Whole lot of dogmatic traditions in the Catholic Church. But not exactly a paragon of morality or “core values” as an institution, right?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 2:37 pmMy mom was a devout Catholic her entire life. As I have stated many times she raised us in the old school liberal tradition. Devout Catholics believe with no ambiguity that abortion involves killing a human life. That is not only a huge part of Catholic dogma but a rock solid core belief of Catholicism. The world and the church itself have become much more malleable over the past few decades. The new and improved version of Catholic dogma is redefined as " love the sinner, hate the sin" If your a devout Catholic then you believe there will be a judgement day where you will have to atone for your sins. I don't know if going to confession gets the job done. Core values to my understanding are not negotiable. That is why they call them core values. I'm trying to contemplate my moms response to someone telling her to get with the times Cathy, your views on abortion are way out of lines with the times. I only wonder what Jesus would have to say about it? I don't think Jesus Christ ever compromised on his fathers core values. The 10 commandments might just as well be changed to the 10MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 2:13 pmSo was Joe, and a whole lot of folks of goodwill. Most of us just really didn’t understand, did we? But change came fast, acceptance grew swiftly, as more and more people had family or friends who benefited. More so if you went to college recently or had kids going to college, as those but across the board eventually. But for some, such change was very unsettling, and some continue to oppose any further progress in understanding and accepting various differences from their own narrow world. And those opposed to such have mostly coalesced in the GOP…same for religious and racial bigotries.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 11:32 amBack up the bus there for a moment. Is my memory failing me here? I thought Barack and Michelle were against gay marriage before they were for it. Those sudden bolts of enlightenment always seem to happen at just the right time. When the winds of change start shifting you need to become a windsock. If your against gay marriage today some people might smack a label on you that says your a fascist.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 11:00 am Btw, there’s no way that those percentages claimed about ivy education wanting to ban things like private air conditioning and leisure travel are remotely correct. A lot of this Rasmussen survey jumped out at me as being ridiculously overstated. Sampling bias. But that’s what you get with Rasmussen.
The bias of the authors is ridiculous as well. But that’s what you get with propaganda.
That said, there’s definitely a difference in views between college educated and non college educated, and more so with post college degrees. Affluence tracks with higher education, both because affluent families afford that education, and our capitalist society rewards expertise, and scientific innovation, often only acquired through higher education. Plumbers do well too, so education comes in different ways, but predominantly through formal education.
And education typically provides a wider and deeper perspective and understanding of history, civics, philosophy as well as science…that’s undoubtedly going to lead to different views, arguably more informed views.
And affluence itself, especially inherited, but also directly earned is going to lead to less awareness of the situation of others with less. One aspect is the luxury of having a longer term perspective. To think about long term costs and benefits requires not being consumed by short term stress.
So, sure, there are differences…and those who wish to attract the support of voters with differing perspectives would do well to try to be empathetic , walk in their shoes. And communicate in ways that connect with those perspectives while translating why longer term choices matter as well…children is the most effective way to translate this.
The alternative is the populist fascist or communist authoritarian pitch, demonizing the Other, better yet multiple others, and promising immediate relief if they only have the full powers necessary. Some percentage of people are vulnerable to such pitch.
Reagan is an example of a Republican who took the empathy path, highly effectively. Clinton and Obama are Democrat examples. Biden as well, but none of those others faced a fascist opponent.
Note, Obama particularly freaked out the segment which is vulnerable. Along with social changes coming seemingly swiftly, ala gay marriage. This exacerbated a sense of alienation within their own country.
I was always under the impression that core values don't normally change with the tides?
suggestions by the way issues are defined today.
Full disclosure, who a person chooses to marry is none of my business. One can't ignore that for many people of faith the concept of marriage being between one man and one woman has always been a core belief of their religious beliefs. I bet the founding fathers never contemplated this moral dilemma.
Personally, I take no issue in folks making their own choices, for themselves alone, in what they believe and do…themselves. It’s when they try to impose their religious views on others that is the problem. And when they use the powers of government to impose their dogmatic views, big problem.
So, as to abortion I take no issue with a woman believing that abortion is a sin and not having a procedure no matter what… but don’t tell another woman she can’t make her own decisions. Same for choices of who to love, how someone wishes to identify, etc… make your own decisions, don’t impose your religiously derived views on others.
Ethics are another matter, but religious dogma should not control others who do not share those beliefs.