I didn’t say that theocracy meant no religious freedom, which is why I mentioned them both separately. Re-read the definition I posted. It does not say *“theocracy - a government with 0 religious freedom.” *
Would a country that had a theocracy that said, “if you don’t want to adhere to these laws, go somewhere else” be no religious freedom? It would essentially be saying if you have religious freedom, but you are not allowed to practice it here. If everyone had a country they could go to with a theocracy based on their religion could you not then argue that religious freedom existed provided everyone had a place they could go to practice their religion?I didn’t say that theocracy meant no religious freedom, which is why I mentioned them both separately. Re-read the definition I posted. It does not say *“theocracy - a government with 0 religious freedom.” *
I’m discussing religious freedom because sw85 has openly admitted that we should fight AGAINST religious freedom. Which I disagree with.
What if they don’t leave? Do they go to jail? Do they get deported? Do they get executed?? Because that’s what has been done in the past.
I’m not a proponent of a theocracy, but I don’t believe a theocracy is inherently wrong. Religious freedom is a human right, but it does not over weigh all other rights. You are correct in assuming the example I gave above probably would not work though.What if they don’t leave? Do they go to jail? Do they get “deported?”
Besides, your logic makes no sense whatsoever. You’re basically saying that a person still has religious freedom because they’d be forced to leave the country that has no religious freedom so that they could practice religious freedom somewhere else.
…Or something??
Kinda weird.
I think religious freedom is a human right, and I don’t think people should be forced to leave their homeland due to their religious beliefs. I guess you disagree along with sw85.
Do you realize how off your thread is here now? Natural law is not a religious argument and basing arguments off natural law is no more a religious argument than your point above where you put forward the notion that religious freedom is a human right otherwise known as a “natural right”. Basically you were saying that by virtue of being human we all have a right to religious freedom. The argument in this thread works on similar logic. By virtue of being human a contraceptive act is wrong because it contradicts who we are. Its as much an affront to our humanness as denying someone’s religious right or right to life is. The Church accepts the notion of natural rights and natural law, but to the Church these concepts have more meaning since they are given to us by God, and not just the consequence of a orderly Universe which has not distinctive purpose other than existing. Even without God though they do have meaning that should be upheld. Otherwise, our government would be impinging on our religious freedom by forcing us to accept the notion that all human beings have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Haha with posts like this I can’t blame sw85 for shouting sometimes. If you wish to continue to deny reality and your own humanity great. I find it incredible that you would disrespect someone who has put a lot of his time into trying to help people like you understand Church teaching. Your slander here against sw85 and his “natural laws” is really a slander of the Church who defends natural law and your humanity. Even AngryAthesit8 knows enough Church teaching to know that the Catholic Church acknowledges the self-evident Truth of natural law even if he vehemently disagrees with it.
Really? Which of “God’s foremost law” would that be? That we love the Lord our God with our whole heart, mind, being? And how do we express that love? By denying his Natural Law and not admonishing our brethren to abide by it?