LIBERTAS (What Pope Leo XIII wrote about Liberals)

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 12 2006, 08:48 PM']In case you didn't see it, I stated that we are both....thanks Morostheos.....you are a calming influence and a voice of reason.....
[right][snapback]885189[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Did I deny that we were both myself?

I don't remember doing that...

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Feb 12 2006, 11:32 PM']Did I deny that we were both myself?

I don't remember doing that...
[right][snapback]885362[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote name='qfnol31 Yesterday' date=' 03:21 PM'][b]Republic's more accurate than representative democracy here...Democracy is a voting of the people while a republic is where we elect our officials to vote for us.[/b]

[u]Ironmonk is correct in defending that we are a republic over a democracy. They're very different.[/u][/quote]

(post #21)

That is tacit (if not explicit) acceptance that we are a republic rather than a democracy. And it is an incorrect statement.

[qfnol31]

No, I think I said it's more accurate. That's not a denial, I believe. I started this saying that he is correct in working for saying republic because it is more accurate. I know that a representative democracy is technically correct, but I hold that republic is more accurate...A democracy (representative democracy excluded for the time being) is very different than a republic. I think that there is enough difference to defend it as a republic.

What did I argue against that caused such a fuss? Oh well, not really important I guess.

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Feb 12 2006, 11:45 PM']No, I think I said it's more accurate.  (edit smiley)  That's not a denial, I believe.  I started this saying that he is correct in working for saying republic because it is more accurate.  I know that a representative democracy is technically correct, but I hold that republic is more accurate...A democracy (representative democracy excluded for the time being) is very different than a republic.  I think that there is enough difference to defend it as a republic.

What did I argue against that caused such a fuss?  (edit smiley)  Oh well, not really important I guess.
[right][snapback]885383[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Nope....can't exclude one for the sake of continuing an argument.

Thanks for admitting that my position is correct.

If you know a representative democracy is correct, why did you argue so much against it? Were you looking to pick a fight? I think that you were.

There is not enough of a difference and I have shown how there is not. You have YET to show anything. You have simply made some arbitrary statements, without any support and condemned my position with that "obvious proof."

Since you admit that my position is now correct, I am not sure why you were arguing for it in the first place, Zach.......

BTW, you didn't start this saying that he was correct in a "working" anything, defintion or otherwise. You started this by saying:

[quote name='qfnol31']Republic's more accurate than representative democracy here...Democracy is a voting of the people while a republic is where we elect our officials to vote for us.

Ironmonk is correct in defending that we are a republic over a democracy. They're very different.[/quote]

Where did you say anything about a "working" anything? You didn't. You said, explicitly that Ironmonk is correct in defending that we are a republic over a democracy. And that is incorrect. Patently incorrect.

I am not letting you wiggle off this.....however, since you have admitted that my position is correct, I will accept that as admission that your analysis was incorrect.

[morostheos]

[qfnol31]

So we agree that the best termonology is to say it's a republic?

Ahh, in your edit, I see otherwise.

However, I don't think I want to discuss this further, if that's all right with you.

Edited February 14, 2006 by qfnol31

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Feb 13 2006, 10:47 PM']So we agree that the best termonology is to say it's a republic?  (edit smiley)

Ahh, in your edit, I see otherwise.

However, I don't think I want to discuss this further, if that's all right with you.  (edit smiley)
[right][snapback]886575[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, republic is not the best terminology. Representative Democracy is the best terminology......Republic is simply the more colloquial terminology.

[qfnol31]

Cam, please don't take my standing up for my position as an attack on you.

You have mistaken that, and that's a flaw in your own argument.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 13 2006, 09:54 PM']No, republic is not the best terminology.  Representative Democracy is the best terminology......Republic is simply the more colloquial terminology.
[right][snapback]886591[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Mind if my roommate responds to you on this, using my screen name?

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Feb 13 2006, 10:54 PM']Cam, please don't take my standing up for my position as an attack on you.

You have mistaken that, and that's a flaw in your own argument.
[right][snapback]886592[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There is no flaw in my argument. You were countering my position against Ironmonk. I responded. That is how a debate works.

I don't think of it as a personal attack unless you personally attack me, however, I am not going to let you off the hook, simply because you say that you are off the hook.

[qfnol31]

But saying that since I spoke out that I disagree is picking a fight is inaccurate, and very presumptuous.

[Socrates]

Show me where any of the founding fathers of America ever used the word "democracy" to describe the American republic.

They did use the word, "republic."

[qfnol31]

CIA does too.

The Constitution.

I think Texas has a link to it too, in it's Constitution.

(Republic that is)

[Desert Walker]

NOTE:
This post could use more development but here it is anyway.
-------------------------
I absolutely love this discussion, and the fact that it continues to come up. It's very stimulating to the mind.

Very early in this thread Snarf gave the dictionary definition of the word "liberal" and accused ironmonk of not having done his research, I guess, becuase IM did not include this definition in his thread starting posts. It simply cannot be said, however, that the definition of "liberal" or "liberalism" can be confined to any one "realm" of intellectual thought. Liberalism in politics and economics is not [i]exactly[/i] the same thing as liberalism in Catholic Theology and human behavior.

From this assumption, the [i]concept[/i] of liberalism can be analyzed in a very broad way. And it should be. It is, after all, a concept that filters down from the lofty heights of the rational mind and affects [i]real[/i] behavior. So instead of trying to grasp at the mere [i]concept[/i] of liberalism, which is often intangibly tucked away in the far reaches of the human intellect, let us look at the thing in terms of what it accomplishes in reality.

Ah, how unfortunate. Such a task appears to be impossible to accomplish! What! Do you mean to tell me that we cannot make a distinction between the content of our intellects and reality itself? But, good sir! I protest that would be madness! Yes I agree completely. It is mad to think that ideas are real. It is of even greater madness to think that the ideas of our intellect are more real than what is real itself.

Oh I lament this! I truly do! But what has brought us to this unfortunate state of affairs? Post-Enlightenment philosophy. I admit this sounds trite. But I disagree that it is trite. Recall that it is the way of ideas, the content of the intellect, to fiddler down into our behavior. This does not mean that our ideas are as real as our behavior. That is illogical. But because ideas do have a tendancy to fiddler down and form real behavior, we should be vigilant over what ideas we allow to have free reign in our intellect. It is the conservative thing to do you know.

What does this have to do with Post-Enlightenment philosophy? The men who came up with that stuff passed it on to us through education. It's been presented to us as truth you see (or at least potentially true). But ALL of it can be traced back to one single idea: "I think, therefore I am." This idea was a liberal idea, because it had nothing to do with Catholic Theology or the philosophical methods of the time from which Catholic Theology was given a form.

It is from that single idea that we get so much error in much of our contemporary thought. Becuase that idea elevates ideas themselves above reality, thus allowing for ANY idea to be considered truth. If you can't see that this is exactly what the mentality of liberalism does then you are simply choosing to ignore the clear goings-on among men.

But the conservative statement "I am, therefore I think" puts the existence of the body and the spirit FIRST, and ideas second. Thus, [i]false ideas[/i] can be more easily doubted and labeled for what they are. But if the existence of [i]thinking[/i] is the beginning of all considerations about what is real and what isn't, then false ideas are more easily embraced as descriptions of the truth.

My point is that ideas, by what they can be seen to do to a person's life, can be judged as either liberal or conservative. And I believe that what can rightly be termed "liberal ideas" are the ones that seek to "liberate" the human person from the "oppression" of the Truth, which is simply Reality Itself.

Conservative ideas are rightly those that result in further BINDING the person to the Truth, to Reality.

[morostheos]

Very interesting thoughts, Desert Walker. I like what you're saying. But how exactly do you link in the terms liberal and conservative there? I see how you have categorized them, but how is placing ideas before reality inherently liberal and placing reality before ideas inherently conservative?

[ironmonk]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Feb 20 2006, 08:37 PM']Very interesting thoughts, Desert Walker.  I like what you're saying.  But how exactly do you link in the terms liberal and conservative there?  I see how you have categorized them, but how is placing ideas before reality inherently liberal and placing reality before ideas inherently conservative?
[right][snapback]893249[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I would say that liberals get an idea and ignore reality or try to "change" reality to fit their ideas whereas conservatives focus on reality and then draw ideas from reality.

Such as Church teachings, logic, reason, human nature, etc...

God Bless,
ironmonk

[morostheos]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 20 2006, 08:41 PM']I would say that liberals get an idea and ignore reality or try to "change" reality to fit their ideas whereas conservatives focus on reality and then draw ideas from reality.

Such as Church teachings, logic, reason, human nature, etc...

God Bless,
ironmonk
[right][snapback]893257[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

maybe provide some examples?

[Socrates]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 20 2006, 06:41 PM']I would say that liberals get an idea and ignore reality or try to "change" reality to fit their ideas whereas conservatives focus on reality and then draw ideas from reality.

Such as Church teachings, logic, reason, human nature, etc...

God Bless,
ironmonk
[right][snapback]893257[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Last weekend, I saw a car in the parking lot which had a bumper sticker which said, "The universe rearranges itself to conform to your mind." (or something like that), and another that said, "Vote Pro-choice."

I could not help but think these two sentiments are connected.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Feb 20 2006, 06:37 PM']Very interesting thoughts, Desert Walker.  I like what you're saying.  But how exactly do you link in the terms liberal and conservative there?  I see how you have categorized them, but how is placing ideas before reality inherently liberal and placing reality before ideas inherently conservative?
[right][snapback]893249[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Just the question I needed to further develop that stuff. It's also encouraging to know that someone was actually able to understand what I write because sometimes I'm not even sure I do .

I appeal to Catholic Theology. God created the world in a very particular way did He not? That's what we believe anyway. So reality itself is unchanging because God constructed it exactly the way he intended to construct it. And God is unchanging so he won't change his mind about stuff he creates. Thus, Truth can be known from the created order. And Truths about the created order are PROPERLY known from the created order.

When you place an idea before reality -- that is, holding it to be an accurately true description of reality -- you are being liberal [i]because[/i] it is [i]possible[/i] that the idea, in some way, conflicts with what is real in the created order. Thus, it is NECESSARY to BE conservative in regard to ideas, because not every idea that pops into your head is in harmony with the created order. And anything that is not in harmony with the created order is an untrue idea. Thus it can be seen that a liberal attitude toward ideas is potentially not in harmony with the created order, and potentially unfriendly toward Truth. Hence, [/I]observation of reality[I] in order to TEST an idea's harmoniousness with reality is a conservative action (i.e. placing reality before ideas). Do you kind of see how this is the case?

Edited February 21, 2006 by Desert Walker

[Desert Walker]

In some ways it amounts to this:

In response to an idea:

- Liberalism demands action in accord with the idea

- Conservatism demands action in accord with knowable Truth