Saying Michael Voris' commentary is "crazy" is not an argument. How would you define liberalism and what do you see as the identifying characteristics of a liberal?
Let's define the term. I'll use the definition from the classic work, Liberalism is a Sin by Don Felix Sarda y Salvany, a priest of Barcelona who published his famous book in 1886. He said the principles of liberalism include:
1) "The absolute sovereignty of the individual in his entire independence of God and God's authority."
2) "Absolute civil sovereignty in the implied right of the people to make their own laws in entire independence and utter disregard of any other criterion than the popular will expressed at the polls and in parliamentary majorities."
3) "Absolute freedom of thought in politics, morals, or in religion. The unrestrained liberty of the press."
Don Salvany distinguished between extreme liberals, moderate liberals, and those only tainted with liberalism. Obviously all liberals don't have identical beliefs.
Some of the issues he mentions are the secularization of education "repudiating any connection with religion," (I'd say we're there since liberals forbid any mention of God in the schools but require politically correct "diversity education" and sex ed.) "marriage sanctioned and legitimatized by the State alone" (ditto - the current debate on legalizing same-sex marriage) and the denial to religion of "any active intervention in the concerns of public and of private life." (ditto again - we're supposed to keep our religion behind closed Church doors.)
If you think of the American Civil Liberties Union you will have to call the 19th century priest a prophet. As for liberals, I think Father is very much on target. All the liberals I know personally as well as public liberals are pro-abortion, often radically so. When they are Catholic, their liberalism often trumps their doctrine which also supports the priest's contention. Look at the "liberal" Democrats in Congress. They are almost without exception pro-abortion. What facts can you provide in contrast to show that liberals are not as Voris describes?
Obviously there are degrees and some folks are more liberal than others, but liberalism by its nature is an ideology opposed to God and religion (in the traditional sense - they will accept a new age cosmic Christ or God of the Universe or we-are-all-God mentality).
I urge anyone interested in this issue to read Liberalism is a Sin which is available on line in its entirety at http://www.liberalismisasin.com/index.htm.
Not an argument, no, but I don't think an argument is needed. A good friend of mine once remarked, "You can't argue with crazy."
Suffice it to be repeated that liberalism, even as you describe it, is a strawman, not a real look at principles or the various ways they might be applied.
Consider a simple look at what the word "liberal" actually means: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal The things you attribute to liberalism are really not necessary to it.
That many self-describing liberals embrace precisely the kinds of errors here rejected, I don't dispute. But that's irrelevant. One could quite easily present an opposing argument that conservatism is a sin--relying on a fabricated strawman who's racist, war-mongering, indifferent to the poor, etc. And there are plenty of "conservatives" who'd fit the description. But one need not waste time on this.
Catholics should make a serious effort to get past categories such as "conservative" and "liberal" and focus instead on what is true and good and beautiful. Abortion is evil, so let's call it such. Torture is also evil, so let's not let conservatives who defend it off the hook either.
I agree with you on torture, Paul, although that would also have to be defined. I think waterboarding is awful.
But from the wiki definition of liberalism (as an example) you find this: "Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism."
I would say this supports my earlier post. The Enlightenment set man's "reason" up as the absolute. During the French Revolution the goddess of wisdom replaced God and in fact her statue was set up in many Catholic churches while the clergy and nuns went to the guillotine. The same thing happened in Mexico during the early part of the 20th century when Fr. Miguel Pro was martyred.
"The 1917 Constitution outlawed teaching by the Church, gave control over Church matters to the state, put all Church property at the disposal of the state, outlawed religious orders, outlawed foreign born priests, gave states the power to limit or eliminate priests in their territory, deprived priests of the right to vote or hold office, prohibited Catholic organizations which advocated public policy, prohibited religious publications from commenting on public policy, prohibited clergy from religious celebrations and from wearing clerical garb outside of a church and deprived citizens of the right to a trial for violations of these provisions.[7] [8] Another article of the Constitution emboldened Marxist and then Communist labor unions which subsequently incited even more anti-religious governments." [9] (From Wikipedia)
I think history does, in fact, support Father's view of liberalism, its anti-Christian, Marxist elements. Some of the other definitions are so vague (liberal means open-minded) that they are useless in any discussion about what the politics of liberalism is.
That's crazy!--just a bunch of sophistic strawman attacks. Not all liberals are in favor of abortion, etc., etc.
ReplyDeleteBut then again, he has an STB so that must mean something.
Saying Michael Voris' commentary is "crazy" is not an argument. How would you define liberalism and what do you see as the identifying characteristics of a liberal?
ReplyDeleteLet's define the term. I'll use the definition from the classic work, Liberalism is a Sin by Don Felix Sarda y Salvany, a priest of Barcelona who published his famous book in 1886. He said the principles of liberalism include:
1) "The absolute sovereignty of the individual in his entire independence of God and God's authority."
2) "Absolute civil sovereignty in the implied right of the people to make their own laws in entire independence and utter disregard of any other criterion than the popular will expressed at the polls and in parliamentary majorities."
3) "Absolute freedom of thought in politics, morals, or in religion. The unrestrained liberty of the press."
Don Salvany distinguished between extreme liberals, moderate liberals, and those only tainted with liberalism. Obviously all liberals don't have identical beliefs.
Some of the issues he mentions are the secularization of education "repudiating any connection with religion," (I'd say we're there since liberals forbid any mention of God in the schools but require politically correct "diversity education" and sex ed.) "marriage sanctioned and legitimatized by the State alone" (ditto - the current debate on legalizing same-sex marriage) and the denial to religion of "any active intervention in the concerns of public and of private life." (ditto again - we're supposed to keep our religion behind closed Church doors.)
If you think of the American Civil Liberties Union you will have to call the 19th century priest a prophet. As for liberals, I think Father is very much on target. All the liberals I know personally as well as public liberals are pro-abortion, often radically so. When they are Catholic, their liberalism often trumps their doctrine which also supports the priest's contention. Look at the "liberal" Democrats in Congress. They are almost without exception pro-abortion. What facts can you provide in contrast to show that liberals are not as Voris describes?
Obviously there are degrees and some folks are more liberal than others, but liberalism by its nature is an ideology opposed to God and religion (in the traditional sense - they will accept a new age cosmic Christ or God of the Universe or we-are-all-God mentality).
I urge anyone interested in this issue to read Liberalism is a Sin which is available on line in its entirety at http://www.liberalismisasin.com/index.htm.
Mary Ann,
ReplyDeleteNot an argument, no, but I don't think an argument is needed. A good friend of mine once remarked, "You can't argue with crazy."
Suffice it to be repeated that liberalism, even as you describe it, is a strawman, not a real look at principles or the various ways they might be applied.
Consider a simple look at what the word "liberal" actually means: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal The things you attribute to liberalism are really not necessary to it.
That many self-describing liberals embrace precisely the kinds of errors here rejected, I don't dispute. But that's irrelevant. One could quite easily present an opposing argument that conservatism is a sin--relying on a fabricated strawman who's racist, war-mongering, indifferent to the poor, etc. And there are plenty of "conservatives" who'd fit the description. But one need not waste time on this.
Catholics should make a serious effort to get past categories such as "conservative" and "liberal" and focus instead on what is true and good and beautiful. Abortion is evil, so let's call it such. Torture is also evil, so let's not let conservatives who defend it off the hook either.
I agree with you on torture, Paul, although that would also have to be defined. I think waterboarding is awful.
ReplyDeleteBut from the wiki definition of liberalism (as an example) you find this: "Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism."
I would say this supports my earlier post. The Enlightenment set man's "reason" up as the absolute. During the French Revolution the goddess of wisdom replaced God and in fact her statue was set up in many Catholic churches while the clergy and nuns went to the guillotine. The same thing happened in Mexico during the early part of the 20th century when Fr. Miguel Pro was martyred.
"The 1917 Constitution outlawed teaching by the Church, gave control over Church matters to the state, put all Church property at the disposal of the state, outlawed religious orders, outlawed foreign born priests, gave states the power to limit or eliminate priests in their territory, deprived priests of the right to vote or hold office, prohibited Catholic organizations which advocated public policy, prohibited religious publications from commenting on public policy, prohibited clergy from religious celebrations and from wearing clerical garb outside of a church and deprived citizens of the right to a trial for violations of these provisions.[7] [8] Another article of the Constitution emboldened Marxist and then Communist labor unions which subsequently incited even more anti-religious governments." [9] (From Wikipedia)
I think history does, in fact, support Father's view of liberalism, its anti-Christian, Marxist elements. Some of the other definitions are so vague (liberal means open-minded) that they are useless in any discussion about what the politics of liberalism is.