Anyone Not Catholic for Non-Theological Reasons?

[dmelosi]

In fact it is the problem of NOT compartmentalizing my life that is making me question my affiliation with the Church. If I could block out everything non-theological, I would have no problems.

What are the non theological issues that you think are a problem that confuses you.

 

[fix]

In fact it is the problem of NOT compartmentalizing my life that is making me question my affiliation with the Church. If I could block out everything non-theological, I would have no problems.

I am not seeing your distinction clearly enough.

As one example have you seen this?:

ON THE SEPARATION OF SENSE AND STATE

I ask because a separation of Church and state does not mean our faith is strictly a private matter that should have no influence on our government.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I am not seeing your distinction clearly enough.

As one example have you seen this?:

ON THE SEPARATION OF SENSE AND STATE

I ask because a separation of Church and state does not mean our faith is strictly a private matter that should have no influence on our government.

There should be no religious test in any way, shape, manner or form for political office. In recent years, nobody has been able to get elected dog catcher in this country without first showing how Christian they are. Religious belief is not and should never be a criteria for public office. No political party platform should contain explicit Christian references. The “ruling class” in this country should never be defined by a specific religion.

I would happily vote for a well-qualified atheist-as long as he/she promised to defend my right to continue not being an atheist.

 

[dmelosi]

There should be no religious test in any way, shape, manner or form for political office. In recent years, nobody has been able to get elected dog catcher in this country without first showing how Christian they are. Religious belief is not and should never be a criteria for public office. No political party platform should contain explicit Christian references. The “ruling class” in this country should never be defined by a specific religion.

I would happily vote for a well-qualified atheist-as long as he/she promised to defend my right to continue not being an atheist.

The further you get from religion the more you cloud the issue of what is right and wrong. Your organization the ACLU is really clouding that issue and trying to make the definition of “right” as if it feels good it is ok.

 

[Fitswimmer]

The further you get from religion the more you cloud the issue of what is right and wrong. Your organization the ACLU is really clouding that issue and trying to make the definition of “right” as if it feels good it is ok.

“my” organization defends my right to practice my faith. The problem people have with them is that they also defend the rights of people not to believe.

The USA is a multicultural, pluralistic society and it is one of the things I love about it. I would never want to live in a country where everyone was forced to believe the same thing, and act the same.

I have spent my life following the teachings of the Catholic faith, so please don’t try and tell me I don’t know right from wrong. My issue is with applying right and wrong according to any particular religion to those who have chosen not to be part of the Catholic church. God has given us all free will, and we are blessed by God with a mind. We are responsible for learning what right and wrong is, and for the consequences of our choices. We cannot force others to choose what only our Church says is right for them through civil law. It is only in the situations where a clear majority of the people converge-such as violent crime-where civil and religious law should look the same.

 

[fix]

There should be no religious test in any way, shape, manner or form for political office. In recent years, nobody has been able to get elected dog catcher in this country without first showing how Christian they are. Religious belief is not and should never be a criteria for public office. No political party platform should contain explicit Christian references. The “ruling class” in this country should never be defined by a specific religion.

I would happily vote for a well-qualified atheist-as long as he/she promised to defend my right to continue not being an atheist.

Do you agree with ab Chaput as in the above link?:

The duty of the Church and other religious communities is moral witness. The duty of the state and its
officials is to serve the common good, which is always rooted in moral truth. A proper understanding
of the “separation of Church and state” does not imply a separation of faith from political life. But of
course, it’s always important to know what our faith actually teaches.

 

[Fitswimmer]

The Archbishop is speaking to his flock-Catholics. Unless he decides that he is now Archbishop of all the citizens of Denver, then his words are binding only for those who are members of the Church. He has clarified Church teaching for them, although I would find it odd that anyone who was really serious about knowing Church teaching would look to a politician first anyway.

Protestant preachers such as the late Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, John Hagee and Ron Parsley have said similar things about the separation of church and state, but I think most people realize that their intent is far different. They talk about “moral witness” too, but what they want a seat at the political table, they want to make laws that reflect their belief system, they are adamant about creating a Christian nation.

For many on this forum, that’s no problem. They’d like living that way. For me, I don’t need civil law to mirror Church law. I can follow Church law just fine without it legislated from Congress.

 

[fix]

The Archbishop is speaking to his flock-Catholics. Unless he decides that he is now Archbishop of all the citizens of Denver, then his words are binding only for those who are members of the Church.

See, right here I cannot follow your thinking. Are his words true or not? Are they only “true” for Catholics? I am not asking who accepts his words I ask if they are true.

He has clarified Church teaching for them, although I would find it odd that anyone who was really serious about knowing Church teaching would look to a politician first anyway.

He not only clarified Church teaching he spoke about how reality exists. Should the good of society not be rooted in moral truth?

Protestant preachers such as the late Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, John Hagee and Ron Parsley have said similar things about the separation of church and state, but I think most people realize that their intent is far different. They talk about “moral witness” too, but what they want a seat at the political table, they want to make laws that reflect their belief system, they are adamant about creating a Christian nation.

Like what?

For many on this forum, that’s no problem. They’d like living that way. For me, I don’t need civil law to mirror Church law. I can follow Church law just fine without it legislated from Congress.

You need to separate Church disciplines and things unique to the faith and what is part of the eternal moral law that binds every single person.

 

[ralphinal]

There is no religious litmus test for anyone running for office. At least not one put in place by the government. That is the point of Jefferson’s separation claim: no state run church, no church run state. Now, the populace IS NOT bound to this rule. We can discriminate based on ideology, creed, and anything else we so choose. I am not saying it is right, but it is not the same as the government doing so.

We have laws that say that we cannot refuse service to people based on race, creed, color, country of origin, hadicap, familial status, and more. We have the same laws regarding housing and employment. It would be impossible to impose such a law as far as how we vote. How can you check it? If the issue that you have is the way people make up their minds on a candidate, you should not hold that against the Church. That is each individual’s decision.

The ACLU bothers the hell out of me. They have agendas and DO NOT protect civil rights equally. Please give me one valid reason that, for example, they protect those providing abortions but not the rights of legal protesters? Is there a logical reason that they protect criminals from police but not the innocent from criminal activities of big companies?

 

[Fitswimmer]

There is no religious litmus test for anyone running for office. At least not one put in place by the government. That is the point of Jefferson’s separation claim: no state run church, no church run state. Now, the populace IS NOT bound to this rule. We can discriminate based on ideology, creed, and anything else we so choose. I am not saying it is right, but it is not the same as the government doing so.

We have laws that say that we cannot refuse service to people based on race, creed, color, country of origin, hadicap, familial status, and more. We have the same laws regarding housing and employment. It would be impossible to impose such a law as far as how we vote. How can you check it? If the issue that you have is the way people make up their minds on a candidate, you should not hold that against the Church. That is each individual’s decision.

The ACLU bothers the hell out of me. They have agendas and DO NOT protect civil rights equally. Please give me one valid reason that, for example, they protect those providing abortions but not the rights of legal protesters? Is there a logical reason that they protect criminals from police but not the innocent from criminal activities of big companies?

Then why do candidates speak in Churches? Why was there an entire debate on religious issues during the primary? What was the reason for the Saddleback church meeting? Why is there so much discussion about the religious beliefs of the candidates? Can you imagine if every political speech didn’t end with “God Bless America”???

The ACLU has protected abortion protestors:

SCOTTSBURG, IN-- The Indiana Civil Liberties Union announced today that it has filed a lawsuit to stop city officials’ unconstitutional infringements on the free speech rights of a Baptist preacher and his congregation.

In its lawsuit, the ICLU charges that Pastor John Lewis and his congregants from the Old Paths Baptist Church were repeatedly threatened with arrest and/or citation by the Scottsburg Police Department for using megaphones during anti-abortion demonstrations. Police officials told Pastor Lewis that they were concerned about the possible reaction of passersby who hear his message.

“Pastor Lewis and his church members were ordered to stop, not because there was some ordinance they were violating or that the noise rose to the level of disorderly conduct, but because the police were concerned that the persons hearing the message might react against it,” said ICLU Legal Director Ken Falk. “This appears to be a classic case of a ‘heckler’s veto’, which is unconstitutional.”

In a similar case, the ICLU previously filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Old Paths Baptist Church last July against a Salem ordinance that would restrict public protest. The ordinance was aimed at curbing anti-abortion protests led by Pastor Lewis outside Washington County Courthouse. The ordinance required groups to apply for parade permits at least four weeks before any protest and pay a $100 application fee.

The ICLU has consistently defended the reproductive rights of women in the courts, in the Indiana General Assembly and in Congress. But the American way is to confront a contrary view, not to muzzle it, said the ICLU.

“Whether we agree with all of the message of Pastor Lewis and his followers is irrelevant,” said ICLU Executive Director Fran Quigley. “The ICLU is dedicated to preserving the rights of religious expression and free speech for all Hoosiers.”

They have also submitted Amicus briefs in other cases regarding the rights of anti abortion protests.

 

[dmelosi]

It sure looks like your struggle is not with Catholicism but a struggle with who to believe on right and wrong.

 

[Contarini]

I’ve read through some of the thread about being Christian but not Catholic and I see that it is mostly comprised of theological arguments. My problems with the Church are not theological, but political. The secular organizations I belong to, my voting record and my firm stance on the separation of Church and State in the US are the main reasons that I no longer feel welcome there.

Anyone else accept the theology but have trouble with the politics?

I’m the other way round. I think that the social and political stance of the Catholic Church is an excellent reason to be Catholic (note that I’m talking about the Church as a whole and not what you may hear from right-wing Catholics on this forum).
I’m not sure that my reasons for not being Catholic are primarily “theological” either–well, they are theologically related, but they have to do with my perception of much goodness and truth in Protestantism which is, practically speaking, currently incompatible with Catholicism. There are two ways to deal with this problem–become Catholic and try to bring these things with one, or remain Protestant and work for unity from this side of the fence. So far I always wind up deciding to do the latter. But I’ll admit that my reasons for deciding this are not purely theological.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

There should be no religious test in any way, shape, manner or form for political office. In recent years, nobody has been able to get elected dog catcher in this country without first showing how Christian they are. Religious belief is not and should never be a criteria for public office. No political party platform should contain explicit Christian references. The “ruling class” in this country should never be defined by a specific religion.

I would happily vote for a well-qualified atheist-as long as he/she promised to defend my right to continue not being an atheist.

Right. I agree with you. It’s shameful that Christians actually thought that the question of whether Mormons are Christians had something to do with whether they should vote for Romney. (I think Romney was an awful candidate and hope that McCain doesn’t pick him for VP, but this has nothing to do with his Mormonism.)

However, I also see a “religious test” being applied by those who mouth the slogan “separation of church and state” most avidly. Often it is assumed that if a politician’s views (or even a voter’s views) are influenced by their faith, that makes these views somehow illegitimate in public life. And that’s vicious nonsense. Everyone’s opinions are shaped by their faith (or by their ultimate beliefs about the universe, if they don’t have a “faith” per se), unless they are soulless hypocrites. Without beliefs that were shaped by faith, we’d never have had the Civil Rights movement, at least not in the form that it occurred historically. What it boils down to is that people want to muzzle the religious beliefs of those with whom they disagree. And that’s illegitimate no matter who does it.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I am way ok with your approach, mine is a bit different.

I look at the whole package, as best I can, with the knowledge that people lie and/or employ rhetoric.

In the case of abortion, at the federal level roe v. wade is a constitutional amendment

No, it’s a Supreme Court decision. That is a very serious thing–precedent matters a lot to the Court. But it’s not the same thing as a constitutional amendment.

Edwin

 

[Fitswimmer]

Right. I agree with you. It’s shameful that Christians actually thought that the question of whether Mormons are Christians had something to do with whether they should vote for Romney. (I think Romney was an awful candidate and hope that McCain doesn’t pick him for VP, but this has nothing to do with his Mormonism.)

However, I also see a “religious test” being applied by those who mouth the slogan “separation of church and state” most avidly. Often it is assumed that if a politician’s views (or even a voter’s views) are influenced by their faith, that makes these views somehow illegitimate in public life. And that’s vicious nonsense. Everyone’s opinions are shaped by their faith (or by their ultimate beliefs about the universe, if they don’t have a “faith” per se), unless they are soulless hypocrites. Without beliefs that were shaped by faith, we’d never have had the Civil Rights movement, at least not in the form that it occurred historically. What it boils down to is that people want to muzzle the religious beliefs of those with whom they disagree. And that’s illegitimate no matter who does it.

Edwin

Extremes are never a good thing, I agree with you there. It’s impossible to completely remove religion, and it’s not right either. However, I think we are leaning more towards the other extreme in American politics-too much influence of organized religion.

 

[dmelosi]

Extremes are never a good thing, I agree with you there. It’s impossible to completely remove religion, and it’s not right either. However, I think we are leaning more towards the other extreme in American politics-too much influence of organized religion.

The secular organizations are pushing the religious more and more towards secular thought processes. The problem that presents is that it is making those that follow their faith feel more and more like the outcasts and feel extreme when in fact the secular is the extreme and keep trying to move the bar on what is acceptable.

The secular organizations such as your group are having a lot of success labeling the religious as nutcases. You don’t realize the harm your group is doing, there are many on their spiritual journey towards Christ that these groups are pulling strongly away from that.

 

[Contarini]

Extremes are never a good thing, I agree with you there. It’s impossible to completely remove religion, and it’s not right either. However, I think we are leaning more towards the other extreme in American politics-too much influence of organized religion.

I don’t think it’s a question of “too much.” The First Amendment doesn’t say that a little establishment is OK but too much is bad. Nor does it say that free exercise is OK as long as it goes too far. It prohibits establishment and protects free exercise. The question isn’t whether there’s too much of one thing or another. The question is how to draw a line between establishment and free exercise, and how to balance the two imperatives when both are involved.

If you can’t make a case that the “influence of organized religion” is a form of establishment, then I don’t think you have a First Amendment case at all, however much you personally may dislike this influence.

Edwin

 

[Fitswimmer]

I don’t think it’s a question of “too much.” The First Amendment doesn’t say that a little establishment is OK but too much is bad. Nor does it say that free exercise is OK as long as it goes too far. It prohibits establishment and protects free exercise. The question isn’t whether there’s too much of one thing or another. The question is how to draw a line between establishment and free exercise, and how to balance the two imperatives when both are involved.

If you can’t make a case that the “influence of organized religion” is a form of establishment, then I don’t think you have a First Amendment case at all, however much you personally may dislike this influence.

Edwin

I’ll believe that when the first atheist or non-Christian member of the Democratic or Republican party gets anywhere.

Can you imagine what it’s like to be a non-Christian American? Try it sometime-I have. Take a good long look around at our society with non-Christian eyes-especially now, during election season. The influence is so common, so normal to most of us that we can’t even see it. It’s De Facto establishment.

 

[ralphinal]

Then why do candidates speak in Churches? Why was there an entire debate on religious issues during the primary? What was the reason for the Saddleback church meeting? Why is there so much discussion about the religious beliefs of the candidates? Can you imagine if every political speech didn’t end with “God Bless America”???

If the cause of this is the government, there is an issue. If the cause is a need to connect with people on this level, than there is nothing illegal about it. I did not like the Saddleback thing, but it was not bad once it was done. I am not a big fan of that dude. A voter has the right to use whatever criteria he so chooses to decide. To say that you cannot be Catholic because a Catholic may use religion as a test is not logical.

The ACLU has protected abortion protestors:

They have also submitted Amicus briefs in other cases regarding the rights of anti abortion protests.

Interesting. I am partially corrected. Would the national branch do the same as a state branch?

 

[fix]

I’ll believe that when the first atheist or non-Christian member of the Democratic or Republican party gets anywhere.

Can you imagine what it’s like to be a non-Christian American? Try it sometime-I have. Take a good long look around at our society with non-Christian eyes-especially now, during election season. The influence is so common, so normal to most of us that we can’t even see it. It’s De Facto establishment.

You think the problem is an atheist feels marginalized?