Anyone Not Catholic for Non-Theological Reasons?

[Contarini]

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.

If you are a radical libertarian then perhaps that makes sense. But if you think that laws should ever limit what people can do, then either the laws will solely be based on consensus and negotiation (which is a huge mistake in my opinion), or they will embody some vision of what the good life is. (That vision must of course be hammered out through consensus and negotiation–my point is that if you base laws solely on what people agree to do to each other you take away any ultimate guarantee of freedom and dignity.)

The big problem for Deists (and others, agnostics, atheists, etc) is that “revealed” religions are solely based on faith.

This may be true of some versions of Christianity, but it’s not true of traditional Christianity–certainly not of Catholicism. You are setting up an opposition between faith and reason that is alien to historic, orthodox Christianity.

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.

This is sloppy thinking. It requires you to argue that people whose religious views forbid slavery or mutilation or wife-beating have no right to force *those *views on others. Rather, the examples you give indicate that laws should only forbid behavior that is clearly contrary to the common good, and should be based on a broad consensus. If we lived in a society where there was a broad consensus that it was contrary to the common good for women to show their faces, then those of us who don’t agree would just have to put up with it. And alcohol is a much weaker example, since a good case could be made that alcohol use is contrary to the common good. (I don’t support prohibition, but I can see how reasonable people might.)

Think about it logically. We have laws against nudity–against showing the genitals, that is. There is no logical reason why there couldn’t be laws against showing any part of one’s body. These laws would be oppressive and excessive, but they wouldn’t violate any basic principle that laws against nudity don’t. Similarly, we have laws against certain harmful drugs–there is no absolute and objective reason why there couldn’t be laws against alcohol as well.

We have laws based on reason that are designed to keep society from running amok.

Exactly. But just what reason dictates, and what constitutes “running amok,” is not self-evident to all humans. You cannot simply disenfranchise those many humans whose views on these subjects are informed by revealed religions.

When it comes to personal choice and a person’s sex life, it’s best left up to the individual, IMO.

And that is exactly your opinion. Others may differ. In a democratic society, you and they have a right to try to persuade others to agree with you and pass laws based on your best judgment of what is right and good.

And of course abortion isn’t just a question of a person’s individual sex life–the basic issue is when life begins and/or under what circumstances (if any) an innocent life can be taken (I’d say that there are none–not in the case of direct killing–but rather disturbingly it appears that not everyone agrees with me.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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

That’s not a logical argument. You can’t force people to vote for candidates they don’t like. You can’t force them to behave reasonably. That’s not religious establishment–it’s called democracy. The weird thing is that the folks who complain most about “theocracy” seem to want to replace democracy with a rule of the enlightened few. At least, that’s the only way to accomplish their goals. Otherwise people will continue to be influenced by religion in their voting practices whether you think they should or not.

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.

I agree that the influence is pervasive. But your phrase “de facto establishment” is verbal sleight of hand. The First Amendment doesn’t say that only a limited percentage of the population can belong to a given religion. It doesn’t say that people can’t be influenced by their religious beliefs in how they act. The “establishment” that it forbids is an official government act, not a cultural influence. No matter how pervasive that influence, it can’t become “establishment” without an official act of government, because establishment *is *an official act of government.

I have tried to understand what it must be like to be a non-Christian in this country. I have explained it to other Christians (including some on this board) when they whine foolishly about “persecution.” But that doesn’t excuse sloppy and illogical language about “establishment” when what we have is simply a very large majority with a powerful cultural influence.

Edwin

 

[Swan]

If you are a radical libertarian then perhaps that makes sense. But if you think that laws should ever limit what people can do, then either the laws will solely be based on consensus and negotiation (which is a huge mistake in my opinion), or they will embody some vision of what the good life is. (That vision must of course be hammered out through consensus and negotiation–my point is that if you base laws solely on what people agree to do to each other you take away any ultimate guarantee of freedom and dignity.)

This may be true of some versions of Christianity, but it’s not true of traditional Christianity–certainly not of Catholicism. You are setting up an opposition between faith and reason that is alien to historic, orthodox Christianity.

This is sloppy thinking. It requires you to argue that people whose religious views forbid slavery or mutilation or wife-beating have no right to force *those *views on others. Rather, the examples you give indicate that laws should only forbid behavior that is clearly contrary to the common good, and should be based on a broad consensus. If we lived in a society where there was a broad consensus that it was contrary to the common good for women to show their faces, then those of us who don’t agree would just have to put up with it. And alcohol is a much weaker example, since a good case could be made that alcohol use is contrary to the common good. (I don’t support prohibition, but I can see how reasonable people might.)

Think about it logically. We have laws against nudity–against showing the genitals, that is. There is no logical reason why there couldn’t be laws against showing any part of one’s body. These laws would be oppressive and excessive, but they wouldn’t violate any basic principle that laws against nudity don’t. Similarly, we have laws against certain harmful drugs–there is no absolute and objective reason why there couldn’t be laws against alcohol as well.

Exactly. But just what reason dictates, and what constitutes “running amok,” is not self-evident to all humans. You cannot simply disenfranchise those many humans whose views on these subjects are informed by revealed religions.

And that is exactly your opinion. Others may differ. In a democratic society, you and they have a right to try to persuade others to agree with you and pass laws based on your best judgment of what is right and good.

And of course abortion isn’t just a question of a person’s individual sex life–the basic issue is when life begins and/or under what circumstances (if any) an innocent life can be taken (I’d say that there are none–not in the case of direct killing–but rather disturbingly it appears that not everyone agrees with me.)

Edwin

First, your point on Deism and reason being oppossed to some forms of Christianity - are you saying that these forms are based on reason? If so, I and the Deists (of which I am not one) would disagree as all revealed religions are based on faith - that’s what the founding father’s had against using them as a basis for law.

As to the wife beating, slavery argument - I’m not sure where you got that. I thought it was implicit in my statements that one should not be able to violate the rights of another because of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). Slavery and wife beating clearly violate another’s rights. So, no, that is not at all what I am saying. I am talking about consenting adults who want to live together without being married, use birth control, have a same-sex relationship… The key here is this: I am not advocating a law that would restrict the behavior of other’s (in so far as it does not violate the rights of others - no slavery or wife beating) as would a law preventing say birth control or homosexual unions. IOW, I am advocating that we leave these things up to the individual. The “other side”, however, would like to pass laws restricting this type of behavior - thus infringing on the right’s of others (and, yes, there are people on this forum who would love to outlaw all types of birth control). If you don’t want to do these things, then don’t - but let others decide for themselves.

As to abortion, I think the health of the mother is a vital consideration, including mental health, and that it should be left up to her and her doctor (I should not have to get approval from a host of total strangers). Believe me, I know all about mental health - or at least what it’s like to have mental health issues, but that is another topic.

 

[MagicKirk]

I’ve voted Democratic on occasion since 1980, and I might do so again- which is “evil” according to some Bishops. I’ve donated to organizations that fight discrimination against homosexuals, even though they don’t predicate that those homosexuals remain inactive. I’ve also donated to the ACLU, because I believe that in order for me to have civil rights, I must defend the civil rights of others-no matter how much I disagree with them. I also believe that the Separation of Church and State is critical to my freedom of religion. No law should be made in this country that has as it’s only foundation “God said so”. While I agree with the Church position on abortion, I do not believe in the election year ritual of communion denials for politicians. While I follow Church teaching on homosexuality myself, I have trouble with demanding that others who have chosen not to be Catholic do the same.

None of this used to bother me, but of late I have found that my politics and beliefs about society are in conflict with the Church. I used to believe what was most important about being Catholic was believing in the Sacraments, the Creed and the Bible-but now, it seems as if that’s only part of the package.

There is a lot to like about the Democrat Party (better support for the poor, more anti-death penalty, etc.) The abortion issue is huge (as a lot of people have noted). You can still be a Democrat and pro-life. There is an organization called Democrats for Life that supports pro-life Democrats and worked hard to change the Democrat platform. Obviously the platform is still supports abortion, but the Party reportedly made some small concessions, such as supporting a woman’s choice to have a baby.

I joined the organization since I think that the party needs to change. I will never vote for any pro-abortion candidates again (though I have done so in the past). There is a great deal to dislike about the Republican Party too and I haven’t voted for a Republican since I voted for Charles Percy for IL senator (and then regretted that immediately). The two party system only supports the status quo. Voting for a third party candidate is not throwing your vote away. It is making a statement that you are sick and tired of accepting the bad candidates that are offered up by the two parties. If enough people vote for a third party, it will force the two parties to change.

Sorry for this rambling post.

 

[ralphinal]

In the end, it comes down to this: I have the right to choose who I want to vote for using whatever means I see fit, or not vote at all. There have been times that I have refused to vote for any women whatsoever. There are other things that I use. To say that we should not use religion as a personal reason to choose a candidate (our own or theirs) is to remove an intrinsic thing that make us us: personal freedom of choice in voting.

Personally, I feel that we have had more than one agnostic as president. Did they profess it? No. Did they live it? Yep.

If you choose to leave the Church because our faith holds us to a code of conduct that should permiate our lives, including how we see right and wrong and how we make decisions, then you are saying that no moral code is important. After all, if it is not important enough for you to consider it correct for all people, it is not good enough for one.

The information you posted about ending abortion removes one aspect: responsibility. This country, and most of the West, is almost to the bottom of accepting reposibility for one’s actions. This includes having self-control. When a man shoots up his office and can claim that twinkies made him do it, it is a sad state of affairs. When people can say that they had abortions because there is not enough welfare, they are saying that they cannot take responsibility for their own actions and someone else must. This goes both ways: they are not able to care for the child and someone forced them into having an abortion.

 

[Cinette]

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.

I believe that the separation of Church and State is fair. At the same time I want laws that reflect my moral beliefs and it makes sense that this would reflect the good for all. What is good for a Christian should also be good for anyone else.

For instance it is good to care for the poor
It is good to respect our neighbour
It is good to assist anyone in distress
It is good to give a helping hand

THIS AND MORE SHOULD APPLY TO PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

Just as:

To kill is bad
To cheat is bad - for all people

This is natural

UNFORTUNATELY:

There are people whose belief systems reflect convenience:

It is not convenient for me to have a child right now so I will kill the life growing in me;

This surely will lead to: My parents are old and a burden and too expensive to maintain alive so I will give them an injection

Sure - what is the difference?

There was a time when ALL Christians believed in the protection of the living - abortion was inconceivable! Then they ceded to artificial contraception which led to abortion which led to euthanasia… Now you kill because the child within you is not perfect… It would be too inconvenient and a burden to bring into the world a child with down syndrome or no legs…

We become a society that controls life and death to every detail. Some societies will kill the female…

Did you know that in China fetuses are “health food” for some??

So we have learned not to accept but rather to reject and determine what is to be…

Is this the way to live our lives?

SHOULD NOT THE LAW PROTECT LIFE AND THE VULNERABLE?

One sees people who are born severely handicap who lead meaningful lives and who are deep thinkers and who contribute to society…

Should we not just accept what life brings and ask for God’s grace and guidance?

I believe in the separation of Church and State in that the State must respect and protect people of all races and religions. But what actually happens is that the State begins to feel almighty and the respect for religion is discarded.

There is no protection anymore. We elect leaders and they dominate and enrich themselves and live the good life. We see this over and over again all over the world.

However, there does come the day of reckoning…:yup: :tsktsk: :dts:

 

[Fitswimmer]

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

They said it in Kansas…and if you read the threads regarding Nancy Pelosi that have proliferated in the last week, that sentiment is loud and clear.

 

[Cinette]

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

I would hesitate to vote for any candidate who would terminate life in the womb or say that it is OK.

 

[kentuckyliz]

The Catholic Church is a really big tent and there’s lots of people with different political beliefs and persuasions. You’re talking as if it’s one monolithic thing.

Separation of church and state is terrific and has done the church a lot of good. It fits with Catholic teaching about people’s religious freedom.

So I don’t really get your difficulty.

Still, if you think it’s an insurmountable stumbling block, have you considered the Episcopal church? You might find it to your liking.

 

[Cinette]

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.

Yes, I agree with your standpoint.

Still, if God can give us free will then why not the State as well? Free will does not condone the choices we make however - we must still be responsible and bear the consequences!

:ehh:

 

[Skip_Wiley]

This is for another thread, but where do you think you got the bible?

Yeah, I know the argument. That Catholics compiled the Bible doesn’t mean that Catholicism is any less corrupt and Unbiblical.

The issue of failure to protect the children is a travesty and there is no excuse for it. The abuse was not done by the church, but some bad humans that preyed on people.

Right. The church didn’t do it, just representatives of your church and your church only facilitated it and helped cover it up.

That does not make the fullness of truth that you get from the church any less true.

Actually, we get the fullness of truth from Christ, not from you, your pope or your organization.

What demonination are you?

I’m a Bible believing Christian so as far as you’re concerned, I’m one of Satan’s minions.

 

[Cinette]

Yeah, I know the argument. That Catholics compiled the Bible doesn’t mean that Catholicism is any less corrupt and Unbiblical.

Right. The church didn’t do it, just representatives of your church and your church only facilitated it and helped cover it up.

Actually, we get the fullness of truth from Christ, not from you, your pope or your organization.

I’m a Bible believing Christian so as far as you’re concerned, I’m one of Satan’s minions.

You have obviously come on this forum to snarl and be disagreeable - not to debate and exchange views.:bigyikes: :bigyikes: :banghead:

 

[MagicKirk]

Right. The church didn’t do it, just representatives of your church and your church only facilitated it and helped cover it up.

Skip, don’t you have any admiration for the Church in that it has owned up to the travesty and apologized for it?

In contrast, there was a recent study that showed that the rate of molestation was as high, if not higher, in Protestant churches.

Strangely, I never saw any apologies for that, and the media quickly forgot the story. I haven’t seen it mentioned again.

Is there a double standard?

 

[Skip_Wiley]

In contrast, there was a recent study that showed that the rate of molestation was as high, if not higher, in Protestant churches.

The difference, of course, is that we get rid of our ministers who do these things and we cooperate with the police to bring them to justice. We don’t just ship them off to another, unsuspecting congregation.

 

[Skip_Wiley]

You have obviously come on this forum to snarl and be disagreeable - not to debate and exchange views.:bigyikes: :bigyikes: :banghead:

How can I “debate and exchange views” when the Catholics here believe that “debating and exchanging views” means starting every post off with “Oh yeah? Well what could you possibly know? You’re a non-Catholic!”

 

[RobHom]

Yeah, I know the argument. That Catholics compiled the Bible doesn’t mean that Catholicism is any less corrupt and Unbiblical.

I know the argument too, but that doesn’t mean that any other religion or denomination is any less corrupt and un-Biblical.

Right. The church didn’t do it, just representatives of your church and your church only facilitated it and helped cover it up.

And you think that you know all? The Church did not facilitate anything. It was the few, not the many. And while some of that happened…it would be best for you not to make the mistake that you are in believing that it is exclusively a “Catholic” issue. Go here… reformation.com/

Actually, we get the fullness of truth from Christ, not from you, your pope or your organization.

Have it your way… You are free to believe whatever you choose to. Catholics get the fullness of TRUTH from Christ, as well as the Church, and His Shepherd the Pope. You would be very disingenuous if you were to deny getting your brand of truth from your church and your “pope”…or minister or whomever.

I’m a Bible believing Christian so as far as you’re concerned, I’m one of Satan’s minions.

I’m happy that you believe in what the Bible contains…and I do not “consider” you one of Satan’s minions. You are merely a separated brethren… I’m happy you “believe”… Only you can make yourself a minion of Satan…

I am suspecting that you know little of what Catholicism actually embraces…so if you have any questions…feel free to ask.

Please be advised however, that regardless of how charitable we can be…we too know the game and can play it quite well.

Peace!

 

[RobHom]

The difference, of course, is that we get rid of our ministers who do these things and we cooperate with the police to bring them to justice. We don’t just ship them off to another, unsuspecting congregation.

Can you provide substantiation at least as far as …getting rid of your ministers and turning them over to the police?

There has actually been much done by the Catholic Church to rectify the wrongs committed by a very small minority… and further steps are being taken to make sure it does not happen again.

 

[RobHom]

How can I “debate and exchange views” when the Catholics here believe that “debating and exchanging views” means starting every post off with “Oh yeah? Well what could you possibly know? You’re a non-Catholic!”

Skip…my friend in Christ… Have you taken just a moment to consider that possibly what you are taking umbrage to is merely a direct response to how you present things to others?

Debates and exchanges of thoughts and ideas can be volatile and heated, though its not necessary to be so… Much can be said in different tones that will not arouse the ire of the recipient. Einstein made the statement… “For every action, there is a reaction”… little did he know just how profound that statement is…especially where humans are concerned.

Peace!

 

[Rocky]

It has been in the papers here in the upper Midwest lately about various teachers/coaches at middle and high schools that have abused/molested children. They are fired, then go across state lines and get a job in the next school. It takes them being caught three or four times, it seems, before anything is done.

 

[Skip_Wiley]

Skip…my friend in Christ… Have you taken just a moment to consider that possibly what you are taking umbrage to is merely a direct response to how you present things to others?

I don’t see how presenting scripture to answer a question is a bad thing or why it should draw the attacks you guys have made against me.

If you disagree with what I say, then explain why. Don’t just be a brainwashed coward and say “Well, that’s just your interpretation” and run away.