Anyone Not Catholic for Non-Theological Reasons?

[Fitswimmer]

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.

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

Yes, they would. They have fought for abortion protesters under the umbrella of Free Speech.

I can’t be Catholic because I don’t pass the test. According to the Bishops, the only criteria I may use to choose my candidate is their position on abortion.

 

[ralphinal]

Yes, they would. They have fought for abortion protesters under the umbrella of Free Speech.

I can’t be Catholic because I don’t pass the test. According to the Bishops, the only criteria I may use to choose my candidate is their position on abortion.

Ok. If I missed it, I am sorry. Why are you pro-choice?

 

[Fitswimmer]

You think the problem is an atheist feels marginalized?

I think the problem is that one religion has too much power and dominates the political landscape.

Consider for a moment that Christianity is not the majority-but you are still Christian. What if Muslims held it? What if the dollar said “In Allah We Trust”, and Muslim religious holidays were automatically given priority? What if every candidate for office was Muslim? Wouldn’t you tire of it? Wouldn’t you be objecting that the country was not founded on a religious basis?

 

[Fitswimmer]

Ok. If I missed it, I am sorry. Why are you pro-choice?

I’m not.

 

[ralphinal]

I’m not.

I did not think so. I was afraid that I missed it.

Anyway, the position that the Bishops have, and it is a logical one, is that if someone has no right to live, then they have no rights at all. That being said, if the right to live is denied to a portion of the country, a portion that has no vote anyway, then the country as a whole is diminished. Therefore, the right for a person to exist trumps all others. Once we all can live, we can look at other issues one by one.

Is this argument flawed?

 

[Fitswimmer]

I did not think so. I was afraid that I missed it.

Anyway, the position that the Bishops have, and it is a logical one, is that if someone has no right to live, then they have no rights at all. That being said, if the right to live is denied to a portion of the country, a portion that has no vote anyway, then the country as a whole is diminished. Therefore, the right for a person to exist trumps all others. Once we all can live, we can look at other issues one by one.

Is this argument flawed?

I’m not convinced that the “Pro Life” party is the single best answer to ending abortion. According to a study released by Democrats for Life today:

In studying public policy in all states from 1982 to 2000, the authors found that programs not normally associated with reducing abortions had a noted effect on the rate of abortion from one state to another.

For instance, the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 allowed states to impose a cap on the number of children eligible to receive economic assistance in low-income families. The study found that removing the cap did not increase fertility rates. Instead, according to the study, removing the cap “would decrease abortions by about 15 percent or 150,000 nationwide.”

Similarly, the findings “suggest” that during the 1990s “states with more generous grants to women infants and children under the age of 5 … had a 37 percent lower abortion rate” and that higher male employment during that decade “was associated with a 29 percent lower abortion rate.”

The study was sparked by the “observation that the number of abortions in the United States decreased dramatically during the 1990s.” Two major studies estimated that the number fell between 18 percent and 21 percent during the 90s, representing “over 300,000 fewer abortions in 2000 compared with 1990.”

“This new research suggests that the Pregnant Women’s Support Act is exactly the kind of sound public policy that can lead to lowering the abortion rate in America,” said Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats for Life, referring to legislation in Congress aimed at reducing the abortion rate. “This discussion will prove that hope and change are possible in Washington if we focus on creating solutions based on shared values,” she said.

 

[fix]

I think the problem is that one religion has too much power and dominates the political landscape.

Consider for a moment that Christianity is not the majority-but you are still Christian. What if Muslims held it? What if the dollar said “In Allah We Trust”, and Muslim religious holidays were automatically given priority? What if every candidate for office was Muslim? Wouldn’t you tire of it? Wouldn’t you be objecting that the country was not founded on a religious basis?

Which part of Christianity do you find troubling?

This country has a Christian heritage. Why bring up muslims or atheists?

 

[Fitswimmer]

Which part of Christianity do you find troubling?

This country has a Christian heritage. Why bring up muslims or atheists?

Please indicate where in the Constitution this country’s Christian heritage is defined.

 

[fix]

Please indicate where in the Constitution this country’s Christian heritage is defined.

Is this country’s heritage only to be defined by the constitution? Does history not matter?

 

[Swan]

Please indicate where in the Constitution this country’s Christian heritage is defined.

It isn’t - you are correct. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison, Paine, etc., were Deists. They were not Chrisitians. Why do folks think that the establishment clause is the very first item in the Bill of Rights? Because this was very important to them. (See Deists.com and theocracywatch.com. for more info)

The Puritans were Christians but they didn’t found the U.S.

Even when I was Catholic, and before that when I was Protestant, I had a real issue with mixing church and state (any church). What I believe and the way I chose to live my life is my business - I don’t try to force it on others and I’d appreciate the same consideration from others - which is what I think you’re getting at. The big problem for Deists (and others, agnostics, atheists, etc) is that “revealed” religions are solely based on faith. If I don’t agree that with someone’s belief because I don’t accept the Bible or the Koran or whatever as “divine” - which is my right - then they are in my face condemning me because I don’t subscribe to their moral code. Meanwhile, they are doing their best to pass laws that will force me to live according to those morals -(for example, there are folks who’d like to make artificial birth control illegal).

No sane person would stand for this sort of thing so, like theocracies (or would-be theocracies) everywhere, the idea that it is “god” who is making the rules is put forward. Then we go right back to who believes in what god, etc… And, yes, what if some other religious group (other than yours) was running things? Want to be forced to wear a burka because God says women should be covered? How about outlawing alcohol because some fundamentalists and Muslims believe it is evil? It is a vicious circle that is best totally left outside of government, IMO.

We have laws based on reason that are designed to keep society from running amok. When it comes to personal choice and a person’s sex life, it’s best left up to the individual, IMO.

It’s funny to me that often the same people who are crying out for gov. regs on abortion and gay marriage are the same folks who are against most other gov. regs. The refrain “gov. doesnt’ think people can think for themselves so they pass laws…”

Oh, about the ACLU. I’ve been a member for years. Just google “ACLU and relgious rights” and you will see that they routinely defend the religious rights of all (and I guess it is the “all” that is the problem). Just recently they filed suit in Organge County, CA against the gov. for interfering with the rights of a religious group feeding the poor on state land. A few years ago they defended a Catholic in a very non-Catholic state (Nebraska or somewhere) who was being forced by the court to attend an alcohol treatment (or some substance abuse center) that was run by Evangelical/anti-Catholic folks, saying it violated his religious rights. Folks, we all have the same civil rights - regardless of our religion or lack thereof. And that, I believe, is the issue in a nutshell.

 

[dmelosi]

It isn’t - you are correct. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison, Paine, etc., were Deists. They were not Chrisitians. Why do folks think that the establishment clause is the very first item in the Bill of Rights? Because this was very important to them. (See Deists.com and theocracywatch.com. for more info)

The Puritans were Christians but they didn’t found the U.S.

Even when I was Catholic, and before that when I was Protestant, I had a real issue with mixing church and state (any church). What I believe and the way I chose to live my life is my business - I don’t try to force it on others and I’d appreciate the same consideration from others - which is what I think you’re getting at. The big problem for Deists (and others, agnostics, atheists, etc) is that “revealed” religions are solely based on faith. If I don’t agree that with someone’s belief because I don’t accept the Bible or the Koran or whatever as “divine” - which is my right - then they are in my face condemning me because I don’t subscribe to their moral code. Meanwhile, they are doing their best to pass laws that will force me to live according to those morals -(for example, there are folks who’d like to make artificial birth control illegal).

No sane person would stand for this sort of thing so, like theocracies (or would-be theocracies) everywhere, the idea that it is “god” who is making the rules is put forward. Then we go right back to who believes in what god, etc… And, yes, what if some other religious group (other than yours) was running things? Want to be forced to wear a burka because God says women should be covered? How about outlawing alcohol because some fundamentalists and Muslims believe it is evil? It is a vicious circle that is best totally left outside of government, IMO.

We have laws based on reason that are designed to keep society from running amok. When it comes to personal choice and a person’s sex life, it’s best left up to the individual, IMO.

It’s funny to me that often the same people who are crying out for gov. regs on abortion and gay marriage are the same folks who are against most other gov. regs. The refrain “gov. doesnt’ think people can think for themselves so they pass laws…”

Oh, about the ACLU. I’ve been a member for years. Just google “ACLU and relgious rights” and you will see that they routinely defend the religious rights of all (and I guess it is the “all” that is the problem). Just recently they filed suit in Organge County, CA against the gov. for interfering with the rights of a religious group feeding the poor on state land. A few years ago they defended a Catholic in a very non-Catholic state (Nebraska or somewhere) who was being forced by the court to attend an alcohol treatment (or some substance abuse center) that was run by Evangelical/anti-Catholic folks, saying it violated his religious rights. Folks, we all have the same civil rights - regardless of our religion or lack thereof. And that, I believe, is the issue in a nutshell.

Nice eloquent little paragraph, but the fact remains that abortion is killing a human being and not what you call personal choice.

No matter how you try to disguise it, it is still the taking of a human life.

 

[fix]

Nice eloquent little paragraph, but the fact remains that abortion is killing a human being and not what you call personal choice.

No matter how you try disguise it, it is still the taking of a human life.

He simply substitutes his dogmas for God’s dogmas. It is ironic.

 

[scipio337]

It isn’t - you are correct. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison, Paine, etc., were Deists. They were not Chrisitians. Why do folks think that the establishment clause is the very first item in the Bill of Rights? Because this was very important to them. (See Deists.com and theocracywatch.com. for more info)…

And who is calling for ending these civil rights? I’m not sure of your point.

Like it or not, personal opine is sometimes forged by religious faith.

 

[Usagi]

Fitswimmer, I hope you find your way clear to calling yourself Catholic again, and soon.

To leave the Church, and especially the Eucharist, over political matters is a terrible tragedy.

I, also, struggle with being both a faithful (I hope) Catholic and a staunch believer in American civic values of plurality and limited governmental interference in individuals’ lives.

When the old “Would you like to live in a Catholic theocracy” thread got a surprising number of positive responses, all I could think was, “Well, I do want to live in a Catholic theocracy someday – namely Heaven – but I’ll stay away from attempts until then, thanks.”

I am pleased to see so many bishops emphasizing the importance of the life issues in our political decision-making, when they could so easily have remained quiet or vague and avoided criticism. Still, I think too many people immediately leap on that teaching as a de facto endorsement of a single party or candidate, with no weighing of options allowed.

You seem to have a Catholic heart, and you are studying the issues and seeking to use your vote in a way that will promote the greatest good. I don’t think the Church could ask for more from a Catholic citizen of a republic.

Usagi

 

[Swan]

And who is calling for ending these civil rights? I’m not sure of your point.

Like it or not, personal opine is sometimes forged by religious faith.

Sure it is, but that’s is exactly the point. We are not a theocracy. We have freedom of religion - we can apply it to our lives as we see fit but we have no right to impose our religious beliefs on the lives of others - especially in matters of civil rights. A law banning birth control, say, based on the beliefs of some Christian’s, imposes the belief (that birth control is bad) on those of us who don’t belive as they do. Therefore, you have the right to use birth control or not. No one will force you to do so - that would be a violation of your beliefs. Nor should you be allowed to prevent others - that would be a violation of their belief.

As to the abortion issue - this is not a thread on abortion and there are many. I have posted my abortion experience in other threads (I had one long ago, I am bipolar and was suicidal) - if you’re curious, I’m sure you can find it.

 

[scipio337]

Sure it is, but that’s is exactly the point. We are not a theocracy. We have freedom of religion - we can apply it to our lives as we see fit but we have no right to impose our religious beliefs on the lives of others - especially in matters of civil rights. A law banning birth control, say, based on the beliefs of some Christian’s, imposes the belief (that birth control is bad) on those of us who don’t belive as they do. Therefore, you have the right to use birth control or not. No one will force you to do so - that would be a violation of your beliefs. Nor should you be allowed to prevent others - that would be a violation of their belief.

As to the abortion issue - this is not a thread on abortion and there are many. I have posted my abortion experience in other threads (I had one long ago, I am bipolar and was suicidal) - if you’re curious, I’m sure you can find it.

Legislating a moral code (whether derived from religion or not) is not “imposing a theocracy” on the lives of others, is the very definition of representative gov’t.

My point is that our legislators are elected for personal qualities, their political ideas, etc, which usually is in some way formed by religion (or opposition to it). I don’t see how legislating one’s political ideas is conflated with theocracy.

Besides, I’d have to search pretty hard for those who want to make birth control illegal.

Very sorry to hear about your experience, I pray you’re doing better. I may search for that thread.

 

[Contarini]

Yes, they would. They have fought for abortion protesters under the umbrella of Free Speech.

I can’t be Catholic because I don’t pass the test. According to the Bishops, the only criteria I may use to choose my candidate is their position on abortion.

That is false. That is what the right-wing Catholics on this board want you to think, but that is not what the Catholic bishops as a whole have said.

Edwin

 

[dmelosi]

That is false. That is what the right-wing Catholics on this board want you to think, but that is not what the Catholic bishops as a whole have said.

Edwin

I am not sure what part of abortion = killing a human being

that people don’t get.

 

[Contarini]

I think the problem is that one religion has too much power and dominates the political landscape.

Consider for a moment that Christianity is not the majority-but you are still Christian. What if Muslims held it? What if the dollar said “In Allah We Trust”, and Muslim religious holidays were automatically given priority? What if every candidate for office was Muslim? Wouldn’t you tire of it? Wouldn’t you be objecting that the country was not founded on a religious basis?

If I lived in a country where Muslims were as overwhelmingly the majority as Christians are in the U.S., but where religious minorities had the rights and freedoms that they have here, I’d give thanks to Allah (the Arabic word for God, in case you don’t know).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I am not sure what part of abortion = killing a human being

that people don’t get.

Abortion is not the only thing that kills human beings. However, I’m not going to get into a debate about the relative gravity of various kinds of homicide. I’m simply pointing out that the Catholic Church has never said that abortion is the *only *issue voters should consider. It is of course an extremely important one.

Edwin