StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Oh just that Catholics while socially conservative are generally economically liberal, and thus are usually for Government safety nets like welfare and universal health care. Just as a point since Catholics make up a large portion of US Christianity, the idea that Government spending programs are viewed as Unchristian isn't as typical as some believe.

Alphawolf55 wrote:Oh just that Catholics while socially conservative are generally economically liberal, and thus are usually for Government safety nets like welfare and universal health care. Just as a point since Catholics make up a large portion of US Christianity, the idea that Government spending programs are viewed as Unchristian isn't as typical as some believe.

You mean in Europe and Latin America- in the US, religious conservatives are generally very pro-market. I think the political trending (at least in regards to economics) is less affected by the religion of its members than by the culture of the society they are in.

Samuel wrote:

Alphawolf55 wrote:Oh just that Catholics while socially conservative are generally economically liberal, and thus are usually for Government safety nets like welfare and universal health care. Just as a point since Catholics make up a large portion of US Christianity, the idea that Government spending programs are viewed as Unchristian isn't as typical as some believe.

You mean in Europe and Latin America- in the US, religious conservatives are generally very pro-market. I think the political trending (at least in regards to economics) is less affected by the religion of its members than by the culture of the society they are in.

Even in the US, Catholics are usually liberal when it comes to these things. Remember Northern Catholics for the longest of times have been Democrats and during UHC debates, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops came out in favor of healthcare reform.

On the other hand, Catholics aren't the dominant force in Christian politics in the US, the way they are in much of the rest of the world. Here, it's the evangelical Protestant churches that are the loudest and most influential, with the Catholics coming in second place.

Even in the US, Catholics are usually liberal when it comes to these things. Remember Northern Catholics for the longest of times have been Democrats and during UHC debates, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops came out in favor of healthcare reform.

That can be explained by two things:
-Catholics tend to listen to the pope and therefore import at least some (european) values
-likewise, they don't listen to evangelical bible-thumpers and are therefore not influenced by them

On more liberal Catholics vs. more retrograde Protestants in the U.S.:

I've heard it called the Big Tent Hypothesis. The bigger the organization, the bigger the 'tent' has to be to hold everyone. It's either because something is more willing to let in people of different opinions so it's larger, or because it's already larger and thus already has to tolerate more dissidents. The Catholic Church is already freaking huge and old, so one way or another they ended up with a very large tent which would hold the leftiest liberals along with whatever the fuck is going on in Africa these days. As for your average Evangelistic sect? The joke is that you can cause a schism in a Baptist church by trying to change the color of the carpet.

It's actually 3 big reasons.

1) Most Catholics in this country were poor immigrants when they came here, thus one way or another became Democrats.

2) Catholics would naturally have a lot easier time with a big Federal Government, since the structre of the Catholic isn't that different, initatives are taken by individual Churches but there's a giant organization above it all, taking some control and direction.

3) It's part of the New Testament and it's the part Catholics pay attention to.

Alphawolf55 wrote:Oh just that Catholics while socially conservative are generally economically liberal, and thus are usually for Government safety nets like welfare and universal health care.

That is not exonomically liberal. That is economically socialistic or conservative, or at least in the right meaning of the word, not what US-doublespeak has made of it.

Alphawolf55 wrote:1) Most Catholics in this country were poor immigrants.
3) It's part of the New Testament.

1) Most cubans where poor when they fled to the US but are a group typically associated with the republicans
3) The NT first congregation part is more hardcore communist, but without the anti-religious bit.

Thanas wrote:

Alphawolf55 wrote:economically liberal=for Government safety nets like welfare and universal health care.

That is not exonomically liberal.

Agreed, except for the x. Economically liberal=laissez-faire economics.

Thanas wrote:

Alphawolf55 wrote:Oh just that Catholics while socially conservative are generally economically liberal, and thus are usually for Government safety nets like welfare and universal health care.

That is not exonomically liberal. That is economically socialistic or conservative, or at least in the right meaning of the word, not what US-doublespeak has made of it.

In the US to be economically conservative means to be for tax cuts and low spending, to be economically liberal is for progressive taxes and social spending.

Alphawolf55 wrote:

Thanas wrote:

Alphawolf55 wrote:Oh just that Catholics while socially conservative are generally economically liberal, and thus are usually for Government safety nets like welfare and universal health care.

That is not exonomically liberal. That is economically socialistic or conservative, or at least in the right meaning of the word, not what US-doublespeak has made of it.

In the US to be economically conservative means to be for tax cuts and low spending, to be economically liberal is for progressive taxes and social spending.

I very well know the US populus is complete ignorant and butchers the terms. That does not matter, on this board we use correct definitions. The usage as you describe it is incorrect.

Spoonist wrote:

Alphawolf55 wrote:1) Most Catholics in this country were poor immigrants.
3) It's part of the New Testament.

1) Most cubans where poor when they fled to the US but are a group typically associated with the republicans
3) The NT first congregation part is more hardcore communist, but without the anti-religious bit.

Thanas wrote:

Alphawolf55 wrote:economically liberal=for Government safety nets like welfare and universal health care.

That is not exonomically liberal.

Agreed, except for the x. Economically liberal=laissez-faire economics.

Cubans when? In the last 50 years or before the Revolution?

Alphawolf55 wrote:Cubans when? In the last 50 years or before the Revolution?

Just wanted to point out that reality isn't construant with poor=democrat. If that had been the case then the democrats would win all elections since the poor vastly outnumber the rich.
Now Cuban-Americans regardless of when they immigrated/fled to the US usually vote republican. The vast majority of which where really poor, as in had nothing when they arrived.

You can easily make a search on cuban-american & republican, with some other key word, that will give you details.

I believe that when Alphawolf says economically liberal he means progressive liberalism rather than classical liberalism.

Spoonist wrote:

Alphawolf55 wrote:Cubans when? In the last 50 years or before the Revolution?

Just wanted to point out that reality isn't construant with poor=democrat. If that had been the case then the democrats would win all elections since the poor vastly outnumber the rich.
Now Cuban-Americans regardless of when they immigrated/fled to the US usually vote republican. The vast majority of which where really poor, as in had nothing when they arrived.

You can easily make a search on cuban-american & republican, with some other key word, that will give you details.

Yeah but they were leaving a communist nation. It's not surprising that someone who leaves Cuba, would be a Republican. Also, you'd be right about Democrats winning all elections but only assuming everyone votes, granted you're right not all poor people are Democrats.

Except JFK was the president who attempted to take back Cuba... and was willing to threaten nuclear war to keep nukes out of the country. And he was a Democrat. While the Democrats are more left leaning than the Republicans, both have very similar foreign policy... well, except for the Republicans snuggling up to the communists under Nixon.

The plan to take back Cuba was initated in the final days of the Einsenhower administraiton, as much as I dislike JFK, to say it was his plan is misleading.

Alphawolf55 wrote:The plan to take back Cuba was initated in the final days of the Einsenhower administraiton, as much as I dislike JFK, to say it was his plan is misleading.

Was security that lax that people knew about when the plan to take back Cuba was formed?

It doesn't take much to figure it out. Bay of Pigs was in April '61, Kennedy was sworn in January '61.

Samuel wrote:Except JFK was the president who attempted to take back Cuba...

His support for the Bay of Pigs invasion was rather half-hearted.

But as to the main topic I've heard an argument that the Christian concept of God as Architect of the Universe and being omnipotent was more conducive to scientific experimentation than the Classical Civilization's conception of the deities. Although I'm pretty sure there were other factors there such as the fact that classical economy was dependent on slavery as much as the antebellum South.

It is hard to tell. Islam also had that conception and didn't have a science boom and the classical world had individuals who believed in an orderly universe.

Although I'm pretty sure there were other factors there such as the fact that classical economy was dependent on slavery as much as the antebellum South.

Scientists organizing, the development of better instruments, multiple patrons so the unpopular always have a home... there were alot of factors that China and Rome lacked that allowed Europe to have the scientist revolution.

Samuel wrote:It is hard to tell. Islam also had that conception and didn't have a science boom and the classical world had individuals who believed in an orderly universe.

Although I'm pretty sure there were other factors there such as the fact that classical economy was dependent on slavery as much as the antebellum South.

Scientists organizing, the development of better instruments, multiple patrons so the unpopular always have a home... there were alot of factors that China and Rome lacked that allowed Europe to have the scientist revolution.

It seems Romans in many ways didn't care much about practical applications of science-they saw it as some sort of an intellectual game. They for instance actually developed a steam engine but considered it only a curiosity.

Samuel wrote:It is hard to tell. Islam also had that conception and didn't have a science boom

Actually, Islam did. It was killed off by shifts within the Islamic world, but it isn't a coincidence that Algebra is an Arabic word or that so many stars have Arabic names.

The Southern Song dynasty was in many ways similar to 18th Century Britain economy-wise and had a strong urban, mercantile economy. It may have even been on the verge of an industrial revolution until the Mongols invaded.

General Mung Beans wrote:The Southern Song dynasty was in many ways similar to 18th Century Britain economy-wise and had a strong urban, mercantile economy. It may have even been on the verge of an industrial revolution until the Mongols invaded.

I think that some people greatly exaggerate the social and economy wise developments of the Song Dynasty. But it is probably true that they were the most advanced civilization in the world around the 11-12th centuries CE. However, I think that it is incorrect to say that they were on the verge of an industrial revolution.

Second to wikipedia (For example the historian Robert Hartwell has estimated that per capita iron output rose sixfold between 806 and 1078, such that, by 1078 China was producing 127000000 kg (125,000 t) in weight of iron per year), the Song only made ~100,000 tons of iron per year, that was more than Western Europe made in 1500 (when they produced 60,000 tons), but Britain and France (source: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/indrevtabs1.html) by 1790 Britain was producing 60,000 tons per year and France over 140,000 tons per year, we had a population of 10 million for Britain and 25 million for France, instead of the 100 million for Song China. That means that the supply of Iron per capita for Britain in the 18th was 6 times of China in the 11th century as France's pig iron supply.