There are lots and lots of "ideas" here. One is that you should go sticking your nose into what goes on in stable marriages and tell people what to do and how to spend their money - just like liberals.
I find it hard to believe these people you speak of are so petrified of this one idea that they would throw their support behind the likes of Obama. If you vote Obama you must have “other” issues as well.
I vote conservative, and am not the least bit worried that this will ever go anywhere politically. My worry is that it is an enormous noisy distraction that prevents politically resolvable issues from being resolved by the political process because folks in political fora spend this kind of energy on issues that politicians can't, won't and should not try to solve.
But, I also spend a lot of time talking to very smart and well-educated people who find the fact that the arguments on this thread even go on troubling enough to side with Democrats. They believe that it is bad enough that you would even think that these issues (what goes on in the sex lives of happily married people) are any of your business. It is frightening actually. This voyeurism is an American Calvinist trait. It is very off-putting. It is a shame that [some] American Catholics have picked it up too. I grew up with the former, and surround myself with the latter because, fortunately, most are not actually that way.
Normal Christians, wanting to know what God intended, go to Church, or pray, or study the bible. They don't go and ask their next door neighbor, who is most probably just as lost a soul as they are. Nor do they stick their nose over the fence to find out what is going on over there. And they certainly don't quote scripture to him as a way of telling him what to do.
Christian morality and ethics have deep roots in Greek philosophy. St. Luke was Greek before he was Christian. The beginning of John's Gospel is pure Greek philosophy. The Church fathers were great students of Aristotle. Classical ethics start by analyzing particular situations in the light of general principles, to elucidate the one and better understand the other. It has nothing to do with this American Calvinist attempt to take one (overly simplistic) rule and apply it to all situations.
The New Testament parables are nothing if not examples of analyzing the specifics of individual situations to understand the [Christian] ethical way. But that is not the way shown here. Christ set an example of breaking the old-testament model of rigid conformance to strict old-testament laws. Christains place Christian Charity before the Torah not after it.
would you like these catholics to stop calling themselves “conservatives” just because you say there are people out there who don’t like them??
I would like people to stop confusing religious labels and political labels. Is conservatism a thing that is divisible among various religions, a piece of conservatism that is Catholic, a piece that is evangelical, a piece that is Jewish? How do you feel about atheist conservatism? If someone ran as such every religious conservative would shun him.
Yes you can be catholic and be a conservative or a Jew and a conservative, etc. But if we cannot have a conservatism based upon moral principles that all decent people agree on, based upon fiscal restraint, etc. etc. then we cannot have conservatism. What we cannot have is a fish stew of religious conservatism. Almost no one will eat it.
Do you ever wonder why you cannot get more than a small fraction of Jews to vote other than Democratic. This thread is exactly why.
“There are lots and lots of “ideas” here. One is that you should go sticking your nose into what goes on in stable marriages and tell people what to do and how to spend their money - just like liberals”
I’m not sure which part of Humanae Vitae does that. I don’t recall ever getting a letter from the pope telling us how to spend our money.
No one has stuck their nose into our marriage. The church HAS presented it’s position -and we have the freedom to accept it...or not.
There ARE a ton of liberals in the church though!
But they don’t appear to be the ones you find repulsive.
I’m confused by your concern with nose-sticking, nosiness, and this seeming epidemic of voyerism.
I don’t know anyone like this. At all.
Of course...I don’t frequent these threads much. I used to years ago and realized that once people pick their side -that’s it. Years later, the arguments are the same only with different names.
Years from now - it’ll still be the same.
I don’t think that -what is going on in one small section of cyberland is affecting any election outcome.
“But, I also spend a lot of time talking to very smart and well-educated people who find the fact that the arguments on this thread even go on troubling enough to side with Democrats”
These well educated people just learned that the Church is opposed to artificial birth control? Really? What exactly clued them in?
When did all of this become NEWS to anyone?
“I would like people to stop confusing religious labels and political labels. Is conservatism a thing that is divisible among various religions, a piece of conservatism that is Catholic, a piece that is evangelical, a piece that is Jewish? “
That’s a good question. In the catholic church there is a great divide between liberal and conservative catholics.
On issues regarding birth control, female priests, gay marriage (or “civil unions”),abortion,”social justice”
Yes - 2 camps. Some people find a gray area between the 2 camps, but the trend is....the more you agree with the Church on these issues - the more likely it is you will be pulling the “R” lever.
I would suppose an atheist conservative would be a business minded, supply sider. I would even expect them to be anti-abortion (ex:godlessprolifers)
I have read many threads on FReerepublic about the jewish vote. I have also read many news articles as well.
Not once have I seen it presented that jews vote democrat because the catholic church opposed artificial birth control.
If I were to guess ....I wouldn’t think they’d lurk on these threads or pay much attention to that at all.