Quote:
|
As a liberal, are you sight set high on any religious institution? Seriously.
|
seriously indeed---i continue to be surprised that you are able to continue with your ridiculous, arbitrary assertion that "liberal" (whatever that means) = not religious--which of course has to be true for a loyal footsolders of the right like yourself--but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about insofar as the empirical world goes--so i assume that you have some bizarre psychological need to believe this.
maybe it helps to shore up the rickety structure of your politics if you assume that your position has a monopoly on "being religious"---but in the world that other people know about, the assertion is absurd. i know more religious people who are on the left than i do on the right, frankly: and since you are in no position to comment on their beliefs, you simply have to accept this information as such.
on this basis alone, you are wrong.
as for the other elements of your arbitrary posts, ncb: you might think about the importance the notion of the dignity of the poor has in the actual gospels and wonder if the present type of reactionary church policy shows an adequate concern for this.
as for ratzinger: i am amazed that he was elected. the assumption must be that he represents a kind of holding pattern after jp2 during which the question of appointing someone who might represent a shift for the church into the 21st century might be contemplated. if this assumption is correct in explaining the motives (i have seen it recurring in various reports) my suspicion is that it represents the naievte of the college of cardinals.