Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Jan 16th 2014 new

Good morning all

Remember that there are NO RIGHTS WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITIES. I accept the premis of individual rights, but only if the recipient of those rights takes the nessary and obligatory responsibility to protect those individual rights with education, determination and protection of those rights. He should never rely on someone else doing his work for him. That is akin to copying tha test answers from anothers paper.

I believe that the issue of Responsibility should always be part of the Rights debate. This then confirms that a Catholic can also be a Liberal assuming that both sides of the equasion are taken into consideration.

Your thoughts please

God love

Philip

LOCKED
Jan 16th 2014 new
(quote) Jane-933948 said: What's the argument ~ one cannot be liberal and a practicing Catholic. How can they be?!

I don't think we can say that all liberals agree with abortion or euthanasia.

The statement about being liberal and a practicing catholic is just too general.

I have very good Jewish friends, extremely conservative, yet they just don't
want to have the right to an abortion taken away from women even though
they think it should be used sparingly.


LOCKED
Jan 16th 2014 new
(quote) Roystan-340472 said: You've decided that the doctrine of subsidiarity will automatically allow others to walk all over you. You've decided that a means of thinking about things --- which is what the doctrine is --- devised by the Church, will have nothing practical to offer you on the issue of illegal immigration. Why?

Roystan, subsidiarity is a good concept or a good doctrine, but I am not all too
familiar with the ways it will keep us from getting stepped on.

LOCKED
Jan 18th 2014 new
(quote) Paul-866591 said: It is entirely possibly to be liberal politically and still be a good Catholic.

But not if you are a liberal in the sense of the Democratic Party of Obummer, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Their liberal stance is really not true liberalism. It is kookiness in the guise of liberalism, anti traditional American traditions, fascist, anti-christian (especially Catholic Christianity), anti-feminine, intolerant and above all pro satan.
Please substitute this reply for my seemingly random reply of a similar nature:

I have been wondering, Paul, if you would expound more on how the Obama Administration is "anti-feminine" and "pro-Satan"? And, if you would, explain how the Church is, in contrast, "pro-feminine"?
LOCKED
Jan 18th 2014 new
(quote) Maura-1030942 said: Please substitute this reply for my seemingly random reply of a similar nature:

I have been wondering, Paul, if you would expound more on how the Obama Administration is "anti-feminine" and "pro-Satan"? And, if you would, explain how the Church is, in contrast, "pro-feminine"?
(The post mentioned in the first paragraph has been removed as requested.)

How is the Obama administration anti-feminine? How about their zealous promotion of contraception and abortion not only in our own country, but throughout the world -- including in countries that have no desire to have them? Pro-Satan? Add to the previous the forceful promotion of homosexual lifestyles.

LOCKED
Jan 18th 2014 new
(quote) Jennifer-728047 said: Negative. One cannot agree with the liberal nonreason, and be Catholic. Putting aside the moral issues, economical issues and health outcomes of the left supporting abortion, contraception, euthanasia, population "control," etc....one canNOT be liberal and Catholic. They are paradoxical. Dangerously paradoxical.
Could you please explain to me the term "liberal unreason"? While I am acutely aware that many CM members are very conservative in their political views, and I disagree with their perception of what it means to be "politically liberal", I have not yet heard that liberal political positions are generally unreasonable - liberal reason simply opposes conservative reason. But I may well have missed something in my studying of both sides during the past 3 decades, comprising the years during which I have had the extremely hard-fought right, as a woman, to vote. Women, as you no doubt know, have only had the right to vote since 1920, less than a century ago, owed entirely to the "unnatural", "unnecessary" and tireless campaigning of the suffragettes - the arguments of whom were seen by the all-male political establishment- as intolerably liberal, and an inappropriate goal for women.

Would you have opposed the women's right to vote, a liberal- nay, revolutionary - Amendment to our Constitution?
LOCKED
Jan 18th 2014 new
I'd like to suggest that the real litmus test of whether one is a conservative or a liberal doesn't actually have much to do with particular political positions (for example, both self-identified conservatives and liberals have supported large standing armies at one time or another). It has to do with one's view of the past.
To the liberal, the past is essentially a bad place, characterized by racism, sexism, homophobia, superstition and bigotry. History is a forward march away from all that into a better (and more rational) present and a still better future, if only the forces of reaction can be held in check.
To the conservative, the past,for all its flaws, is a treasure-house of tested wisdom, painfully acquired (where not revealed) by a long evolutionary process. We therefore should be slow to depart from it: as Edmund Burke said, "If it is not necessary to change a thing, then it is necessary not to change it".
Of course there are people who won't recognize themselves in either description, but that's because few people are entirely liberal or entirely conservative.
You can see this playing out all the time. To the conservative, it's a powerful argument against 'gay marriage' that no society has endorsed it in 6,000 years of recorded history; a heavy onus lies on any Johnny-come-latelies who want to overturn that in favour of yesterday's bright new shiny idea. To the liberal, the conservatives' perspective (when not dismissed simply as rationalized hatred and bigotry) amounts to mindlessly doing what was always done.

LOCKED
Jan 18th 2014 new
(quote) Maura-1030942 said: Could you please explain to me the term "liberal unreason"? While I am acutely aware that many CM members are very conservative in their political views, and I disagree with their perception of what it means to be "politically liberal", I have not yet heard that liberal political positions are generally unreasonable - liberal reason simply opposes conservative reason. But I may well have missed something in my studying of both sides during the past 3 decades, comprising the years during which I have had the extremely hard-fought right, as a woman, to vote. Women, as you no doubt know, have only had the right to vote since 1920, less than a century ago, owed entirely to the "unnatural", "unnecessary" and tireless campaigning of the suffragettes - the arguments of whom were seen by the all-male political establishment- as intolerably liberal, and an inappropriate goal for women.

Would you have opposed the women's right to vote, a liberal- nay, revolutionary - Amendment to our Constitution?
I'm not sure women should have the right to vote in national elections. Overall they tend to vote for the handsomest candidate.And thats not fair.
LOCKED
Jan 18th 2014 new
(quote) Tom-112790 said: I'm not sure women should have the right to vote in national elections. Overall they tend to vote for the handsomest candidate.And thats not fair.
Reportedly, both sexes almost always vote for the tallest candidate.
LOCKED
Jan 18th 2014 new

"The One World theory is being forced upon us. It is not our legacy, but a socialist
legacy. And trying to rationalize the need for America to open its arms and forget
about its borders and give to the less fortunate is to deny the true charitableness
and generosity of the American Spirit. It is a surefire way of manipulating
the truth to foster shame. Americans have no need to feel bad. No other
country gives like Americans have. And no other country has been as generous
as America has."

Well put!! Unashamedly Catholic and Patriotic, with a son serving in the armed forces.

LOCKED
Posts 21 - 30 of 187