Thursday, May 3, 2012

The Inconsistency of Liberalism...

Google Paul Ryan and Catholic social teaching and you will come up with a boatload of hits.  He created a firestorm of controversy when he presumed (as a Roman Catholic) to suggest that his budget proposal was born of his own understanding of Catholic social teaching and believed it to be consistent with the Roman Catholic Church's stance on the same.  Howls went up from all across academia and liberals were pouncing upon the Representative for the audacity of his suggestion.  But that is not what this post is about...

This is about the inconsistency of liberalism -- especially with regard to social teaching.  Liberalism ever takes up the cause of the poor and the plight of those whom they believed to have been trampled over by big business or the free market enterprise.  Liberalism insists that it is the vital watchdog on a valueless capitalism that will surely steal from the poor and the needy their dignity as well as their rights.  Therefore, liberalism pleads for the expanded role of government on behalf of the poor and needy.  The solution for liberalism is always more money and more government.

Except when it comes to the unborn... Here is the great inconsistency or the glaring disconnect of the values within liberalism.  Whether secular or religious, liberals will do everything for the poor and oppressed already born but seems deaf to the plight of the unborn.  Liberals seem quick to rally to every pro-choice position and cause -- going much further than merely expecting free access to abortion, morning after pills, and contraception.  They insist that these be subsidized -- or better free!

When Susan B. Komen suggested withholding funds from Planned Parenthood because they might be better spent in other ways in the fight against breast cancer, liberals insisted this was heresy and about those terrible pro-life people who want to trample on the rights of women.  The Susan B. Komen Foundation was not entering the pro-life/pro-choice fray but simply making a decision about the best use of funds for the cause for which they were founded.  But they caved in the face of the moral outrage and indignation born of the liberal media and liberal social and religious groups.

Liberals have made sure that the GLBT cause is front and center on TV and in the media even though GLBT individuals represent significantly less than 10% of the population.  Every social teaching and religious value that does not bow to the altar of GLBT and feminism is suspect from the get go.  Nevermind that liberal means advancedbroad, broad-minded, enlightened, flexible, free, general, high-minded, humanistic, humanitarian, indulgent, intelligent, interested, latitudinarian, left, lenient, libertarian, loose, magnanimous, permissive, radical, rational, reasonable, receiving, receptive, reformist, tolerant, unbiased, unbigoted, unconventional, understanding, unorthodox, unprejudiced...  When it comes to narrow and immovable, the dictionary says "liberal attachment to abortion and contraception.

Funny.... the only poor and oppressed for whom liberals refuse to defend, support, or advocate are those not yet born.  It is the great inconsistency of liberalism that those who need its voice most of all hear nothing but silence from the great liberal enterprise of academia, media, and religion.  Liberals tend to be liberal about everything but the unborn.  Therein lies the fallacy...

I really don't know how I feel about Paul Ryan's budget but the cries of outrage from liberals inside and outside the Roman Catholic Church almost make me sympathetic to his proposal from the get go...


Carl Vehse said...

The Liberal Lie: All beliefs are to be tolerated unless they are intolerant.

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

"The solution for liberalism is always more money and more government."

1. You say, or even just imply, that this a bad thing. Gov't can be expanded in good & bad ways. The more big business expands & seeks to do just that the more gov't, & our Federal Gov't in particularly, should do exactly the same, in taxes too, to offset the corporatism & crony capitalism, i.e., "valueless capitalism", that is constantly & incessently running rampant already.

"Except when it comes to the unborn..."

2. What you are getting at with this tirade about the parasitic ideology of anti-choice zealotry is the basic idea that life begins at conception. I don't give a damn if it does one way or the other, honestly. Though, this is not about saving lives! If it was you would have made some mention about doing what is right for ppl in terms of health & well being, based on your preferred version of the invisible `sky-god`, before and after their birth. You'd have criticized others who are against abortion for seeking to abandon life after the, i.e., any given, child has been born & in particularly those that likely would have been aborted if not for your intrusion into the life(s) of those involved; no, this is about control! You, obviously, as so many religious ppl & as all religiou-tards do, want to control ppl.

Fess up: You want a theocracy! Well, America is not & has never been a Christian, Judea-Christian, or any other religiously-based nation.

The idea that it is, and/or ever was, is just a part of the overall mythological grandeur of your preferred version pf the invisible `sky-god`.

I don't have a uterus &, apparently, neither do you (either of you, the author of this diarrhetic fantasy and the ignorant cheerleader that I have responded to; &, yes, I am responding to both of you); however, if, either of, you do have a uterus, then, you, I must say, may very well be the worlds ugliest woman/women...

You don't have a uterus; Get. The. Fuck. Over. It.

("Liberals seem quick to rally to every pro-choice position and cause -- going much further than merely expecting free access to abortion, morning after pills, and contraception. They insist that these be subsidized -- or better free!"

Good job on being redundant. Moron.)

3. "All beliefs are to be tolerated unless they are intolerant."

Perhaps that depends on the context in which you ask the question(s) and/or make the statement(s); & perhaps it does not. Intollerance/bigotry when it comes to the atypical demographics (race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, disability and sexual preference) should never be tolerated! And why should they be?!

Intolerance (I think that this less to bigotry; but, if you choose to toss it in there, then, whatever. I might agree, in some context.), when it comes to religious dogma, not religion in & of itself, but, specific religious teachings, and politics, which is to say ideological meanderings, religious & secular, having to with either, both or none, freedom of speech, etc., including those of the non-typical demographics (geography, politics, culture, etc.) is quite a bit murkier, as it reqiuires a greater necessity of the understanding of context, to do justice to it and the ppl that effect it and are effected by it, how it effects real ppl in the real world, etc.

You're welcome!