Letters to the Editor

Liberals v. Conservatives

Dear Editor:  I disagree with reader Anthony Tenga’s letter (“Another Fan of Liberals,” Feb. 13) and other recent letters in support of political liberals. Specifically, the assertion that support for enforcing immigration laws, as done in every other country in the world, is somehow not within Catholic teaching is not correct.

The Church has always supported that Catholics obey the secular laws where they reside, as long as it is not contrary to the divine, sacred or ecclesiastical. While the Church rightly takes compassion on the plight of certain immigrants, it does not deny the right of the United States of America to have immigration laws.

However, political support of abortion cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Church (see Sections 2270-2275 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church), and as such, anti-life liberal politicians cannot make up for this by support of other secular social programs, which may or may not be effective.

JAMES C. GANGE

Clinton Hill


 

Dear Editor: I would like to reply to Mary Geraghty (“We’re Indebted to Liberals,” Feb. 6), who responded to John Hourig’s letter (Jan. 23), titled “Life-Is-Cheap Culture.”

We are now $19 trillion in debt, rapidly heading for $30 trillion in debt with $200 trillion of unfunded liabilities, all dumped on our kids and grandkids.

We can’t borrow our way to prosperity. If anyone thinks the solution to immediate financial concerns is increasing the borrowing limit on a credit card, taking out a home equity loan, or taxing the rich. They are a Liberal Democrat.

We watch Bernie and Hillary raising each other in their poker game. Who can give away the most free stuff? Of course, none of the money is theirs, but, as Hillary says, “What difference does it make?”

We need to secure the border – no more immigration for a couple of years. Impossible to “vet” foreign refugees. There are roadside bombs in Afghanistan that did not explode. Fingerprints were recorded in a database. The owners of the fingerprints are living “happily” in Bowling Green, Kentucky, ready to blow up a local shopping center. So much for “vetting.”

In the Iowa caucus, Bernie, a Socialist, got 84 percent of the young vote, ages 17-29. Living proof that our liberal universities do not teach the Constitution, nor the American Revolution which produced it. They have no understanding of the separation of powers. To them, everything is free. Someone else will buy it for them. So much for liberal education.

I say, Defund Planned Parenthood, spread the entire $350 million it receives over 3,000+ clinics across the country so no poor person is without health care. If you want an abortion, it’s the law of the land, but don’t ask me to pay for it.

You can’t help the poor unless our country is strong, with a strong military, secure borders, no sanctuary cities, a balanced budget and a tax structure that encourages economic expansion. None of this is suggested by Liberal Democrats. Climate change is an absolute fraud.

As a conservative Tea Party Republican, I have as much compassion for the poor as any left-wing liberal Democrat. I don’t need to be lectured by liberals spending everybody’s money but their own.

TOM HACKERT

Whitestone


 

Dear Editor: With reference to the letter of Mary Geraghty (Feb. 6), defending the “liberal” position on several aspects of social life, she says that they advocate “affordable housing,” suggesting that those who do not agree are opposed.

If we advocate efforts to be able to afford adequate housing, instead of relying on authority to get somebody else to pay for that housing, is this social conscience?

Pay equity, if we advocate that all factors be considered, including the amount of dedication and many other ones that are involved, showing that women are not paid significantly less, is this cruelty?

Decent education? Is it decent education to have sexual education for immature kids, without input from parents? Contraception available for kids who cannot get an aspirin without parental consent?

Proper medical care for the impoverished? Should Washington determine who are the impoverished? Or should it be done by authorities, including religious ones (excluded by liberals) closer to the people, aware of the different States of the Union.

And the opposition to wars by liberals, forgets that most wars have been initiated by presidents considered liberals, or approved by congressmen of that persuasion. The Korean War and the Vietnam War come to mind, and the politicization of the Iraq War and the Afghanistan ones have kept those going, certainly not by conservative governments.

RAUL ALESSANDRI

Davidsonville, Md.


 

Dear Editor: Mary Geraghty’s letter (Feb. 6) presents an unhistorical dichotomized world view that credits liberals for everything construed as good and suggests criticisms of progressive ethical presuppositions as “narrow” and uncharitable in intent.

All God’s sinful children interpret their beliefs as placing them on “high moral ground” no matter how much evil we do. Hitler and Stalin were convinced they were altruistic and merciful. Examining the history of human conceit is not self-righteous but is a Christian obligation and an act of tangible mercy.

Studying the published positions of progressives reveals that much “concern for the underprivileged” that secular liberals profess has continuously amounted to expedient judgments of “human fitness to live” creating demonic policies that would “save the planet” by obsessively promoting, financing, and mandating pro-abortion agendas everywhere. Many go so far as to promote “mercy“killing for healthy born babies and the aged of the very poor. Repulsion for ungodly evil can never be an “obsession.” Understanding the origins of evil enables a mind to understand the real nature of goodness, mercy, and charity.

It is not an “obsession” for Christians who perform heroic sacrifice and aid to broken lives and families who mistakenly turn to abortion. In the real world, filtered from platitudes, pro-life conservatives outpace liberals in personal aid to the poor materially and voluntarily in all facets of charity with typical demographic margins of ten to one or better. Those who naively identify with being liberal because of pervasive propaganda that equates liberalism with goodness are effectively becoming the conservatives they scorn when they do good works and call attention to real, not imaginary, injustice. Witness to moral obligation is witness to an unchanging God and His principles, not the caprices of progressivism.

Liberals are seldom guided by values that transcend those that seem to be benevolent through simplistic reforms that more often increase human misery.

JOHN HOURIG

Little Neck

Share this article with a friend.

One thought on “Liberals v. Conservatives

  1. I often laugh when Liberals start talking about Climate Change and mock Conservatives or anyone who question the science. The talking point for the Liberals is that “The science is settled”. However with so many variables as an educated Professional Engineer I believe that the science is not settled. However when you start bringing up science as it pertains to an unborn child, Liberals seem to dispute what is definitely SETTLED SCIENCE. I have yet to hear any reputable doctor or scientist dispute that a fetus is human life.