Desert Walker Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 In the context of Catholic Orthodoxy such people are validly considered liberal, because they attempt to assert a culturally accepted norm as a kind of "orthodox" truth about the nature of human beings and their societal structures. Since the concept of the segregation of races is not part of orthodox Catholic belief I consider it a false concept. I believe that a person is acting liberally who asserts something as truth that is not a part of Catholic orthodoxy.
ironmonk Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Whoever thinks it is a "conservative" thing does not know what "conservative" means. I don't think racists fall under liberal or conservative... if it had to be one of them, it would fall closer to liberal... because all of the racists in the USA today like the KKK are left wing. To be right wing, one must obey the law... when they break the law, then they drift further away from the right wing. If it was a law to seperate people based on race, then it would be a conservative stance... but since it is not the law, it cannot be considered a conservative stance. God Bless, ironmonk
Quietfire Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Too bad you didnt give an choice titled, "idiots" in there. That I would have picked. I thought this thread was stating that we should segragate people of color, got me all fired up for nothing. I was ready to kick a bit of tushy, charitably of course.
peach_cube Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 none of the above (insert below). Here is my insertion "racist." The majority of those labeled above can each have their racist members, but people who believe in racial segragation are just crazy.
avemaria40 Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 idk, i dont think u can label ppl like that. It depends on the person's other political views. FYI: neone who believes in racial segregation needs to move to Manhattan and learn how to live w/ppl of different skin colors.
dustthouart Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Ignorant is right. Heterodox is another. "There is no gentile or Jew in Christ." Bing bam, right there. I'm lazy right now but if someone wants to see it I can search around for the American Bishops essay/letter/whatever on the evils of racism.
Sailahína Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 well, being half white half black I think they just don't understand........
KnightofChrist Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 (edited) I agree their racist. However... it was democrats that went to war (the civil war) to keep slaves inslaved. Later it was democrats that made segregation laws, and it was elected democrats that fought against the civil rights act. Oh and it is mostly democrats now that support the murder of black little babies as well as white... guess they got over the whole segregation thing after all... Edited February 22, 2006 by KnightofChrist
cmotherofpirl Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 The filters prevent my answer, so racists will have to do.
Cre8d4Youth Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Feb 22 2006, 08:02 AM']The filters prevent my answer, so racists will have to do. [right][snapback]894594[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Same here. Although ideologically it doesn't seem to fit with "liberal" I tend to see it that way I guess, from a historical point of view.
Ash Wednesday Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 I voted "refuse to speculate" because segregationalists in this day and age are way off the radar and in a category all their own.
Amator Veritatis Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 (edited) It would seem that a segregationist might be characterised as conservative, liberal, moderate or some other designation, dependent upon his views on a vast range of issues, be they religious, philosophical, social or otherwise. A segregationist would amply be characterised a racist by the modern usage of the word, though, he would not necessarily believe that any race is superior to another. An Italian who wishes that his neighbourhood be populated solely by Italians and that his parish church be a cultural Italian parish would certainly not be deemed a racist by a great number of people, especially if he were wishing such things in a foreign land in which acculturation were a serious threat to his social traditions, as has been the case in America throughout its history. Expanding this principle to a larger scale, one could logically conclude the need or at least the wish of some to establish segregationist laws which would seek to maintain the cultural or social continuity of certain nationalities, peoples or even races. The concept of desiring cultural monotony is certainly not [i]de facto[/i] racism. If one were to support segregation for purely cultural reasons, it would seem inaccurate to deem him a racist properly speaking, though racism could, of course, be one reason an individual might hold segregationist views. With that being said, however, I do not necessarily advocate segregation, especially in most modern societies, permeated, as they are, with pluralism and certain misconceptions about such a position in addition. In any event, I would characterise a segregationist as an individual pursuing the separation of races, and though I would characterise [i]most [/i]American segregationists as racists, I also believe we must be careful not to apply terms, especially negative, to individuals when they are inaccurate. This attitude is precisely the one which has caused so much contention between races throughout modern history, especially that of America. Edited February 22, 2006 by Amator Veritatis
Amator Veritatis Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 (edited) [quote]pre-Industrial Revolution dinosaurs.[/quote] I also wish to comment that this opinion is a curious one, indeed. Firstly, the Industrial Revolution, socially speaking, has been a veritable disaster as far as craftsmanship and agriculture are concerned. One would be better served describing modern man as a dinosaur or, better yet, a caveman of sorts, being unable to skillfully craft much of anything. Secondly, the fact remains that segregation--both of races and of cultures--persisted throughout the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, properly so-called. The connexion between the Industrial Revolution and desegregation is unsubstantiated. The fact that the advent of factories necessarily effected manufactural pluralism insofar as men were brought to cities for work, in no way necessitates that such factories need be employed by members of the different races or even of different nationalities, much less that such races or nationalities would be forced to live in the same neighbourhoods or share the same facilities. Thirdly, the fact that such a state might indeed have been effected by the Industrial Revolution--though such has not shown to be the case--would not inevitably illustrate an ideological error on the part of the segregationist, for the possibility remains that the Industrial Revolution itself could have been a gravely erroneous social phenomena. Further, It would be quite odd for a Catholic to argue that life prior to the Industrial Revolution was socially inferior to the time after the Revolution, though that discussion would be better suited for a separate thread. Cf., my previous post stating that I do not necessarily advocate segregation, especially in modern societies. Edited February 22, 2006 by Amator Veritatis
Ora et Labora Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 [quote name='avemaria40' date='Feb 21 2006, 04:08 PM']idk, i dont think u can label ppl like that. It depends on the person's other political views. FYI: neone who believes in racial segregation needs to move to Manhattan and learn how to live w/ppl of different skin colors. [right][snapback]894013[/snapback][/right] [/quote] or to tx...i am surrounded by mexicans and a lot of blacks. and i dont mind. especially the mexicans...there cool.
Carrie Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 [quote name='Azriel' date='Feb 21 2006, 04:40 PM']Quite frankly, I consider them ignorant. [right][snapback]893963[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I could not have said it better myself.
Nathan Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 Straight-up racist. What kind of poll is this, anyway?
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