W
whatistrue
Guest
I think history shows us that laws alone are not as effective as one would hope.
- Status
T
Thom18
Guest
If we think more practically than theoretically for a moment, we absolutely will see a dramatic reduction in abortion. When you can’t merely go to the planned parenthood on the corner to do it anymore (because they will be charged with federal crimes if they continue operation), then where will you go? When abortion can no longer be promoted in the public sphere, then where will the pressure come from to choose that route, except from people with their own interests in mind?Thom18:
I think history shows us that laws alone are not as effective as one would hope.
W
whatistrue
Guest
From the same places as it did when it was illegal throughout a major portion of the world. And the numbers would likely be higher than they were before Roe v. Wade as the attitudes are different now. Remember that one of the arguments used in favor of legal abortion was that so many women were dying or being seriously injured during illegal abortions, including self-inflicted ones. I am thinking historically and practically rather than only theoretically.
N
Neithan
Guest
Look at the medieval church with all its abuses of power, then the collaboration with fascism, then the recent scandals and severe crisis we are in now. The clergy can hardly govern the church itself, let alone a political state. Jesus did not call priests to rule a “kingdom of this world.” That lesson should by now be firmly established.
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
I find this to be a really troubling statement. Will your theocracy facilitate the setting up and transport of all the other religions that have conflicting views in regards to Catholicism? If you outlaw religious tenets of other faiths, do you expect the other religions to meekly accept them or, more likely, rebel…perhaps violently?
The only way a theocracy could ever work is if every citizen was already that faith and agreed with all its tenets…good luck with that!
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
Muslims defend the persecution of Christians on the ground that Islam is the One True Faith.
Atheistic governments such as Communist Russia persecuted Christians because Atheist is True.
Nazi Germany tried to kill all the Jews in the world because Der Fuehrer Says So and Der Fuehrer is Always Right.
No. Suppressing someone else’s free speech rights is unjust no matter how right we are on the facts.
I
imo
Guest
What about the Bishop that is Co Prince of Andorra?
C
CRM_Brother
Guest
I once wondered about that too.
It turns out that he holds no official power. He is co-prince really in name and honor only. There is also the difference that the bishop, himself, does not personally hold the office. The office is permanently bestowed upon the Ordinary of the diocese, just as the other co-prince of Andorra is the President of France and is tied directly to his term of office.
It turns out that he holds no official power. He is co-prince really in name and honor only. There is also the difference that the bishop, himself, does not personally hold the office. The office is permanently bestowed upon the Ordinary of the diocese, just as the other co-prince of Andorra is the President of France and is tied directly to his term of office.
Last edited:
M
Mishakel
Guest
Weren’t the Romans in charge of Israel at the time of Jesus? I don’t remember Jesus starting a rebellion to force Christianity on the populace.
Didn’t Paul say in Romans 13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
This is pretty much the exact opposite of your hypothetical situation.
Didn’t Paul say in Romans 13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
This is pretty much the exact opposite of your hypothetical situation.
I
imo
Guest
From Wikipedia:
Powers the princes may exercise on their own include:[14]
Powers the princes may exercise on their own include:[14]
- Joint exercise of the “prerogative of grace” (the power to pardon);
- Each co-prince may appoint one member of the Superior Council of Justice and one member of the Constitutional Tribunal;
- Establishment of such services as they deem necessary to fulfil their constitutional prerogatives, and appointment of individuals to fulfil these services;
- Requesting a preliminary judgement about the constitutionality of proposed laws, or of international treaties;
- Agreeing to the text of any international treaty, prior to submitting it for parliamentary approval;
- Bringing a case before the Constitutional Tribunal in the event of any conflict over the exercise of their constitutional prerogatives.
C
CRM_Brother
Guest
The key word there is may. These are the optional powers which may be exercised. I’ve read Andorra’s constitution regarding these matters and the only real constitutional duty of a co-prince is to “…arbitrate and moderate the functioning of the public authorities and of the institutions…” Bishops all over the world, especially in the developing world, already provide this function to local governments and institutions without being official members of the government. Even in these functions, the co-prince can only fulfill these acts if invited and cosigned by a branch or institution of the Andorran government. These optional powers are only within the context of the governmental cosignatory.
The position of co-prince is separate from the government. The head of state is the Chief Executive. Andorra’s legislative power is held in the General Council and the judicial powers are held amongst five different bodies of judiciary structures.
The two bodies to which the co-prince appoints members are not directly involved in the judicial process. First, the Superior Council of Justice is the magistrate (Andorran judges) oversight body. They vet and submit approval for newly nominated magistrates and oversee the application of the laws and regulations made by the General Council for the conduct of the magistrates. The second is the Constitutional Tribunal. The only duty of this court is to judge challenges made against laws with regards to their constitutionality. The Vatican has given special dispensation for this exercise of political power because Andorran law is based, in part, on Catholic canon law and it is only through the Catholic Church that a legitimate representation of canon law can be present on the two councils.
The other duties fall into two categories: following up on the influence of canon law on Andorran law, and giving approval to the action of the government. In these approvals, there are no repercussions if they do not approve. The laws and treaties still come into force of law. The signatures of approval are simply procedural and symbolic.
In the constitution, their position is first and foremost described as: “… the symbol and guarantee of the permanence and continuity of Andorra as well as of its independence and the maintenance of the spirit of parity in the traditional balanced relation with the neighbouring States.”
They are quiet literally a symbol.
The position of co-prince is separate from the government. The head of state is the Chief Executive. Andorra’s legislative power is held in the General Council and the judicial powers are held amongst five different bodies of judiciary structures.
The two bodies to which the co-prince appoints members are not directly involved in the judicial process. First, the Superior Council of Justice is the magistrate (Andorran judges) oversight body. They vet and submit approval for newly nominated magistrates and oversee the application of the laws and regulations made by the General Council for the conduct of the magistrates. The second is the Constitutional Tribunal. The only duty of this court is to judge challenges made against laws with regards to their constitutionality. The Vatican has given special dispensation for this exercise of political power because Andorran law is based, in part, on Catholic canon law and it is only through the Catholic Church that a legitimate representation of canon law can be present on the two councils.
The other duties fall into two categories: following up on the influence of canon law on Andorran law, and giving approval to the action of the government. In these approvals, there are no repercussions if they do not approve. The laws and treaties still come into force of law. The signatures of approval are simply procedural and symbolic.
In the constitution, their position is first and foremost described as: “… the symbol and guarantee of the permanence and continuity of Andorra as well as of its independence and the maintenance of the spirit of parity in the traditional balanced relation with the neighbouring States.”
They are quiet literally a symbol.
Last edited:
T
TC3033
Guest
I’m a little late to the party, but seriously…thinking they could…undo AMMENDMENT 1 of the Bill of Rights. Ya, no.
Looks like I’d be making the drive north (or across an ocean) so I can freely practice as a non-Catholic Christian.
I’m now sure why, but I feel that story sounds familiar…
Last edited:
F
Fauken
Guest
Technically speaking, the nine priest judges in this scenario couldn’t do such a thing anyway. It’d have to have an equivalent of the 21st amendment be passed.
T
TC3033
Guest
Understood, I thought I was qualifying that by saying “thinking they could”.
Yep
P
Pat_Payne
Guest
Not to mention (as a Catholic who does have sneaking suspicions that a certain party and a certain organization that donates lots of money to that party would love us, if they could swing it, to be completely eliminated from the public square so they can get on with their agenda), that is a MAJOR double-edged sword. If a putative integralist Catholic President could suppress other religions, just wait as that boomerangs back on us eventually… It’s a BAD idea all around.
F
Fauken
Guest
Ah, sorry! I thought you were using that to just mean the thought was distasteful.
- Status