbes was far from infallible.[/i] You must be referring to that part wherein I said that I agree with everything there is to say with Hobbes, not just his common sense assertions.[/quote] Need to specify what you are talking about. [quote][i]The philosophy which makes "the State" a goal unto itself is wrong, contrary to the consistant teaching of the Church, and quite dangerous.[/i] I agree absolutely that the state is dangerous, but being afraid of it won't make it go away. If anything, conservativism favors the State moreso than the contemporary Left. Small government, big society--that's what you want, isn't it? What I'm saying is that the State is more dangerous when it lacks a strong body to regulate it. It's just that I find more danger in suppression of worker's rights and the formation of monopolies than I do in men have sex together and schools not teaching that dinosaurs rode on Noah's ark.[/quote] The state must be kept in check, and government should be limited. The central government should not be doing things that can be done on the local level (principle of subsidiarity). More local autonomy, less big-government tax-and-spend programs. Most liberals favor more socialism, federal government regulation of everything, more government programs, and tax-and-spend government "solutions" to all life's problems. Increasing government interference in the economy does not in fact improve everybody's condition, but in the long run creates more unemployment and poverty for everyone. (If you want to debate this in depth, please start another thread.) [quote][i]The state should not exist for itself, but for the common good of society.[/i] Agreed. But your idea of "common good" encroaches far too deeply into personal liberty. So, what is it? The state is too powerful, it should be powerless... and yet dominate what people do behind closed doors? Your stance is as consistent as pancake batter that really wasn't stirred very well at all.[/quote] Nice straw man argument there! I never said the government should have cops in people's bedrooms or any other such foolishness. (Nor has any person taken seriously on the Right.) I've said that I'm opposed to the state giving special legal recognition or privileges to sodomistic practices, which is quite another matter. Such things as requiring that states recognize "gay civil unions" and creating laws that guarantee legal privileges for homosexuals, and passing "hate crime" legislation, increase the power of the central government, not decrease it. You've proven no contradictions in my thinking, only your own inability to answer what I actually posted, rather than straw men of your own imagining. [quote][i]The idea that the state is its own goal, unbeholden to any outside morality, finds its purest fulfillment in such systems as Nazism and Communism.[/i] I'm not asking if you agree with Marx, because I sure as hell don't. But do you know what he had to say? Lenin wasn't chosen as premier because he had a bitchin' goatee, but because he bastardized communism into something that was feasible. Stalin then took it from there, which brings up, why do you think Trotsky was assassinated by his home government? Historical communism does to Marxism what the French Revolution did to Utopianism. Nazis, on the other hand, were fond of the idea of regulating consensus morality. So, although your discussion of communism strikes me as pointless, it carries the air of condescension in that you assume I don't know what I'm talking about.[/quote] Marx taught militant atheism and that the communist state was the highest end of man, violently rejecting the authority of God, and replacing it with worrship of Man. Lenin and all his successors did the same, though Communism frequently killed its own, being never satisfied in its goal of perpetual Revolution. The bloody history of Communism should tell you something about it. The Nazis likewise refused to acknowledge a higher moral order higher than their own National Socialist state. Church and morality were to be made subject to the all-powerful State, rather than vice-versa. Nazism was very much an ugly child of the statist philosophies you seem to espouse. [quote][i]Note that I haven't cited any of these people.[/i] I didn't say you did, but it's just one of my personal pleasures when conservatives do--and they do it quite often. Especially when conservatives scream "1984, Big Brother!" as if Eric Blair hadn't been an ardent socialist.[/quote] This is really neither here nor there. People can be right in some things but wrong in others. One may see the prescience of Orwell's warnings against statism without agreeing with his socialism. [quote][i]Preservation of the State is not the point ot government as dictated by the Church, which should be what matters to a Catholic.[/i] So. What does government do, then?[/quote] In short - preserve the common good. Basically it should protect the people against outside threats (such as foreign enemies) and protect them from interior threats (such as criminals). For a particularly Catholic understanding of the role of the state, see my earlier posted quote from the CCC. Exactly how much else it should do can be debated, but it should generally not overstep its bounds and do what can be done at a more local level. [quote][i]The state can just as easy be an oppressor, as guarantee freedom from oppression.[/i] I'm sorry, but I'd rather see the oppression of billionaires who attend board meetings twice a year than I would like to see the oppression of people who were born with the attraction to their own gender.[/quote] The government should not be in the business of "oppressing" anybody. The government still need give no recognition or privilege to sodomy or other sinful perversion. [quote] . . . That doesn't mean [homosexuals] should be able to get married . . . [right][snapback]876648[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Indeed. Enough said.
Snarf Posted February 6, 2006 Author Posted February 6, 2006 [i]In short, the problem is that it does not acknowledge the divine authority of God[/i] And whenever it does, it most always tends to be some concept of God that is neither righteous nor appropriate. I'm not going to lie and say that all the Framers weren't practicing Christians, but they were a very ugly color of Christian and the rest were deists. I would rather be Catholic in a secular nation than be Puritan in America. The State is not in a place to define God, so acknowledging His authority is impracticable. It's the responsibility of society to recognize divine authority, and thus color the State accordingly. The first step to doing this is following Christ's example. Remind sinners that they are sinning, but do not violate their free will. [i]I don't agree that the state is the ultimate expression of society. Statism is a dangerous and false philosophy, which has had disasterous consequences in the past century.[/i] "Ultimate expression" maybe not. The State is one facet of society, the primary other being culture. I don't know what you mean by Statism, but associating it exclusively with communism or fascism is a logical leap that Shaq couldn't make. The concept of "human being and citizen" is as old as Socrates, and is inseperable from some image of the State. "Statism" has done some nasty things, sure, but so has religion. Oh, I forgot to mention that the dialectic idea was used by Fichte, and only rarely by Hegel. Calling it Hegelianism is just a ploy of lazy undergraduate professors who try to rationalize why Marx quotes him so often. [i]The state must be kept in check, and government should be limited. The central government should not be doing things that can be done on the local level (principle of subsidiarity).[/i] I actually agree, but this is manifest in my preference to be taxed by the State of Indiana over Bush. [i]More local autonomy, less big-government tax-and-spend programs.[/i] Since I did say that everything should be nationalized... [i]Most liberals favor more socialism, federal government regulation of everything, more government programs, and tax-and-spend government "solutions" to all life's problems.[/i] "Most liberals"... Someone I know on a message board once said "If you want to debate me, address what I actually post". Don't cross the river from inconsistency into hypocrisy. [i]Increasing government interference in the economy does not in fact improve everybody's condition, but in the long run creates more unemployment and poverty for everyone.[/i] One of my best friends at Chicago was a libertarian, and he was never able to convince me of this. I don't have a closed mind on the subject on account that I feel that government regulation should be subjective to economic and historical context. High taxation or minimum wage rates could be a boon to one situation and a hindrance to another--I'm not denying that. What I'm asserting is that the principle itself is in accord with reason, and should be undertaken with such discretion. [i]I've said that I'm opposed to the state giving special legal recognition or privileges to sodomistic practices, which is quite another matter[/I By your logic, the legal recognition and priveleges granted to hetero marriages exist only because they have sex. That's extremely condescending and demeaning, and certainly not respectful, compassionate, or sensitive. I've never seen a case wherein "hate crime" legislation has infringed on freedom of speech. Care to provide any example of how defense of homosexuals' inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has done so? [I]Marx taught militant atheism and that the communist state was the highest end of man, violently rejecting the authority of God, and replacing it with worrship of Man. Lenin and all his successors did the same, though Communism frequently killed its own, being never satisfied in its goal of perpetual Revolution. The bloody history of Communism should tell you something about it.[/i] So. How many Marxist articles do you have on your bookshelf that weren't sponsered by the 700 Club? I'm not a communist, so I have no shame in looking at their bloody history. I'm too busy being ashamed of the holocaust being perpetrated by fellow white theists. Which brings us to... [i]The Nazis likewise refused to acknowledge a higher moral order higher than their own National Socialist state. Church and morality were to be made subject to the all-powerful State, rather than vice-versa. Nazism was very much an ugly child of the statist philosophies you seem to espouse.[/i] The Nazi Party wore religion on their shoulders while its inner conclaves focused on building an empire to last a millennium. Nazism was also the ugly child of the conservative philosophies you openly proclaim. [I]In short - preserve the common good. Basically it should protect the people against outside threats (such as foreign enemies) and protect them from interior threats (such as criminals). For a particularly Catholic understanding of the role of the state, see my earlier posted quote from the CCC. Exactly how much else it should do can be debated, but it should generally not overstep its bounds and do what can be done at a more local level[/I I never said that teh government should be as big as possible, and personally I tend to root for the little guy when they're in accord with reason. I'd love to see more local autonomy, but I'd like to see it dispensed in a logically sound manner. [I]The government still need give no recognition or privilege to sodomy or other sinful perversion[/I What do you think gays want, a bill that says they get paid for having mansex? SSD is intrinsically disordered and sinful, but it's not chimerical, and the Catechism affirms this. I've met a handful of homosexuals who've let being gay define who they are, but I know far more for whom being who they are has defined them as gay. Christ didn't approbate tax collectors, thieves and whores, but He loved them and treated them like human beings.
Cow of Shame Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 [quote name='sraf' date='Feb 4 2006, 10:44 PM']However, as I grew more aware, I realized that to fight for the [i]rights [/i]of the bunch of cells and ignore the rights of the mother is cruel to both of them. I can't decide whether or not a life lived in poverty with a mother who never wanted you is better or worse than not living at all. [/quote] Regardless of it's cell count, you yourself said it was a human being. Giving people the right to abort when it doesn't 'look' human is a very emotional argument. What 'rights' of the mother are being ignored, exactly? The right to have a bigger tv? The right to have brand new clothes? The right to a college education? If you have problems with children growing up in poverty, let's get extreme with the follow-thru: Do you think killing off starving children in Africa as an acceptable solution to poor living conditions? Do we judge someone's right to life based on your (or the mother's) conception of what the conditions of their life should look like? Shall we only allow people to live who are [i]wanted[/i]? (Personally, I've been itching for just such a green light to go on a hobo killing spree.) heh [quote] But I think it is best if the responsibility for the choice was given to the person whom it really matters the most - the mother. But here's the key: she has got to decide on behalf of herself [i]and [/i]the fetus. If she chooses to abort the fetus, I would not agree with her. It is something I would never do to my own child.[/quote] Exactly. It's a [i]child[/i]. Do we give the right to life to children when they're born? We should base right to life on [i]location[/i]? Do we give the right to life to children based on how far developed they are? On how 'human' they look? ...and they say pro-lifers are emotional. heh If this choice is such an important right, why don't we give mothers a few months after birth to figure it out? They're hardly more developed. Why all the queasiness with killing a baby a few days old? Heck, at that 'age' some babies would still be in the womb....they can be born a week or so late. [quote] I might try to persuade her against it and I might succeed or I might not. But I will not take away the woman's right to decide for herself. [/quote] What right exactly are we talking about? What right of hers is so precious that we should allow her to kill to be able to maintain it? [quote]But I still want to keep the number of abortions down. So I came up with an idea of a Pro-Balance movement - one that strives to keep the number of abortions in the U.S. below 5% [/quote] Admirable, and likely a good start.... [quote] 4. Widespread sale of contraceptives, because in today's day and age, you are being foolish and impractical to think that people are going to stop having premarital sex if you deny abortions and contraceptives.[/quote] I don't think we would have had the Sexual Revolution you referred to later in your post if we hadn't had easy access to contraceptives. I believe they got us into this mess in the first place. I feel women in developed countries have made their choice when they decide to have sex. Your argument is that people simply [i]cannot[/i] be expected to be responsible, so we'll at least make their sinful, hurtful, demeaning actions more palatable to our sensibilities? We have a tumor in our culture, so your solution is to institute an environment that enables it to [i]grow[/i]?
Cow of Shame Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 [quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 6 2006, 01:04 AM']So. How many Marxist articles do you have on your bookshelf that weren't sponsered by the 700 Club? [/quote] heh
Socrates Posted February 7, 2006 Posted February 7, 2006 [quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 5 2006, 11:04 PM'][i]In short, the problem is that it does not acknowledge the divine authority of God[/i] And whenever it does, it most always tends to be some concept of God that is neither righteous nor appropriate. I'm not going to lie and say that all the Framers weren't practicing Christians, but they were a very ugly color of Christian and the rest were deists. I would rather be Catholic in a secular nation than be Puritan in America. The State is not in a place to define God, so acknowledging His authority is impracticable. It's the responsibility of society to recognize divine authority, and thus color the State accordingly. The first step to doing this is following Christ's example. Remind sinners that they are sinning, but do not violate their free will.[/quote] If the state does not submit to or respect the higher authority of God, it becomes a god unto itself (as with Communism and National Socialism). No government has ever been perfect and without blame, but those that respected God and Christian morality have been better than those who reject God's authority all together. And the "violating free will" argument is just ludicrous. By this logic, the only acceptable system would be absolute anarchy, as [b]any [/b]law, rule, or regulation would "violate" the free will of those who would oppose it. [quote][i]I don't agree that the state is the ultimate expression of society. Statism is a dangerous and false philosophy, which has had disasterous consequences in the past century.[/i] "Ultimate expression" maybe not. The State is one facet of society, the primary other being culture. I don't know what you mean by Statism, but associating it exclusively with communism or fascism is a logical leap that Shaq couldn't make. The concept of "human being and citizen" is as old as Socrates, and is inseperable from some image of the State. "Statism" has done some nasty things, sure, but so has religion.[/quote] Statism is the belief that the state is the highest goal and purpose of human society, and the state is given absolute power over all elements of society. In Communism, it is the Communist government. In National Socialism, it is the national state. [quote][i]The state must be kept in check, and government should be limited. The central government should not be doing things that can be done on the local level (principle of subsidiarity).[/i] I actually agree, but this is manifest in my preference to be taxed by the State of Indiana over Bush.[/quote] No disagreement with you there. (And you can also substitute Clinton or whomsever for Bush as well.) [quote][i]More local autonomy, less big-government tax-and-spend programs.[/i] Since I did say that everything should be nationalized... [i]Most liberals favor more socialism, federal government regulation of everything, more government programs, and tax-and-spend government "solutions" to all life's problems.[/i] "Most liberals"... Someone I know on a message board once said "If you want to debate me, address what I actually post". Don't cross the river from inconsistency into hypocrisy.[/quote] Well, you yourself did say you were in favor of socialism. Socialism by its very nature requires an increase in the powers of government. If you think it does not, you are living in Fantasy Land. [quote][i]Increasing government interference in the economy does not in fact improve everybody's condition, but in the long run creates more unemployment and poverty for everyone.[/i] One of my best friends at Chicago was a libertarian, and he was never able to convince me of this. I don't have a closed mind on the subject on account that I feel that government regulation should be subjective to economic and historical context. High taxation or minimum wage rates could be a boon to one situation and a hindrance to another--I'm not denying that. What I'm asserting is that the principle itself is in accord with reason, and should be undertaken with such discretion.[/quote] I have seen nothing to convince me that socialism would work, and all the evidence in the real world has shown that it in fact does not work. I'd suggest reading [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0865970858/sr=1-1/qid=1139286534/ref=sr_1_1/002-2323353-4496057?%5Fencoding=UTF8"][i]The Ethics of Redistribution[/i], by Bertrand de Jouvenel.[/url] [quote] [i]I've said that I'm opposed to the state giving special legal recognition or privileges to sodomistic practices, which is quite another matter[/i] By your logic, the legal recognition and priveleges granted to hetero marriages exist only because they have sex. That's extremely condescending and demeaning, and certainly not respectful, compassionate, or sensitive.[/quote] The only reason marriage is given any legal recognition and privileges is because marriage is the basis of family, which is the basis of society itself. If a marriage is completely opposed to the procreation and raising of children, then it is indeed purposeless and pointless. If you want to debate this further, go to one of the zillion and one threads on this topic on Phatmass. I'm getting tired of endlessly repeating myself on this one. [quote]I've never seen a case wherein "hate crime" legislation has infringed on freedom of speech. Care to provide any example of how defense of homosexuals' inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has done so?[/quote] In Canada, one can be fined for what is deemed "hate speech" against homosexuals, including quoting the Bible to oppose the "gay rights" agenda. In Sweden, a pastor was charged with hate crimes for preaching against the sin of homosexuality in his church. The case was later dropped due only to intense outrage from Christians around the world. Thank God this hasn't come to America yet, though some liberals want it to. Suppression of free speech can be the only real purpose of "hate-crime" legislation. [quote][i]Marx taught militant atheism and that the communist state was the highest end of man, violently rejecting the authority of God, and replacing it with worrship of Man. Lenin and all his successors did the same, though Communism frequently killed its own, being never satisfied in its goal of perpetual Revolution. The bloody history of Communism should tell you something about it.[/i] So. How many Marxist articles do you have on your bookshelf that weren't sponsered by the 700 Club? I'm not a communist, so I have no shame in looking at their bloody history. I'm too busy being ashamed of the holocaust being perpetrated by fellow white theists. Which brings us to... [i]The Nazis likewise refused to acknowledge a higher moral order higher than their own National Socialist state. Church and morality were to be made subject to the all-powerful State, rather than vice-versa. Nazism was very much an ugly child of the statist philosophies you seem to espouse.[/i] The Nazi Party wore religion on their shoulders while its inner conclaves focused on building an empire to last a millennium. Nazism was also the ugly child of the conservative philosophies you openly proclaim.[/quote] This is pure bologna. The Nazis were far from being devout Christians, and persecuted those Christians (including Catholics) who dared oppose their Satanic agenda. Hitler and many of the top Nazis were into neo-pagan occult ideas. Painting the Nazis as conservative Christians (and conservative Christians as Nazis) is one of the stupidest and most insidious lies of the Left. Constantly repeating this law does not make it true. [quote][i]In short - preserve the common good. Basically it should protect the people against outside threats (such as foreign enemies) and protect them from interior threats (such as criminals). For a particularly Catholic understanding of the role of the state, see my earlier posted quote from the CCC. Exactly how much else it should do can be debated, but it should generally not overstep its bounds and do what can be done at a more local level[/i] I never said that teh government should be as big as possible, and personally I tend to root for the little guy when they're in accord with reason. I'd love to see more local autonomy, but I'd like to see it dispensed in a logically sound manner.[/quote] Socialism necessitates big government. No way around that. [quote][i]The government still need give no recognition or privilege to sodomy or other sinful perversion[/i] What do you think gays want, a bill that says they get paid for having mansex? SSD is intrinsically disordered and sinful, but it's not chimerical, and the Catechism affirms this. I've met a handful of homosexuals who've let being gay define who they are, but I know far more for whom being who they are has defined them as gay. Christ didn't approbate tax collectors, thieves and whores, but He loved them and treated them like human beings. [right][snapback]876797[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Christ called tax collectors and whores to change their ways and follow Him. "Go and sin no more." He did absolutely nothing to condone or encourage their sinful behavior - but told them to change. Condoning and blessing sinful "relationships" is far from Christ-like.
Snarf Posted February 7, 2006 Author Posted February 7, 2006 [i]If the state does not submit to or respect the higher authority of God, it becomes a god unto itself[/i] Again, any concept of God might be an a priori to the individual, but to the government its just impractical to assume unless the religious foundations of the State are absolutely homogeneous. By your logic, the ideal government would make it illegal to sell meat on Fridays in Lent. [i]And the "violating free will" argument is just ludicrous. By this logic, the only acceptable system would be absolute anarchy, as any law, rule, or regulation would "violate" the free will of those who would oppose it.[/i] I should have the free will to murder anyone I like, but since murder is socially reprehensible I should expect to be severely punished. [i]Statism is the belief that the state is the highest goal and purpose of human society, and the state is given absolute power over all elements of society.[/i] Then I'm not a Statist, as I don't feel that the State should have absolute power over what people do or do not do. [i]Socialism by its very nature requires an increase in the powers of government. If you think it does not, you are living in Fantasy Land.[/i] Socialism is far too young to be judged by history. Its main tragedy was that Marx hated it, and so lulled people into support for Communism as an alternative. I admit and support the fact that socialism requires a support of increase in powers over the economy, but in a modern context the economy is far too dangerous to be left in the hands of those born into power. [i]The only reason marriage is given any legal recognition and privileges is because marriage is the basis of family, which is the basis of society itself. If a marriage is completely opposed to the procreation and raising of children, then it is indeed purposeless and pointless.[/i] So when a homosexual is in the hospital, the one person in the world who cares about him/her should be denied clearance to see them because they don't have children or blood relations? I'd recommend reading Warner's [i]The Trouble with Normal[/i], but I don't want you to get an anneurysm. [i]Suppression of free speech can be the only real purpose of "hate-crime" legislation.[/i] Disenfranchised blacks in the South would get a kick out of that, I'm sure. [i]The Nazis were far from being devout Christians, and persecuted those Christians (including Catholics) who dared oppose their Satanic agenda[/i]. The vast majority of antebellum Germany were church-going Nazis, in the same regard as modern America comprises probably 90% of either Democrates or Republicans. Associating an ideology exclusively with those directly in power is dangerous and counterfactual. [I]Condoning and blessing sinful "relationships" is far from Christ-like[/I Nobody's asking you to "bless" or "condone" anything. Treating all people like human beings would be a nice start, though.
Socrates Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 [quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 7 2006, 03:25 AM'][i]If the state does not submit to or respect the higher authority of God, it becomes a god unto itself[/i] Again, any concept of God might be an a priori to the individual, but to the government its just impractical to assume unless the religious foundations of the State are absolutely homogeneous. By your logic, the ideal government would make it illegal to sell meat on Fridays in Lent.[/quote] Governments can respect the Ten Commandments and the natural law of God imprinted on the hearts of all men. The state need not give special sanction to immorality. [quote][i]And the "violating free will" argument is just ludicrous. By this logic, the only acceptable system would be absolute anarchy, as any law, rule, or regulation would "violate" the free will of those who would oppose it.[/i] I should have the free will to murder anyone I like, but since murder is socially reprehensible I should expect to be severely punished.[/quote] And people should be punished for other "socially reprehensible" deeds as well. What is the point of this? - "States must respect the free will of people to do evil deeds - but they must also be punished." How would the state [b]not[/b] respect the "free will" of people to murder? This becomes silly sophistry. [quote][i]Socialism by its very nature requires an increase in the powers of government. If you think it does not, you are living in Fantasy Land.[/i] Socialism is far too young to be judged by history. Its main tragedy was that Marx hated it, and so lulled people into support for Communism as an alternative. I admit and support the fact that socialism requires a support of increase in powers over the economy, but in a modern context the economy is far too dangerous to be left in the hands of those born into power.[/quote] You can split hairs here, but Communism is an extreme form of socialism - not something in opposition to it. Socialism has not only proved a failure wherever practiced, but has been repeatedly condemned by the Church. Pope Leo XIII in [i]Rerum Novarum[/i], declared socialism "emphatically unjust" and said Socialism is "manifestly against justice." For what Pope Pius XI said about socialism, read my signature. I say the economy is far too dangerous to be placed in the hands of government beaurocrats! The free economy is made by the choices and actions of free human beings. What people do with their money should not be under the control of the federal government. If the state must "not violate people's free will" in other things, why should it violate their free will in economic matters? [quote][i]The only reason marriage is given any legal recognition and privileges is because marriage is the basis of family, which is the basis of society itself. If a marriage is completely opposed to the procreation and raising of children, then it is indeed purposeless and pointless.[/i] So when a homosexual is in the hospital, the one person in the world who cares about him/her should be denied clearance to see them because they don't have children or blood relations? I'd recommend reading Warner's [i]The Trouble with Normal[/i], but I don't want you to get an anneurysm.[/quote] This is silly. Why should being in a homosexual "relationship" give anyone privileges unmarried "straight" people don't have? [quote][i]Suppression of free speech can be the only real purpose of "hate-crime" legislation.[/i] Disenfranchised blacks in the South would get a kick out of that, I'm sure.[/quote] Obviously, somebody knows very little about the South! How exactly would "disenfranchised" blacks benefit from "hate crimes" laws? Murders, etc. are already against the law! Those idiots in Texas who dragged that man behind the truck got the chair! (What more do you want?) And the majority of crimes in this country are black on black, and black vs white crimes greatly outnumber white vs. black. All crimes ought to be punished with equal justice, without regard to the race or persuasion of the perp or the victim. Anything else is an attempt at thought control. All crime is "hate crime." I know precious few crimes commited out of love! [quote][i]The Nazis were far from being devout Christians, and persecuted those Christians (including Catholics) who dared oppose their Satanic agenda[/i]. The vast majority of antebellum Germany were church-going Nazis, in the same regard as modern America comprises probably 90% of either Democrates or Republicans. Associating an ideology exclusively with those directly in power is dangerous and counterfactual.[/quote] Once again you get your history wrong. When the Nazi party started, they were originally quite unpopular, and in the last free election, they got less than 44% of the vote. And not everyone who voted Nazi was an ardent believer in Nazi ideology, and most Germans were not aware of the full horror of the holocaust and other attrocities commited by the government. I'm not sure where you got your statistics on the religiosity of Nazis, but Germans in more religious parts of the country (such as Catholic Bavaria) were actually less likely to support the Nazis than their more secular counterparts. You have done absolutely nothing here to prove that religion or religious conservatism was the cause of Nazi evil. Your insinuation that religion is somehow to blame for the horrors of Nazism makes as much sense as saying, "most Democratic voters claim to believe in God; therefore religious belief is to blame for the Dems' promotion of abortion!" And the Nazi ideology is indeed best understood by looking at the philosophies of those in charge! If you were trying to find "the true nature of the Bush administration," whose views would you find more important, those of Pres. Bush and his cabinet members, or the "man in the street" who voted for him? Considering the Nazi government in Germany a Christian "theocracy" is quite a stretch, to say the least! Again, the old Lefty tactic of painting the Nazi party as a conservative religious movement fails! (And the record of atheistic Communism is just as bad, yet it's a bit hard to blame religion for their attrocities!) (And it's interesting that both of these horrendous ideologies came into power during a time of decline in Christian religious belief.) [quote][i]Condoning and blessing sinful "relationships" is far from Christ-like[/i] Nobody's asking you to "bless" or "condone" anything. Treating all people like human beings would be a nice start, though. [right][snapback]878569[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Nobody's talking about not treating people like human beings. Treating people like human beings does not require that we give them legal benefits for their sin. "Love the sinner, hate the sin."
Snarf Posted February 10, 2006 Author Posted February 10, 2006 [i]Governments can respect the Ten Commandments and the natural law of God imprinted on the hearts of all men. The state need not give special sanction to immorality.[/i] Some of the Ten pertain to society at large, some of them are exclusive to religion. By your logic, it should be illegal to worship any god other than ours. And if the state does not give special sanction to what some deem immoral, then it shouldn't "give special sanction" to religious marriages. If you really wanted, you could propose the same tax benefits to anyone cohabitating or anyone who raises children with no restrictions as to love or not. [i]And people should be punished for other "socially reprehensible" deeds as well. What is the point of this? - "States must respect the free will of people to do evil deeds - but they must also be punished." How would the state not respect the "free will" of people to murder?[/i] I don't really get what you're saying here. Is it that ALL immorality should be punished? Again, you're running the slippery slope. [i]Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum, declared socialism "emphatically unjust" and said Socialism is "manifestly against justice." For what Pope Pius XI said about socialism, read my signature.[/i] And Pope JPII declared the war against Iraq to be unjust. [i]This is silly. Why should being in a homosexual "relationship" give anyone privileges unmarried "straight" people don't have?[/i] That's what I'm saying, abolish governmental marriage and replace it with civil unions. Marriage as a sacrament should be exclusive to religion. [i]Those idiots in Texas who dragged that man behind the truck got the chair! (What more do you want?)[/i] Life sentence without parole, but that's a different subject. [i]When the Nazi party started, they were originally quite unpopular, and in the last free election, they got less than 44% of the vote.[/i] For a pluralistic system, that's a pretty staggeringly high number. What did Bush get in his first election? Less than 48%? Couldn't you call that "quite unpopular"? [i]And not everyone who voted Nazi was an ardent believer in Nazi ideology, and most Germans were not aware of the full horror of the holocaust and other attrocities commited by the government.[/i] [i]Mein Kampf[/i] made Hitler, not the other way around. And yes, I've expressed elsewhere that most people were oblivious to the holocaust. But that didn't make their political affiliations any less valid. That was my point.
Socrates Posted February 11, 2006 Posted February 11, 2006 Sorry - I was going to respond to this last night, but some other things came up. [quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 9 2006, 05:34 PM'][i]Governments can respect the Ten Commandments and the natural law of God imprinted on the hearts of all men. The state need not give special sanction to immorality.[/i] Some of the Ten pertain to society at large, some of them are exclusive to religion. By your logic, it should be illegal to worship any god other than ours. And if the state does not give special sanction to what some deem immoral, then it shouldn't "give special sanction" to religious marriages. If you really wanted, you could propose the same tax benefits to anyone cohabitating or anyone who raises children with no restrictions as to love or not.[/quote] Ideally, the government's laws would be in accord with the truth of the Catholic Church, which contains the fullness of truth. Obviously, that is quite unlikely in modern America, but I still maintain that laws should conform as best they can to Christ's truth, or at the least, not contradict or uphold them. The truth is, for a culture, a society, to exist, it must be build on some common principles or "values." And I doubt we'd agree which commandments are "exclusive to religion." This draws a false and artificial boundary between religious morality and public life, which is in reality not so clear-cut. All society would be better off if all 10 were heeded (much as this flies in the face of modern multi-culturalism and pluralism). While it may be at the moment impractical to forbid by law the worship of false gods, the government should do nothing to officially sanction or condone worship of pagan idols. Radical pluralism cannot really stand for long as the basis of a society. Different religions and worldviews are indeed at odds, and often conflict. If all "worldviews" are seen as equally valid, we simply have chaos. Radical pluralism ends up with such insanities as the British Navy officially sanctioning the "rights" of an officer to perform Satanic rituals on his ship. (This was an actual recent case.) [quote][i]And people should be punished for other "socially reprehensible" deeds as well. What is the point of this? - "States must respect the free will of people to do evil deeds - but they must also be punished." How would the state not respect the "free will" of people to murder?[/i] I don't really get what you're saying here. Is it that ALL immorality should be punished? Again, you're running the slippery slope.[/quote] And I don't get what you're saying. The "free will" argument is bogus - because for there to be [b]any[/b] law, there must be some restrictions on people's free will. And I simply don't buy the argument that America is on a "slippery-slope" to a religious dictatorship. Just look around you! We're on a slippery slope to what Pope Benedict XVI wisely called "the dictatorship of relativism." [quote][i]Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum, declared socialism "emphatically unjust" and said Socialism is "manifestly against justice." For what Pope Pius XI said about socialism, read my signature.[/i] And Pope JPII declared the war against Iraq to be unjust.[/quote] And what does that have to do with anything? 1) I never mentioned the Iraq war (which I tend to think was unnecessary - and which many "paleo-cons" oppose). 2) That was a judgment on a particular event - which does not fall under Papal infallibility. Several Popes have condemned the principle of socialism (which is a principle, not a particular application), writing in official encyclicals. It has been repeatedly condemned as intrinsically unjust. Again - No one can be at the same time a true Socialist and a sincere Catholic! You obviously do not have a correct understanding of the dogma of papaI infallibility. I suggest you discuss this with one of the Church Scholars here -they could help straighten you out. 3) There is enough wrong with socialism to oppose it even if the Church had said nothing. It is an unjust and tyrannical system which denies man's right to private property, and puts everyone's property under the control of the government. It also is a failure economically, and in the long run creates more poverty, rather than eliminates it. [quote][i]This is silly. Why should being in a homosexual "relationship" give anyone privileges unmarried "straight" people don't have?[/i] That's what I'm saying, abolish governmental marriage and replace it with civil unions. Marriage as a sacrament should be exclusive to religion.[/quote] Originally, the idea was simply that government acknowledge the natural-law institution of marriage - which began with Adam and Eve, and is by its very definition only between a man and a woman. I realize there are problems when the modern state creates marriages, but even if we abolish government recognition of marriage, I am still opposed to "civil unions" of any kind - as they do nothing but reward immorality. If you want to debate this further, all sides of this issue have been debated at length in past threads. Run a search on "gay marriage" or "civil unions," etc. I'm tired of endlessly repeating myself. [quote][i]Those idiots in Texas who dragged that man behind the truck got the chair! (What more do you want?)[/i] Life sentence without parole, but that's a different subject.[/quote] Whatever - you've still done nothing to show the need for "hate crimes" legislation. [quote][i]When the Nazi party started, they were originally quite unpopular, and in the last free election, they got less than 44% of the vote.[/i] For a pluralistic system, that's a pretty staggeringly high number. What did Bush get in his first election? Less than 48%? Couldn't you call that "quite unpopular"?[/quote] I'm not condoning those that voted Nazi. But this still contradicts your statement that 90% of Germans were "Church-going Nazis." (whatever that's supposed to prove). And what Bush's popularity or unpopularity has to do with this topic is truly beyond me. [quote][i]And not everyone who voted Nazi was an ardent believer in Nazi ideology, and most Germans were not aware of the full horror of the holocaust and other attrocities commited by the government.[/i] [i]Mein Kampf[/i] made Hitler, not the other way around. And yes, I've expressed elsewhere that most people were oblivious to the holocaust. But that didn't make their political affiliations any less valid. That was my point. [right][snapback]882232[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I have no idea what your statement about Mein Kampf "making" Hitler is supposed to mean, or how any of this does anything to prove your assertion that religious "conservatism" is to blame for Hitler's murderous ideology.
Socrates Posted February 11, 2006 Posted February 11, 2006 Correction: The last sentence of my first paragraph in the last post should read: " . . . but I still maintain that laws should conform as best they can to Christ's truth, or at the least, not contradict or [b]oppose [/b]them " ~ oops!
ironmonk Posted February 11, 2006 Posted February 11, 2006 Liberalism is condemned by the Church. [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=47523"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=47523[/url] Being a liberal is not bragable.
Snarf Posted February 11, 2006 Author Posted February 11, 2006 (edited) [i]The truth is, for a culture, a society, to exist, it must be build on some common principles or "values." [/i] Society can have all the values it wants, I fully agree and support that. It is society's responsibility to impose the image of Christ upon its members. But people should be endowed with the right, however erroneous, to stand against society. When you LEGISLATE such impositions, it's nothing short of thievery of liberty. [i]the government should do nothing to officially sanction or condone worship of pagan idols.[/i] What exactly are you saying here? I could posture several guesses, but that'd just fill up too much space. [i]If all "worldviews" are seen as equally valid, we simply have chaos.[/i] And if just one is legally imposed, we have fascism. [i]Radical pluralism ends up with such insanities as the British Navy officially sanctioning the "rights" of an officer to perform Satanic rituals on his ship.[/i] Some people choose to be Satanists. A crime against God, yes. But a federal crime? That's just bigotry. [i]for there to be any law, there must be some restrictions on people's free will.[/i] In a practical sense, yes. If I demonstrate the desire and purpose to kill, then I should be thwarted. However, the desire and purpose demonstrate an act of the will. What you're saying, however, is that people should conform to consensus morality just because it fulfills a certain group's religious leanings. That borders dangerously on the lines of fascism. [i]1) I never mentioned the Iraq war (which I tend to think was unnecessary - and which many "paleo-cons" oppose). 2) That was a judgment on a particular event - which does not fall under Papal infallibility. Several Popes have condemned the principle of socialism (which is a principle, not a particular application), writing in official encyclicals. It has been repeatedly condemned as intrinsically unjust.[/i] I mentioned the war on Iraq because it was an embarassing moment for Catholic conservatives. Am I wrong in my belief that an encyclical is only infallible when declared Ex Cathedra? Am I wrong in my belief that moral guidelines are only pertinent to the faith when outlined in the Catechism? Speaking of which, here are some gems: "[b]2424[/b]A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable." And here's what She says about Socialism: "[b]2425:[/b] The Church has rejected the totalitarian and athiestic ideologies associated in modern times with 'communism' or 'socialism'. She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of 'capitalism', individualism and the obsolute pirmacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it soleby by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for 'there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market'. Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended." So, since i reject totalitarianism, my breed of socialism doesn't defy the Catechism. As for being "atheistic", I can't see you applying that to say that the State should be a moral body; it simply affirms that historical communism's association with Marxist godlessness is deplorable. It is SOCIETY'S responsibility to employ a concept of God. I personally think that centralized planning is a bad idea, and most post-1980 liberals agree with me. I see conservativism as being far more in violation of this entry than social democracy could ever hope to be. [i]3) There is enough wrong with socialism to oppose it even if the Church had said nothing. It is an unjust and tyrannical system which denies man's right to private property, and puts everyone's property under the control of the government. It also is a failure economically, and in the long run creates more poverty, rather than eliminates it.[/i] Socialism doesn't deny the right to property, it merely affirms the responsibility to give back to the society from which you draw life. I'm an extremely moderate socialist to whom putting "everyone's property under the control of the government" seems self-centered and paranoid. WIth the Industrial Revolution in mind, I think capitalism has failed far more by dominating lives than socialism ever could, lest it become inundated by totalitarianism. [i]Whatever - you've still done nothing to show the need for "hate crimes" legislation.[/i] Say a homosexual gets beat up in a bar. Normally, the wrong-doer would be sentenced as merely someone who had the impulse to commit the crime of battery. That does nothing to address or correct the problem of bigotry within the perpetrator. Where injustice lies in the mind, it must be reprimanded accordingly. [i]I have no idea what your statement about Mein Kampf "making" Hitler is supposed to mean, or how any of this does anything to prove your assertion that religious "conservatism" is to blame for Hitler's murderous ideology.[/i] Hitler was voted into office because he wrote a rampantly popular book. He did not write a book because he was voted into office. Conservative folk saw in Hitler his antisemitic ideology, and they loved him for it. Does that mean they wanted six million jews to die? Of course not. But they DID render it possible. Ironmonk, the term "liberal" in the economic sense has changed drastically since that work was drafted. You might want to do your research better. Edited February 11, 2006 by Snarf
Socrates Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 [quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 11 2006, 04:11 AM'][i]The truth is, for a culture, a society, to exist, it must be build on some common principles or "values." [/i] Society can have all the values it wants, I fully agree and support that. It is society's responsibility to impose the image of Christ upon its members. But people should be endowed with the right, however erroneous, to stand against society. When you LEGISLATE such impositions, it's nothing short of thievery of liberty.[/quote] Then people should be endowed with the right, however erroneous, to murder, rob, rape, abuse children, scream hatred of Jews, homosexuals, and liberals, or whatever else their twisted minds can think of. After all, legislation of such impositions is nothing short of thievery of liberty! [quote][i]If all "worldviews" are seen as equally valid, we simply have chaos.[/i] And if just one is legally imposed, we have fascism.[/quote] A meaningless statement. "Fascism" is that favorite old epiphet of the Left, used to refer to whatever they disagree with. So any state that upholds Christianity, rather than Islam, atheism, or some other "worldview" is automatically "fascist"? [quote][i]Radical pluralism ends up with such insanities as the British Navy officially sanctioning the "rights" of an officer to perform Satanic rituals on his ship.[/i] Some people choose to be Satanists. A crime against God, yes. But a federal crime? That's just bigotry.[/quote] The government need not do anything to officially sanction Satanism - such as that case involved. And opposing crimes against God, such as satanism - the worship of evil and hatred of God as a principle - is "simply bigotry"?? LOL Actually, it's sad that people even think this way. This really deserves no comment, other than that it's obvious why you have that "hello I don't rep the Church" tag! (ps - I wonder if you'd feel the same way regarding "people who choose to be racists" or "people who choose to be homophobes"!) [quote][i]for there to be any law, there must be some restrictions on people's free will.[/i] In a practical sense, yes. If I demonstrate the desire and purpose to kill, then I should be thwarted. However, the desire and purpose demonstrate an act of the will. What you're saying, however, is that people should conform to consensus morality just because it fulfills a certain group's religious leanings. That borders dangerously on the lines of fascism.[/quote] There it is, that old "f-word" again! LOL I've heard that "fascist" means simply one that is winning an argument with a liberal. Obviously, no law can control the inner act of one's will. You haven't really given an argument here - just decried supporting "religious" morality as somehow "fascist" (read "opposed to liberalism"). [quote][i]1) I never mentioned the Iraq war (which I tend to think was unnecessary - and which many "paleo-cons" oppose). 2) That was a judgment on a particular event - which does not fall under Papal infallibility. Several Popes have condemned the principle of socialism (which is a principle, not a particular application), writing in official encyclicals. It has been repeatedly condemned as intrinsically unjust.[/i] I mentioned the war on Iraq because it was an embarassing moment for Catholic conservatives. Am I wrong in my belief that an encyclical is only infallible when declared Ex Cathedra? Am I wrong in my belief that moral guidelines are only pertinent to the faith when outlined in the Catechism? Speaking of which, here are some gems: "[b]2424[/b]A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable." And here's what She says about Socialism: "[b]2425:[/b] The Church has rejected the totalitarian and athiestic ideologies associated in modern times with 'communism' or 'socialism'. She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of 'capitalism', individualism and the obsolute pirmacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it soleby by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for 'there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market'. Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended." So, since i reject totalitarianism, my breed of socialism doesn't defy the Catechism. As for being "atheistic", I can't see you applying that to say that the State should be a moral body; it simply affirms that historical communism's association with Marxist godlessness is deplorable. It is SOCIETY'S responsibility to employ a concept of God. I personally think that centralized planning is a bad idea, and most post-1980 liberals agree with me. I see conservativism as being far more in violation of this entry than social democracy could ever hope to be. [i]3) There is enough wrong with socialism to oppose it even if the Church had said nothing. It is an unjust and tyrannical system which denies man's right to private property, and puts everyone's property under the control of the government. It also is a failure economically, and in the long run creates more poverty, rather than eliminates it.[/i] Socialism doesn't deny the right to property, it merely affirms the responsibility to give back to the society from which you draw life. I'm an extremely moderate socialist to whom putting "everyone's property under the control of the government" seems self-centered and paranoid. WIth the Industrial Revolution in mind, I think capitalism has failed far more by dominating lives than socialism ever could, lest it become inundated by totalitarianism.[/quote] Catholics are also required to heed the Church's teachings in the Ordinary Magisterium - which includes encyclicals. Encyclicals have as much authority as the CCC. Whoever tells you otherwise tells wrongly. Where the encyclicals teach on Faith and Morals, they are to be heeded. Socialism is decried repeatedly as contrary to justice. Personally, I think the Popes knew what they were talking about here more than you do! And you do decry the state's making almost any legislation imposing moral values as "fascist" and contrary to "free will," yet you would trust state beaurocrats to tell private citizens what they must do with their money? Again, glaring contradiction! [quote][i]Whatever - you've still done nothing to show the need for "hate crimes" legislation.[/i] Say a homosexual gets beat up in a bar. Normally, the wrong-doer would be sentenced as merely someone who had the impulse to commit the crime of battery. That does nothing to address or correct the problem of bigotry within the perpetrator. [b]Where injustice lies in the mind, it must be reprimanded accordingly.[/b][/quote] Whoa! Now there's a good one!! Is this really coming from the same guy who claimed earlier that "[b]people should be endowed with the right, however erroneous, to stand against society. When you LEGISLATE such impositions, it's nothing short of thievery of liberty[/b]."??? Or did somebody else take over the typing here?? Why should someone who beats up a homosexual at a bar be punished differently than someone who beats up anyone else at a bar?? Should he be punished more harshly than any of those who have commited brutal and sadistic homosexual rape? I'm sure if someone suggested that government authorities should do anything legislative to address or correct the problems of immorality within the perpetrators that lead them to murder, rape, vandalize, and rob, etc., you would immediately scream "fascism"! However, the state is to "reprimand" the "injustice in the mind" which supposedly leads to crimes against gays?? People are to be punished by the law for their inner thoughts?? Talk about "fascist"!! Wouldn't that just be "bigotry" against homophobes? And if someone commited a murder as part of a Satanic ritual, or inspired by Satanism, would we also be obliged to punish the satanic "injustice of the mind" which led to this crime? Or what about the disordered lust that leads to a sex crime? [quote][i]I have no idea what your statement about Mein Kampf "making" Hitler is supposed to mean, or how any of this does anything to prove your assertion that religious "conservatism" is to blame for Hitler's murderous ideology.[/i] Hitler was voted into office because he wrote a rampantly popular book. He did not write a book because he was voted into office. Conservative folk saw in Hitler his antisemitic ideology, and they loved him for it. Does that mean they wanted six million jews to die? Of course not. But they DID render it possible.[/quote] Just as left-leaning folk made possible the murderous reigns of Lenin and Stalin and the 75 million deaths under atheistic Communism. Blaming the holocaust on religious conservatism is just absurd. It would make just as much sense (well, more actually) to blame liberalism and atheism for the horrors of Communism. Nobody on the American right supports Nazism or anything similar, while many on the Left have been sympathetic to Communism. I think this thread has run its course. If you want to debate any of the specific points in this debate further, start another thread, or search for one of the many old threads on these topics.
jmjtina Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 (edited) [quote name='sraf' date='Feb 4 2006, 07:44 PM']*claps* [b]Snarf[/b], it's good to find someone who agrees with me here. It's been lonely. So, in short, I understand why you do not support abortions. But I am trying to give you my set of glasses to see how I view the situation - that is, you cannot take away this practice now that it has been instated. If you want to change it completely, find a time machine and go to the 1920's and stop the first Sexual Revolution. But until then, you must accept that people are going to have sex and you must give the woman thorough facts and a choice. [right][snapback]876010[/snapback][/right] [/quote] You ride on the fence. The "it's their choice BUT I don't like it" line. The fact is women DON'T have the facts of what abortion entails. The dangers of post abortion, physical, spiritual and emotional. You are "for the right's" of the women, yet you FAIL to give her all the facts there is about the abortion and what society you claim to protect about "choice" does NOT tell her. In fact you ENCOURAGE society from allowing the mother from making an informed "choice" if "[b][i]choice and rights"[/i][/b] is what you truly believed. Is that truly giving her an informed choice as you would like, keeping the information of what the abortion truly entails, from depression to infertility, nevermind that a baby, a complete seperate person, is being murdered in the cruelest ways that you wouldn't even do to a puppy?! I invite you in disscussion sraf, instead of just posting what it feels like to see from your "glasses". Yes, you CAN take this law away, and you don't have to travel back in time to stop the murder that happens everyday in our own country. and Snarf, you didn't set off to debate, because if you did you would have picked one topic to debate. INstead you wrote a "who am I" paper with erroneous mistakes in it. It makes it hard on where to start because there is so much. I agree with Socrates, it would be appreciated if you pick one topic, start another thread, and begin. Edited February 12, 2006 by jmjtina
sraf Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Okay, [b]jmjtina[/b] did you even read the rest of my post? [quote name='sraf']So I came up with an idea of a Pro-Balance movement - one that strives to keep the number of abortions in the U.S. below 5% of what it is now, by a combination of[b] 1. thorough sex education in schools (teaching about consequences, STDs, etc. as well as financial difficulties of childrearing) 2. 'Crisis Pregnancy Clinics' that do not promote either abortion, adoption, or keeping the infant but somewhere that a woman can go to in need and find guidance to see which option is really best - usually adoption.[/b] 3. In all public schools and Catholic ones, a class that teaches children to make moral decisions and understand various moral codes around the world and 4. Widespread sale of contraceptives, because in today's day and age, you are being foolish and impractical to think that people are going to stop having premarital sex if you deny abortions and contraceptives. You cannot take away both abortions and contraceptives, so you have to leave one option - in this case, contraceptives are the lesser of two evils.[/quote] I do want to give women an informed choice. But going through an adoption process could be humiliating or difficult, and abortion looks so much simpler. One surgery and you're out of there. This is why we need to teach about sex in our schools, and about the resulting consequences.
ironmonk Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 [quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 11 2006, 06:11 AM']Hitler was voted into office because he wrote a rampantly popular book. He did not write a book because he was voted into office. Conservative folk saw in Hitler his antisemitic ideology, and they loved him for it. Does that mean they wanted six million jews to die? Of course not. But they DID render it possible. [right][snapback]883746[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Hitler was voted into office because when he was on trial for treason, it was all over TV, and Hitler turned the tables on the very government that was accusing him of treason by accusing the government of treason for loosing World War I. The people loved him for it because their society did not like the fact that they had lost. What rocketed him to power was not a display of hatred for the Jewish people.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now