With respect to recent comments and discussion from a previous entry, I found the thoughts on the compatibility of Catholicism and Liberalism interesting.
To weigh in on this, I acknowledge any party of any stripe could make a law in line with, or against your core religious beliefs. It is not logical to disavow a party (necessarily) on the strict merits of a particular policy: as every party is likely to disrupt your core beliefs...no party would ever suit you. Thus, compromise is inevitably required. The question then becomes, on what do you accept compromise? For this discussion, I argue that we should accept compromise on topical issues, and not on axiomatic values (you can argue for a new policy a lot easier then new values...so align yourself with values and policy should follow a bit closer, generally speaking).
The Liberal party of Canada is not 'incompatable with the Bible' because they want to do massive child care programs where (for sake of argument) Catholics think that's the families role, not governments. Just as one cannot argue the 'Conservatives are against the Bible' if people have needs and the government does not respond. We cannot say, "Jesus wants us to take care of the needy, and the Conservatives fail...therefore conservatism is against the bible". There is obviously more context to the discussion...on all sides of the isle. The topic of childcare is not axiomatic (although very important), just as the topic of looking after the poor is important, but not axiomatic.
The 'root of the issue' that oh so many Canadians do not seem to entertain is, "on what foundational grounds does my party govern?". Laws can be created and dropped...however the values that drives a decision is what we should be looking at.
I am not a Catholic. I attend an Evangelical Christian church. I have no problem sharing my opinion . (Note I did not say, 'corner on reality')
Read the Liberals philosophy from their hero Mr. Trudeau then I will weigh in:
You can find it here:
Liberal philosophy places the highest value on freedom of the individual. The first consequence of freedom is change. A Liberal can seldom be a partisan of the status quo. He tends to be a reformer attempting to move society, to modify its institutions, to liberate its citizens. The liberal is an optimist at heart who trusts people. He does not see man as an essentially perverse creature, incapable of moral progress and happiness. Nor does he see him as totally or automatically good. He prizes man's inclination to good but knows it must be cultivated and supported. While understanding as well as any other man the limits of government and the law, the liberal knows that both are powerful forces for good, and does not hesitate to use them.
-The Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, April 1974
I fundamentally, axiomatically and thoroughly have a significant problem with the Liberals view of reality. The law and government are not powerful 'forces for good' to help man towards moral progress as Trudeau states.
-man is essentially perverse
-relationships of love (family, friends, church, charities that focus on relationships) are the primary and powerful forces of good (not government) to watch 'moral progress' occur.
-prizing man's inclination to good (with cultivation and support) is something I am unable to do, or view as helpful. Our inclination is towards selfishness...remember, Eve ate the apple, then Adam had some...only to blame Eve? Remember they both hid from God? Man today is no different. You don't teach your children to hide away from you when they are scared. Nor do you teach them to say 'mine'. It's our sin nature to be selfish. Government will never replace the role of family, friends, church and charity no matter how resolute in their attempts.
-Seeing a need to 'cultivate and support' one's moral progress should drive us to personal responsibility...not the "powerful forces of good: laws and government" that Trudeau heralds.
-I have a problem with the starting point. Man is not 'kinda good' who through social re-conditioning of these powerful forces of laws and government can be saved, restored or made better. So when a long lineup of programs role out, I typically cringe because it's starting point is opposite to my axiomatic view on reality. Relationships of love should drive us within the context of family, friends and church (faith group, atheist group inserted here...if you don't like church). Personal responsibility should lead us to seek out such relationships and there we find our 'moral progress', not within the framework of government's "powerful forces". Child care: 'powerful foce' to condition man towards moral progress? "H" No! ("H" for heck). I do not think it is the governments role to declare laws and programs as powerful forces towards helping man achieve moral progress.
In summary, my axiomatic view is such that man pursuing relationships that matter (via family, friends, church, and charity) is the way we see moral progress...these are the cheap and efficient powerful forces that bring real change through real compassion. I view government manufactured social engineering as contrary to my core view of reality and thus not in alignment with my voting preference. I remain open to your comments: