Tuesday, June 1, 2010

These Males Take Sensitivity To A Whole New Level

I have never before come into contact with such a sensitive crew of moderators, like I have over at Vox Nova. These might like you to think that they are open-minded but they are only as open-minded as other liberals. When there is an argument which presents the opposite pint of view or differing thinking than theirs, they try to shut down those person's comments like they are closing the hatch on a submarine and keeping the person/s cloistered down below so that they keep you out of sight, out of mind so no one hears a differeent point of view.



At Vox Nova, we were discussing the topics of global warming and more generally, just taking care of God's creation. Then, God forbid someone criticize or even make fun of their enviro-Messiah whom they worship over there. DarwinCatholic criticized Al Gore and the moderator got huffy and puffy and deleted all of DarwinCatholic's comments. DarwinCatholic posted two of the least objectionable comments that just happened to challenge Vox Nova's and other commenters position on global warming. And, I posted links refuting the moderators and other commenters' "facts" about global warming is the being the "gospel truth" and David Wheeler closed out the thread. This was a little puzzling to me since David didn't give anyone a chance to try and refute my links that showed evidence against the global warming hypothesis.

These are DarwinCatholic 's two well reasoned comments that Vox Nova found "objectionable":

'but this brings me back to what my colleague said, “If we Catholic would’ve just obeyed our Scriptural mandate to take care of the earth… then these discussion would be irrelevant… we wouldn’t even be having them…”

Well, this assumes a couple of things. For instance, I doubt that many people say, “If I thought we had a duty to take care of the earth, I would do so, but since we don’t I’m going to actively work to trash it.” Most people probably argue that they do a moderately good job of taking care of the earth, and it’s not entirely clear that some of the most popular “green” activities (building wind farms, putting up solar panels, driving hybrids) are necessarily less hard on the environment than simply using less. For instance, though China has an absolutely terrible record in regards to pollution (example) the fact that China is overall much poorer than the US means that the average Chinese actually has far less impact on the environment than the average US environmentalist. And similarly, Al Gore’s lifestyle is much more polluting than mine — though he buys “carbon offsets” and I don’t.

Nor is human impact on the environment a result only of technology. Humans were pretty clearly responsible for the extinction of a large number of species in Europe, America and Australia in the period 20-40 thousand years ago, and the combination of deforestation and soil exhaustion is believed to be a major cause of the “dark age” at the end of the Bronze Age around 1000 BC.'

“And Global warming IS the scientific consensus.”


False.

That has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond scientific scrutiny.

'I think, Theresa, one can certainly argue about how much of global warming is actually caused by human activity (rather than natural cycles), to what extent continuing emissions trends will actually impact the climate (or whether natural dampening factors will kick in), and to what extent the amounts of change that we are likely, as a society, to be able to achieve would make any difference in the trend. However, I don’t think we can really deny that there is a scientific consensus, at this time, among those in the field, that global warming is real.

That said, scientific consensus and reality do not have a one to one correlation by any stretch, and many environmental advocates (Al Gore very much an offender in this regard) tend to distort the scientific consensus in order to make it more exciting and serve their own ends.

As you can clearly see, something is going on… something is causing the snow and ice to melt.

This is DATA, what used to be accepted among critical thinkers as FACTS! Today, opinion has become God, and facts, well… I guess we don’t use Reason anymore… maybe we don’t even use Faith…

The point is… you can disagree with global warming, but you’ve got to come up with an alternative to why glaciers are melting… and you’ve got to come up with an alternative as to what we’re going to do about it!

While your passion is admirable, it is at times the argument of amateurs that gives a movement a bad name. For instance, in regards to questions like “Why are the glaciers melting” someone can simply point out that through the majority of the history of life on earth there have not been glaciers. We are, still, at a period of abnormally high glaciation compared to Earth’s overall norm — an interglacial period in an ice age. And Earth has, at times, sustained CO2 levels significantly higher than what we currently have, with no damage to it as a planet. Compared to other disasters that have afflicted life on this planet (Permian/Triassic extinctions, KT impact, etc.) the effects of human civilization on this planet are as nothing.

Further, some popular environmentalists (such as Al Gore) tend to make statements about weather effects and speed of climate change which are drastically out of keeping with anything the IPCC puts out. For instance, claims that “catastrophic weather” has gotten worse because of global warming are very, very hard to sustain by any real data.

What should, however, concern people is not that we will destroy “the planet” but that our civilization as currently organized relies on the earth’s climate patterns not changing very much, regardless of whether than change is natural or anthropocentric. Comparatively sudden changes could result in widespread displacement or hunger, if they came, regardless of their origin. But the planet, qua planet, will be just fine.'


'David,

FWIW, I would imagine that for many on the parish council who objected to the idea of being a “flagship green parish”, it seemed to them that that recommendation represented a tendency to focus on politics rather than morality. (And yes, I agree that the “how about if we frame greenness as supporting our troops” idea was downright moronic.)

As for why many “conservative” Catholics are not more eager to lead in applying environmentalism and other social teachings — and speaking as something of an insider to the conservative approach in this case — I think it has a lot to do with people finding it hard to envision environmentalism in the sort of moral terms they are used to. What most Catholics active in their parish are concerned about are basics of personal morality: don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t cheat, don’t use violence unjustly, don’t have sex before marriage, don’t get divorced, don’t commit adultery, don’t use porn, don’t use birth control, don’t have an abortion, etc. The moral framing of these rules is simple and clear: Action X is wrong because it violates natural and moral principle Y.

Environmental concerns seem harder to fit into that kind of formulation, especially because they seem so relative. So using rechargeable batteries is “more moral” than using one-use ones. But is it even more moral simply not to use the sound system? Does plugging in and recharging the batteries really use much less resources than buying new ones? Is using a solar panel more moral than using the electric grid? Is just setting the A/C to 80 instead of 76 better than using the solar panels, since after all building solar panels themselves is a messy and energy consuming process, which the panels themselves may not actually prevent enough pollution to justify?

These are all very relative trade-off discussions, and so while I think you would probably get little disagreement from most conservative Catholics that “be good stewards of God’s creation” is a moral law, most would not tend to see the choice between disposeable and rechargeable batteries as a moral choice, with one option being sinful and the other virtuous.

I think also, for political reasons, people are often concerned that there’s something very mee-too-ish about showy “green” measures by churches. Almost as if to say to a segment of society, “Sure, I know you disapprove of what we say about marriage and birth control and abortion — but look, we’ll be pretty quiet about that and talk about solar panels instead! Do we fit in now?” '

Here is David Wheeler's response:




You can see all of my comments over at Vox Nova using the link at the top. 
Here is my very last comment:




Here are the links:



A Response to Al Gore's Claims About the Glaciers is here.

35 Inconvenient Truths are here.




61 comments:

Darwin said...

Huh. The angry comment over my use of the word "amateur" had been deleted as well by the time I saw the page again, so I didn't realize it had been the flashpoint.

Perhaps it's the result of his already feeling persecuted, but I didn't think the comment (or the use of 'amateur') was remotely rude. But then, I tend to think of being an amateur as being a good thing:

http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2007/09/in-praise-of-amateurs.html

After all, amateurs are those who actually love (amare) a field.

Teresa said...

Darwin,
I don't think that "amateur" was remotely rude either. Instead of David jumping to conclusions, it would have been good if David either asked you what you meant when using the term "amateur", or he should have given you the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, there was no reason for him to delete your comments.

Good point about the word amateurs.

Opus #6 said...

There was a flap over at my synagogue a couple of years ago over the Rabbi "going green" with one of his high holiday sermons. He had a bunch of teenagers wear green t shirts etc. Angered the few skeptics in the congregation. Global warming is too politically charged, And it is NOT proven. The science is anything but settled, in light of the fraud. Religious entities had best be wary of these political issues. If they get too political, it may endanger their non profit status.

Fuzzy Slippers said...

lmao, are these the same dolts who don't know what fascism and socialism are? Sometimes I just can't stand to read that kind of drivel, you know? I'm sure you're holding your own, but you're not going to change their minds. They're too stupid to think for themselves, and thinking for yourself is a prerequisite to understanding what is happening with AGW.

Kevin T. Rice said...

Darwin, you beat me to the punch. I was going to say that there is nothing dishonorable about being an amateur, and I was going to use the etymology of the word to make the point. I was also going to cop to being an amateur in philosophy (in which I have a degree), as well as theology (in which I do not). But since you wrote a blog posting over two and a half years ago making the same point, I suppose it is only fair that you should beat me to the punch in the comment box as well. So I guess all I can do now is say the two other things I was holding in reserve -- the first of which I have said before many times:

1. When liberals are depicted by conservatives as bedwetting crybabies, aforementioned conservatives are often surprised to see how accurate such tongue-in-cheek phraseology turns out to be. It goes to prove something I have said time and time again -- you cannot lampoon the left. Liberals are utterly immune to satire. Not because they cannot be ridiculed, but because you cannot exaggerate their absurdity. They will match and eventually surpass the insanity that you attempt to magnify for rhetorical effect when you attribute it to them. They are crazier in real life than we straights can imagine in our wildest and weirdest flights of fancy.

2. That drdwheelerreedouchebag is such a PUSSY!

Woodsterman (Odie) said...

You say "anything" you wish, just don't disagree.

Chicago Ray said...

Today's men are generally "p-----s" Teresa, no doubt..

"you cannot lampoon the left. Liberals are utterly immune to satire. Not because they cannot be ridiculed, but because you cannot exaggerate their absurdity"

That's beautiful Kevin. So true.

It 'tis a 'Mental Disorder', and they can't see it because everyone around them is mental as well. As the saying goes: "Even an idiot sounds like a genius..to another idiot".

Christopher said...

If it were not for idiots we would not be able to differenciate ourselves as smart.

Frustrating as they are, there is a purpose for everything and that is the only one I can think of for liberals.

Kevin T. Rice said...

If that were the only reason for their existence, I would only wish to be able to live without thinking of myself as smart in comparison with idiot liberals. I could get by without that, and would prefer to do so if it meant living in a sane world surrounded by people with common sense.

Chicago Ray said...

"in a sane world surrounded by people with common sense."

Sad thing is we're further from that point than we've ever been since I've been alive, 1964.

These are the same rads from then, now big children with a new playtoy besides their medicinal bongs. Our country.

This Obama election was a 'Barney Frank Sized Wet Dream' for this group and we saw it all coming. Now to stop this out of control hijacked Bus.

It's like the movie speed and we're on the Bus.

Teresa said...

I will be back later to reply to all of your comments. But, I will say one thing:

If you look over at Vox Nova's post on the flotilla you will see some interesting perversion of Catholicism going on over there. Plus,they refused to post Kevin's comment over there. He will post it later.

God Bless!

Morning's Minion said...

Teresa,

Part of your problem is that you have no idea what constitutes "liberal" and "conservative". You have bought into a rather narrow American ideology and jumped through hoops to align it with Catholicism. And your ideology, by the way, is ueber-liberal. It is underpinned by the idolization of individual freedom. Own up to it, then we can start the conversation.

Tito Edwards said...

lmao, are these the same dolts who don't know what fascism and socialism are?

Not to mention that Morning's Minion is attempting to redefine "conservative" and "liberal".

This is nothing new for liberals.

When on the losing side of an argument they begin redefining terms or if that fails, come up with new names. Such as "progressive" instead of liberal or "gay" instead of "homosexual".

Teresa said...

OPie,
Your right. There needs to be more than a hypothesis for something to be scientifically proven. The fraud highlights what is wrong with this fallacious "concensus".

Teresa said...

Fuzzy Slippers,
Yes, this is the same set of liberal "Catholics" who don't know the meanings of fascism and socialism. Although, they practice their version of moderator fascism so well by not allowing many well reasoned arguments that differ from theirs to be posted. They are a quite selective bunch over there.

Teresa said...

Kevin,
You are spot on! I have never come across an opened-minded lib, and these moderators take the cake. Plus, I have never seen such individuals be so adverse to the truth, and especially with regards to Catholic Tradition. They live on a one way street, facing the opposite direction, making their own rules up, while persecuting those that follow the Magisterium.

Teresa said...

Morning's Minion,

If I am an uber liberal, then you are a Goober liberal. You give having your head in the sand new meaning- try not to dig your hole any deeper than you already have.

Teresa said...

Odie,
Talking to a liberal is like hitting your head into a brick wall several times.

Teresa said...

Ray,
I agree. Liberalism is a 'mental disorder'. Its also a disease, that we must stop from infecting others.

Teresa said...

Chris,
The purpose is so that we have people to look at and say there is no way in heck that we would want to become a liberal. They've got being stupid, down to a science.

Teresa said...

Tito,
Not to mention that Morning's Minion is attempting to redefine "conservative" and "liberal".

You are spot on! The moderators at Vox Nova are beholden to liberalism and infecting the Catholic Church and its peoples'. I intend to be part of the medicine that halts the spread of infectious liberalism.

Kevin T. Rice said...

Part of your problem is that you have no idea what constitutes "liberal" and "conservative". You have bought into a rather narrow American ideology and jumped through hoops to align it with Catholicism. And your ideology, by the way, is ueber-liberal. It is underpinned by the idolization of individual freedom. Own up to it, then we can start the conversation.

Oh joy! Who could resist such an offer? Re-define terms with a conventional meaning to fit some private leftist agenda (like it hasn't already been on your terms up until now), and the big payoff is -- ooh, I know it's exciting but wait for it -- that Teresa gets to TALK to YOU! She gets to have "THE" conversation! And the up side to that deal is what exactly? What's in it for her?

Matt said...

"Part of your problem is that you have no idea what constitutes "liberal" and "conservative". You have bought into a rather narrow American ideology and jumped through hoops to align it with Catholicism. And your ideology, by the way, is ueber-liberal. It is underpinned by the idolization of individual freedom. Own up to it, then we can start the conversation."

Translation: "Admit that you're wrong, then I can tell you what is right."

I never knew that a personal attack was a mechanism to begin a debate.

Dude ought to look up "Classic Liberalism."

miafrate said...

Amusing - You accuse VN of not knowing the definition of fascism and communism, and yet I'm afraid that when it comes to "liberalism" Teresa and TAC folks use a FOX News and bowling alley definition of the term.

You accuse THEM of "liberalism" not realizing that TAC and Teresa's blog are drowning in liberalism, faith in modernity, faith in the nation-state, faith in Euro-American culture, and the like.

Who is the one who is confused?

Tito Edwards said...

Who is the one who is confused?

You.

Are you retired or not Timmy?

Teresa said...

Niafrate,
You and the others over at Vox Nova that adhere to your "religion of liberalism" consistently and constantly use personal attacks instead of arguing the points. Even when you actually do argue for your point of view every now and then, you do so in conjunction personal attacks.

Okay, over at Vox Nova you have jumped the shark, bypassed liberalism, and now avow to an ideology of communism, are filled with pure hatred of Israel, are sympathizers to terrorists (flotilla), and defend nuns that work for the "common good", one allows a direct abortion, and the other promotes abortions just so she can help Obama achieve his government rationed health care.

Okay-- I'll admit it-- I'm a classical liberal.

miafrate said...

Teresa - You clearly can't piece together coherent thoughts. Perhaps you're too filled with anger to think straight. Your last comment is filled, simply, with lies that even Darwin wouldn't agree with. You and Tito seem to have similar intellectual capacities and hatreds.

You did get one thing right:
Okay-- I'll admit it-- I'm a classical liberal.

Unfortunately "classical liberalism" is precisely the kind of liberalism that the Catholic Church raises an eyebrow about, not the "liberalism" that you and Tito and co. tend to rant about.

I hope you are able, with time, to straighten yourself out.

Teresa said...

Niafrate,
I feel sorry for you. You wouldn't recognize a coherent thought even if it was 2 inches from your face.

With all of the psychoses that all of you moderators have over at Vox Nova you simply need to stop trying to engage in a coherent conversation (that's clearly impossible for you guys over there) and simply turn yourselves into the nearest psycho ward before its too late to save your brains.

Kevin T. Rice said...

miafrate said...
Teresa - You clearly can't piece together coherent thoughts. Perhaps you're too filled with anger to think straight. Your last comment is filled, simply, with lies that even Darwin wouldn't agree with. You and Tito seem to have similar intellectual capacities and hatreds...I hope you are able, with time, to straighten yourself out.

Well, what a smug self-satisfied little asshole you are, miafart!

miafrate said...

Ah, Kevin. Calling me an "asshole" and "miafart." The latter being a joke I haven't heard since, oh, third grade. Except of course when some other Catholic blogger pulled it out about a year ago. You republicatholics are pretty mature. And obviously capable of some pretty deep conversation.

I expect better from someone who boasts "My calling is philosophy."

miafrate said...

Shall I call you "baldy" and stoop to a level of discourse of which you are capable?

Morning's Minion said...

This place is hilarious. I am accused of "re-defining" a conventional term, when it is only in your little bubble that you can take extremely liberal positions (the autonomy of the individual, the social contract, the disdain for authority, the zeal for nationalism, the supremacy of individual freedom) and call it "conservative".

Where do you people come from???

Teresa said...

Miafrate,
Actually, "baldy" is kinda cute. Its real sad to know that "Catholic" universities are keeping up with the pace at which other universities are graduating a bunch of unintelligent, ignoramus robots that just spew American liberal garbage. Plus, tolerance extended solely to people who are in agreement with you, is no tolerance at all -- that is intolerance of the worst kind. You guys dislay a fascist intolerance and sensitivity that is stunning since you claim to be a catholic practicing catholicism. But, that isn't true. You and the others at Vox Nova are practicing a subjective illicit version of the Catholic faith in which you expose others to your heretical thoughts.
Yes, I am a heresy hunter as Karlson called me. It is much worse to be scandalous and promoting scandal, and forms of heresy, as you Vox Nova moderators do, then to be a heresy hunter, like I am.

Maybe, you can prove me wrong: Do you believe in global warming?

Do you believe in nuns over priests when it comes to controversies?

Do you believe that an intrinsic evil (abortion) should be accepted for the sake of the common good (health care)?

Do you believe that Sr. Keehan adheres to the Catholic faith?

Do you believe that Sr. Keehan is a consequentialist?

Do you believe in "the spirit of Vatcan II" or simply Vatican II along with 2000 years of Church Tradition?

miafrate said...

It's telling that the first question on your "heresy hunting" list is whether or not I believe in global warming. If you have no idea what heresy is, how can you hunt for it?

Keep up that "Catholic witness," teresa. You will win many for Christ in your obvious imitation of Him.

Teresa said...

Morning's Minion,
I am a conservative who is also believes in some of the beliefs of classical liberalism, but not in the purest sense of the word. I believe that government should be limited and that there should not be near as many people reliant on our government for welfare checks. There are some people that do need help, but many more take advantage of our broken governemnt system, or social agencies such as welfare, medicaid, medical disablity, etc and keep collecting checks for years and years.


Until you face the facts that you are an American modern liberal and accept reality there is no way of talking to someone who can't even admit to who they are and own up to what they believe in.

miafrate said...

There are some people that do need help, but many more take advantage of our broken governemnt system, or social agencies such as welfare, medicaid, medical disablity, etc and keep collecting checks for years and years.

Right. Jesus was so concerned about other people taking advantage of him that he stopped helping people altogether and said "fend for yerself, I got mine."

Teresa, you might want to pray over the Gospel account of the ten lepers this week.

Teresa said...

Miafrate,
I could only be shit on for so long by the moderators at Vox Nova before I decided to call out you guys.
Jesus displayed anger at both the Temple ( concern for God’s holiness and worship and to root out sinners) and at the synagogue of Capernaum.

So, there is justifable anger. Its called righteus anger. If I displayed anger, then it was righteous anger.

I will continue to be a witness for God and all that is good in the world. I will continue fighting against evil and speaking up against evil when I see or hear about evil happening in the world. I will continue standing up for the Catholic faith, the Church, the Church's teachings and ecclesial documents since its inception and not just defend everything Catholic (and some of what you perceive to be catholic really isn't Catholic)since Vatican II like the moderators at Vox Nova do.

Teresa said...

Niafrate,

"fend for yerself, I got mine."

When did I say that?

Never.

Oh, please do point that one out to me.

Do you believe in thievery by the poor and spreading the wealth?

How many people on welfare have started a job? A job that provides additional people with jobs?

You just believe in equal misery and beng equally poor.

I believe in helping out people without forcing them to be dependent on the government and dependent on pro- BIG government politicians getting elected. Gee.. That sounds like slavery. I guess your for slavery if your for keeping people chained to governemnt checks and chained to Democratic politicians.

miafrate said...

Teresa,

I actually haven't been blogging at VN for a while now, so I have no idea about your interactions with them. But if they have been anything like our interactions here, or if you display an that blog the kind of tone that you did in the post above, I can't say I blame them for moderating your comments. You're a terribly disagreeable person who is prone to lying and who obviously doesn't have a very good grasp on what it means to be Catholic. That's okay. We're all in different places. And our interactions with one another should contribute to learning. But your behavior is clearly a barrier to any sort of real interaction.

Believe me, I know about "righteous anger." I believe in it, for sure. But I also believe we deceive ourselves sometimes. You seem to be deceived through and through, and in so many ways.

Tito Edwards said...

Michael I's retirement must have been a rumor.

Your still spouting your nonsense to whomever will listen.

miafrate said...

Do you believe in thievery by the poor and spreading the wealth?

Depends what one means by wealth redistribution. Generally the idea is the remedy a previous theft. Read the Church Fathers for some pre-Vatican II grounding on this.

How many people on welfare have started a job? A job that provides additional people with jobs?

I don't know what this means.

You just believe in equal misery and beng equally poor.

I believe that the poor are blessed, as Jesus said. And that we are to be in solidarity with the poor. And that this means being in concrete solidarity with the poor by living simply and by putting the poor first when we establish policies in society.

I believe in helping out people without forcing them to be dependent on the government and dependent on pro- BIG government politicians getting elected. Gee.. That sounds like slavery. I guess your for slavery if your for keeping people chained to governemnt checks and chained to Democratic politicians.

What does helping the poor look like in your eyes then? How, specifically, do wealthier people do it?

I am not for "keeping people chained to governemnt (sic) checks and chained to Democratic politicians." I am not, nor are very many of VN's contributors, Democrats.

You need to break out of your binary way of thinking about politics.

miafrate said...

What does helping the poor look like in your eyes then? How, specifically, do wealthier people do it?

And, if I may get personal, how do YOU, Teresa, help poor people in concrete ways?

Kevin T. Rice said...

Miafarte, don't expect people not to get personal if you get personal first. You are good at dishing out unsolicited amateur psychological counseling, but no one paticularly cares to hear your two-bit armchair speculations in that vein. When you act like an insufferable asshole, you get called an asshole. Tough!

Call me baldy outright if you like. I got a good laugh when I was informed of your what-if-I-were-to-stoop pretense. I would respect a sincere insult in return for a sincere insult far more than this mamby-pamby front, acting like you're above it all while you engage in name-calling as well. Your back is bowed from your own stoopage as well. Your hypocrisy is notable.

Here is a clue: make a substantive argument or find somewhere else to display your character flaws. Tellin someone to go "read the Church Fathers" is not at all helpful. That's a lot out there to read, and those of us who have studied the Fathers and still have a ways to go before having read all of them and actually have to spend time earning a living would appeciate a specific reference. Otherwise I have to assume that you are talking out of... well, aforementioned anatomical reference.

Chicago Ray said...

Kevin hanging in there..good man....

See T, that's why I ignore these people, it's not worth the headaches. What will it solve? All they'll do is go back to their blog and attack some more.

They even have to get the last word on your own blog. It's like trying to teach an illegal alien geometry much less freaking English, it's damn near impossible, so why (*^%%#^&#$*(* bother.

When obama bankrupts them and they lose their jobs while Obama's out playing golf and jerking off(as if his game is even worth working on) they will awaken and say "GOD forgive me for I knew not what I was doing, please hear my foxhole prayer... I've put down the pipe and bottle for good this time, so please give me one more chance since I blew the last 2.."

Teresa said...

Miafrate,
"Amusing - You accuse VN of not knowing the definition of fascism and communism, and yet I'm afraid that when it comes to "liberalism" Teresa and TAC folks use a FOX News and bowling alley definition of the term.

You accuse THEM of "liberalism" not realizing that TAC and Teresa's blog are drowning in liberalism, faith in modernity, faith in the nation-state, faith in Euro-American culture, and the like.

Who is the one who is confused?"


You make accusations without anything to back up your claims. I guess google is in the tank for Fox News and uses a "bowling alley" definition because wikipedia agrees with my definition of modern American liberalism. Morning's Minion-- That must be a big bubble that I'm in.

"Liberalism concentrated on expanding the powers of the government to regulate the economy and social conditions, and were most successful at the state level.

After 1933 modern liberals used the New Deal to foster a vast increase in the power of the federal government, especially to regulate business, end the era of economic growth, shift power to farmers, laborers and consumers, and strengthen the position of organized labor.

Modern American liberalism is a form of social liberalism developed from progressive ideals such as Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. It combines social liberalism and social progressivism with support for a welfare state and a mixed economy. American liberal causes include voting rights for African Americans, abortion rights for women, and government entitlements such as education and health care. Keynesian economic theory plays an influential role in the economic philosophy of American liberals."


"Classical liberalism is a philosophy of individualism and self-responsibility."

I believe in individualism and personal resonsibility. But, when people need temporary help I believe it is okay and good for the government to help those that need help. But, the key word here is temporary. The social safety nets were not meant to be programs for people to be reliant on for permanently -- just temporary help.

miafrate said...

Nice. This is a gathering place for racists too, I see!

Keep up that Christian witness, ya'll!

I'll let "Chicago Ray" or Kevin have the last word if they want it. ($5 say that word will be "asshole" or "fart.")

Chicago Ray said...

Sorry you lose pu**y.

Teresa said...

Miafrate,
I feel sorry for you. You think following the law is racist. You think allowing immigrants to come here, and them refusing to learn english, and assimilate into our society is a good thing?

Teresa said...

"Nice. This is a gathering place for racists too, I see!"

Anarchist Pro-Big Govrnment/ Socialist troublemaker!

Yes, I have viewed your blog.

Morning's Minion said...

You still don't get it. To be a "conservative" and a "classical liberal" at the same time is an exercise in schizophrenia that would tear any mind apart (that proably explains the frantic, emotional, and anti-intellectualism of the American right!).

You shoulld read what the Church said about liberalism in the 19th century in particular - not pretty! In fact, liberalism (which is what you people think is conservative!) is an old enemy of the Church.

Here is the classic error of your liberalism: (i) you make individual autonomy supreme;(ii) you deny that the polity (the state, the prince, the government) has any duties toward God under the moral order, believing only that the state is a human creation. In contrast, Catholic teaching has always claimed that governments have duties toward God.

Of course, you are inconsistent. You would no doubt embrace "big government" to protect the unborn and the institution of marriage, to regulate pornography and (with far less justification) to support an overly-large military. But your liberalism precludes you from seeing any role for "big government" in the economic sphere. And don't run around with strawmen about socialism - we all know that collective ownership of the means of production is not the issue. But the Church does say that your unabashed liberalism is just as bad as socialism, calling them both the "twin rocks of shiprwreck".

In short, what Americans call "conservative" is actually undistilled Enlightenment-era liberalism, with all its modernist and social contract baggage. It gels nicely with the evengelical culture which comes directly from Calvinism, which in turn comes from the nominalist revolution - the attempt to overthrow the Catholic intellectual order upon which Catholic social teaching is still based. Your position is not Catholic, and indeed, borders on the heretical.

Paul Zummo said...

Tony A, aka Morning's Minion, once took a philosophy class in college where I guess he read an essay by Burke, and now he's qualified to lecture others as to the true definition of conservatism and liberalism. His "treatise" above might get a nice B+ on a 2 page college exam, but as a good explanation as to the roots of conservatism, well, let's just say those of us who actually know something might find it a bit laughable.

Teresa said...

Morning's Minion,
While the Church condemns laissez faire economics in its purest form, the Church also condemns the modern, modern liberalism, or the Marxist ideology which you follow, and the Church states that it is the "mother of all heresies."

Capitalism in the United States is different than pure laissez fair economics. For a number of years there has been at least some government intervention in the United States.


"Here is the classic error of your liberalism: (i) you make individual autonomy supreme;(ii) you deny that the polity (the state, the prince, the government) has any duties toward God under the moral order, believing only that the state is a human creation. In contrast, Catholic teaching has always claimed that governments have duties toward God."

I believe that there needs to be a balance between government and the individual. It seems that you believe that the government should be more expansive and take a more interventionist role in our lives. It seems like you believe that the State knows better than the individual. It seems like you want BIG government to smother the individual and their choices. It seems like you want a cradle to grave nanny state.

I want more of a balance between the state (government intervntion) and indivdual rights than you do.

"But your liberalism precludes you from seeing any role for "big government" in the economic sphere."

Here is where you falsely accuse me of not wanting any role for government in helping people economically. If you look back in the comments, I even stated that some people need help, should be helped by our government, but some people who don't really need government help and take advantage of our broken system with regards to social safety nets. There is a difference between wanting a little bit of government in the individuals' life (ME) for safety purposes and limited economic help to the poor and wanting the government to be intrusive and making more decisions for the individual (YOU).


As far as the military goes, it depends on what the circumstances call for. The military has both contracted and expanded over the years according to the needs of our national security or national defense.

Morning's Minion said...

Very good, Paul, I actually graduatued from Burke's alma mater, but let's set that aside. You have shown time and time again that seem to think problems with Enlightenment thinking begin and end on the continen; whereas in fact, Hobbes, Locke, and Smith are a major part of the problem. You embrace this strand of liberalism and call it conservatism. Good luck with that.

Paul Zummo said...

Tony,

As your last comment shows, you have absolutely no idea what kind of thinking I approve of. You mention Hobbes, Locke, and Smith (I guess those were the three British enlightenment folks covered in your philosophy 101 class), and yet I disdain 2 of the 3, and the third is someone who I have given very little thought to.

I appreciate the fact that you are very educated in economics, but when it comes to political theory, eh not so much. You just throw out a bunch of names and terms without giving any thought as to whether or not they fit together, or explaining how these figures influenced later thought.

If American conservatism is largely a remnant of the ideology of the American founders, then it is difficult to square your assessment (Calvinism-Enlightenment) with these men. I don't think anyone would seriously slap the Calvinist label upon Washington, Adams, Madison and Hamilton (you can google these names if you are not sure who I am referring to). As for the Enlightenment influence, this is I believe highly overrated. The Framers didn't need Locke and Hobbes to justify the American Revolution, and though many of the writers of this era liked to quote from Locke, there really is no evidence that they were meaningfully influenced by him. On that score I think many would argue with me, but the supposition that America is a Lockean nation is simply wrong.

Jefferson on the other hand . . .

Teresa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Teresa said...

Paul,
Thank you for your insight into political theories and correcting Morning's Minion's misconceptions of political theories also.

Have a great night!

Kevin T. Rice said...

miafrate,

I want my $5.00 ! Pay up! I accept Paypal.

Morning's Minion said...

Paul,

I appreciate that Enlightenment-era American political philosophy is your speciality, but I will just ask you one question - do you really believe that this thought arose in a vacuum, with no basis in English/ Scottish liberalism? I do not.

Paul Zummo said...

No, that's not exactly what I said. I believe that the Enlightenment is overhyped as a source of influence.

Paul Zummo said...

A couple of other points: to the extent that the Nation's Founders were inspired by Enlightenment thinking, so what? The burden of proof is on the critic to explain which of the exported ideas is dangerous. For example, you mention specifically Hobbes, Locke, and Smith. Well, Hobbes, Locke and Smith are not exactly like-minded, and in fact in some areas are diametrically opposed. I know that we all like to lump things together in neat little groups, but just developing some kind of formula wherein you get to place all thinkers of a certain era into one giant camp called the Enlightenment without exploring the nuances and differences of each is simply wrongheaded. There's a world of a difference between Voltaire and Adam Smith (the latter of whom Edmund Burke admired). Now there might be areas of similarity when it comes to things like human reason and the importance of the individual, but these are substantially different thinkers.

In the particular case of the Framers, while I certainly agree that they were influenced by all different stripes of thinkers, they also developed what I believe is a very unique brand of political thought. Post-enlightenment, perhaps?

Finally, I happen to be of the belief that philosophically we're divided into camps: the Burkean and the Rousseauian. Both are outside and inside the Enlightenment, the former more out than in. I can go into more detail into this, but I think that will suffice.

And thank you Teresa for putting up with those of who have crashed your living room, so to speak.

Teresa said...

Paul,
You are more than welcome to continue the conversation. The points you are making on political theories are very interesting and enlightening.