The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The trouble with liberalism > Comments

The trouble with liberalism : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 30/3/2009

Liberalism is not so much an ideology but the vacuum left after the implosion of Christianity.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 32
  10. 33
  11. 34
  12. All
I once thought that Sells might have something to offer to mankind. Alas, this last piece has wiped any such thoughts from my mind. What an utter piece of *&$Rt

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 30 March 2009 12:03:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Without liberalism, Sellick would never have the opportunity to publish (every few weeks) one of his interminable sermons.

BTW, since when did "harm reduction" become immoral?
Posted by Fractelle, Monday, 30 March 2009 12:19:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The opposites of liberal are:

Small minded,
biased
prejudiced
insular
intolerant.

Hey you're right, this does describe the church previously (and the catholic church today.)
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 30 March 2009 12:20:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For all its imperfections, liberal democracy has at least provided freedom. As another poster rightly noted, without liberalism, views could not be freely exchanged in this forum. Freedom is only worth anything when it is extended to people whose views one doesn't agree with, so we just have to grin and bear the endless sermons from the author.
The whole tendency of this piece, and others like it, is to imply that liberal types - atheists, that is - have no guiding ethics and morality and are adherents of some sort of "anything goes" school of thought. It is a moth-eaten notion but still doing service for those who really have nothing else to offer. Of course, it goes without saying that it is deeply offensive to those of us who cannot believe in anything supernatural, and therefore cannot be christians, and yet have ethical, moral and respected lives. We do a whole lot less harm than people who go around spuriously telling people how unethical they are.
Posted by Miranda Suzanne, Monday, 30 March 2009 12:35:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Welcome to OLO Miranda - your post made excellent points.

The brevity in post my is that I have long since become quite jaded with the lack of respect Sells applies to non-believers and given up on any meaningful exchange.

Which is a shame.

I can well imagine lively discussions with the likes of Father Peter Kennedy, Shelby Spong or Father Bob Maguire all of whom are tolerant and inclusive of everyone irrespective of religious beliefs or lack thereof. But we rarely get articles from the spiritual just the sanctimonious.
Posted by Fractelle, Monday, 30 March 2009 12:49:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Fractelle - thanks so much for your welcome, which is much appreciated. I completely agree with your take on "Sells". I personally think that Father Bob Maguire is excellent value and I can well imagine having a rollocking conversation with him, coming from a position of mutual respect. I have similar respect for Father Frank Brennan, whom I have had a bit to do with in the past. Also, when I was quite young, I had an exchange of letters with an Anglican minister who presided over the funeral of someone I loved. It was a respectful exchange that in the end we ended on a point of fundamental disagreement but still managed to not abuse each other. It is not valid for religious types to insist that they hold the monopoly of ethics and morals. Plenty of evidence could be presented for the contrary case, in fact.
And I return to a point I have made before - why should the capacity to believe in the supernatural say anything at all about that person's capacity for morality? They are not related. Douglas Adams said that religious types are just simply showing off their believing credentials. The capacity to believe in invisible father figures supervising the lives and monitoring the behaviour of human beings (who have only been on this billions-of-years-old planet for less than 100,000 years) qualifies people for nothing except a gold star for credulity.
Posted by Miranda Suzanne, Monday, 30 March 2009 1:15:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 32
  10. 33
  11. 34
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy