Archbishop Chaput critiques famous JFK 'Houston speech' [CC]

[joe_clark]

The state cannot favor/establish a religion. We agree on that point. However, the state must NOT do ANYTHING that retricts the free practice of religion. That is where the so-called wall comes into play (if one insists there is a wall). In other words, the state cannot say anything encourage or discourage religious practice, not even regarding people who work for the government, because to do so would infringe on their constitutionally protected right to freedom “of” religion (it is critical to note that the clause says “freedom of religion,” not "freedom from religion).

Now, the state cannot establish the Catholic faith as the state Church (or any other faith either), yet it also cannot tell anyone they cannot follow their Catholic faith (or any other faith) when voting or when working for the government.

Yes, I believe the absolute perversion of the establishment clause comes from the left, and yes I believe many Americans are weak of mind when they allow such nonsense to happen.

The current mythical “interpretation” of that clause is built out of thin air, not the law. It is crafted by people who simply do not want Judeo-Christian ethics and morality to be in existence at all. It is crafted by people who want to tell people they are free to worship on Sunday, but never in the public sphere, and nowhere does anything like that exist anywhere in our founding documents. The modern perversion of the clause is based on one personal opinion letter written by Thomas Jefferson, and even the reality of that letter is taken waaay out of context. Sadly, too many Americans just eat this stuff up without doing any research themselves.

Of course…IMO.

I agree with the way you have put it down BUT, blaming the left like when it rains, is like a kid trying to tell the teacher the boogieman came and took my homework&^%$#. Please allow all of us to take the responsibility needed. If there is absolute perversion of the establishment clause it’s coming from Americans, not the left or the right. The ones who propose and the ones who stay silent are the same. Too many fingers pointed which equates to nothing changing.

 

[rlg94086]

I agree with the way you have put it down BUT, blaming the left like when it rains, is like a kid trying to tell the teacher the boogieman came and took my homework&^%$#. Please allow all of us to take the responsibility needed. If there is absolute perversion of the establishment clause it’s coming from Americans, not the left or the right. The ones who propose and the ones who stay silent are the same. Too many fingers pointed which equates to nothing changing.

Americans…on the political left.

Are you thinking it is equally spread across the political spectrum? I don’t see any evidence of that. There are a few conservative voices who hold that viewpoint, but the vast majority are liberals.

 

[JReducation]

I believe that the point was well made before. The State, which in a democratic society means the citizens, cannot forbid or interfere with the right of an elected official to exercise his vote according to his religious beliefs. In the USA, that’s unconstitutional. One can question the legitimacy of any constitutional law, provided that the law promotes an intrinsic evil. But the protection of religious freedom is not an intrinsic evil.

Therefore, a politician has a constitutional right to vote according to his or her faith and conscience. We may disagree with their vote. That’s what democracy is about. You put the issue on the table and you work it out.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I believe that the point was well made before. The State, which in a democratic society means the citizens, cannot forbid or interfere with the right of an elected official to exercise his vote according to his religious beliefs. In the USA, that’s unconstitutional. One can question the legitimacy of any constitutional law, provided that the law promotes an intrinsic evil. But the protection of religious freedom is not an intrinsic evil.

Therefore, a politician has a constitutional right to vote according to his or her faith and conscience. We may disagree with their vote. That’s what democracy is about. You put the issue on the table and you work it out.

Well, with respect, that’s too easy. The question comes in when there is a law passed which contravenes someone’s religious viewpoint.

Slavery was legal – even its opponents would say that. So, would a Catholic politician say to Bishop Murphy: 'Too bad, that’s the law. If we start with you we’d have to fund segregation academies, madrassas and everything else."?

"ALBANY - The state’s Catholic bishops, including William Murphy of Long Island, are lobbying lawmakers to give “equal treatment” to parochial schools and public schools.

Murphy said Tuesday that he and other Catholic leaders, along with thousands of parishioners, are seeking reimbursement for religious schools of the MTA payroll tax. The schools pay about $6 million per year, but they don’t…"

newsday.com/news/region-state/catholic-leaders-seek-equal-treatment-on-tax-rebate-1.1802966

"It was a busy Lobby Day at the Capitol for Sen. Jeff Klein, who met with Bronx and Westchester Catholic school officials on Tuesday to discuss legislation that would grant private and parochial schools reimbursements from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority payroll tax.

Public schools currently receive full reimbursement for the cost of the payroll tax – implemented last year on certain employers with the MTA’s catchment area – but independent and religious elementary and secondary schools do not."

blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/23521/klein-pushes-for-mta-payroll-tax-reimbursement-for-private-schools/

 

[JReducation]

Well, with respect, that’s too easy. The question comes in when there is a law passed which contravenes someone’s religious viewpoint.

Slavery was legal – even its opponents would say that. So, would a Catholic politician say to Bishop Murphy: 'Too bad, that’s the law. If we start with you we’d have to fund segregation academies, madrassas and everything else."?

"ALBANY - The state’s Catholic bishops, including William Murphy of Long Island, are lobbying lawmakers to give “equal treatment” to parochial schools and public schools.

Murphy said Tuesday that he and other Catholic leaders, along with thousands of parishioners, are seeking reimbursement for religious schools of the MTA payroll tax. The schools pay about $6 million per year, but they don’t…"

newsday.com/news/region-state/catholic-leaders-seek-equal-treatment-on-tax-rebate-1.1802966

"It was a busy Lobby Day at the Capitol for Sen. Jeff Klein, who met with Bronx and Westchester Catholic school officials on Tuesday to discuss legislation that would grant private and parochial schools reimbursements from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority payroll tax.

Public schools currently receive full reimbursement for the cost of the payroll tax – implemented last year on certain employers with the MTA’s catchment area – but independent and religious elementary and secondary schools do not."

blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/23521/klein-pushes-for-mta-payroll-tax-reimbursement-for-private-schools/

None of these debates have to do with Catholic faith and morals. What they’re arguing here is actually completely secular. Not that they don’t have a right to argue in the secular forum, afterall, they are citizens.

But I was speaking about laws that conflict with faith and morals. In that case the person of faith has the right to vote according to his faith, even if he’s an elected official. Elected officials do not give up their constitutional rights. We have to respect their right to religious freedom.

There seems to be a tendency in modern day USA to try to control the faith of political figures by claiming that they cannot vote on legislation according to their faith. What I find most interesting about this is that among the developed nations of the world, the USA is probably the most religious or right up there among the top 10 religious nations, if we include the Muslim nations, which are also very developed in many ways.

I find it interesting that one of the most religious nations on earth has such a problem with their public servants allowing their faith to guide them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[rlg94086]

Well, with respect, that’s too easy. The question comes in when there is a law passed which contravenes someone’s religious viewpoint.

Slavery was legal – even its opponents would say that. So, would a Catholic politician say to Bishop Murphy: 'Too bad, that’s the law. If we start with you we’d have to fund segregation academies, madrassas and everything else."?

"ALBANY - The state’s Catholic bishops, including William Murphy of Long Island, are lobbying lawmakers to give “equal treatment” to parochial schools and public schools.

Murphy said Tuesday that he and other Catholic leaders, along with thousands of parishioners, are seeking reimbursement for religious schools of the MTA payroll tax. The schools pay about $6 million per year, but they don’t…"

newsday.com/news/region-state/catholic-leaders-seek-equal-treatment-on-tax-rebate-1.1802966

"It was a busy Lobby Day at the Capitol for Sen. Jeff Klein, who met with Bronx and Westchester Catholic school officials on Tuesday to discuss legislation that would grant private and parochial schools reimbursements from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority payroll tax.

Public schools currently receive full reimbursement for the cost of the payroll tax – implemented last year on certain employers with the MTA’s catchment area – but independent and religious elementary and secondary schools do not."

blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/23521/klein-pushes-for-mta-payroll-tax-reimbursement-for-private-schools/

Straws…grasping.

Slavery is actually a good illustration of why voting your religion-formed conscience is a good thing. It is your argument (don’t vote based on religious conviction) that would have kept slavery as a legal institution. Thankfully, truth won out.

As far as public funds being used for parochial schools, so what. Where does tax money come from? The people. If the funds are used for schools, then use them for all schools. Again, no religion is being established. If anything, it would be an example of our freedom of religion, if a voucher system was put in place that allowed people to send their schools to a secular, Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc. school of their choice. That is pluralism!

 

[JReducation]

Straws…grasping.

Slavery is actually a good illustration of why voting your religion-formed conscience is a good thing. It is your argument (don’t vote based on religious conviction) that would have kept slavery as a legal institution. Thankfully, truth won out.

As far as public funds being used for parochial schools, so what. Where does tax money come from? The people. If the funds are used for schools, then use them for all schools. Again, no religion is being established. If anything, it would be an example of our freedom of religion, if a voucher system was put in place that allowed people to send their schools to a secular, Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc. school of their choice. That is pluralism!

We have the voucher system in Florida. It has not hurt anyone. Many people prefer the local public school and others take the McKay money (the name of the program) and go to whatever school they want. Sometimes they go to a religious school and other times they select a secular private school. This is not an issue about religion. It’s about justice to people who pay taxes for education services that they don’t want to use and they want their money so they can go elsewhere.

In Florida, the money is not given to the school. The check is sent out to the school, but it has the parent’s name on it. The school hands it over to the parent and the parent pays the tuition. If there is a difference, the parent pays the difference. It’s not as if the state is paying for a very expensive education for one kid and giving leftovers to the kid in public school. The sytem is based on the budget. X number of dollars are allocated for every student. The student who leaves the public school system gets up to 60% of that amount. In fact, the public school makes money, because it keeps 40% of the money at the school where the student would normally attend, but they don’t have to spend money on that student, because he’s not there. Floridians are very happy with the system. Because parents who live in areas where the public schools are not good have a choice of a private school and parents that live in districts with excellent public schools don’t go through the trouble of applying for the voucher.

If there is anything religious here, I would say that it’s justice. People are being treated justly.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ender]

Well, with respect, that’s too easy. The question comes in when there is a law passed which contravenes someone’s religious viewpoint.

I’m sure it’s something obvious but I don’t understand the point you’re making here. What concern are you raising and can you give an example?

Ender

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

None of these debates have to do with Catholic faith and morals. What they’re arguing here is actually completely secular. Not that they don’t have a right to argue in the secular forum, afterall, they are citizens.

Well, there you have it! On items which are secular, like tax support to Catholic schools, 10 Commandments in a courtroom, prosecutions for trespassing and school history instruction about all religions, Catholic politicians are free to vote in a constitutional manner in our secular society. Those are not matters of faith or morals. Now, someone please inform the Thomas More Society of this.

Straws…grasping.

Slavery is actually a good illustration of why voting your religion-formed conscience is a good thing. It is your argument (don’t vote based on religious conviction) that would have kept slavery as a legal institution. Thankfully, truth won out.

Not grasping at all. A Catholic politician could vote against slavery. The question is wouldn’t one (even a Catholic!) have to admit that the institution was both legal and constitutional?

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

If there is anything religious here, I would say that it’s justice. People are being treated justly.

Now, I know of private schools which teach that white folks are devils and other private schools which teach that Jews are responsible for the Gulf War. Do you want tax dollars supporting those schools?

Justice? It might be just if folks without kids did not have to use their tax dollars to support the schools. So a person’s concept of what is just can be very selfish and irrelevant.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I’m sure it’s something obvious but I don’t understand the point you’re making here. What concern are you raising and can you give an example?

In a pluralistic society Catholics have to render to Ceasar. This means that politicians, both legislators, jurists and those in the executive branch, can use their offices according to their moral beliefs but they have no right to impose their religious views on the populace on secular matters; that is, according to our Constitution which they have sworn to uphold.

 

[redrosetea]

In a pluralistic society Catholics have to render to Ceasar. This means that politicians, both legislators, jurists and those in the executive branch, can use their offices according to their moral beliefs but they have no right to impose their religious views on the populace on secular matters; that is, according to our Constitution which they have sworn to uphold.

You are leaving out the part where Christ says we are to render to God that which is God…and God has forbidden the taking of innocent life…We must obey the 10 commandments and scripture is filled with examples of people who wouldn’t bow down and serve the ungodly just because they wanted them to

So is church tradition…visit the catacombs see all of the people that were martyred for their faith…It looks to me like you approve of this in your rendering to Caeser?

 

[rlg94086]

Not grasping at all. A Catholic politician could vote against slavery. The question is wouldn’t one (even a Catholic!) have to admit that the institution was both legal and constitutional?

Of course…same with abortion. Your question is irrelevant. Recognizing it is legal and voting against it are completely compatible. In the 60s, bishops denied communion to some legislators who were opposed to civil rights legislation.

This thread is about JFK’s speech. He wasn’t a judge. You keep going back to judges, as if that is a big deal, but I’ve said, repeatedly, that judges have different guidelines than legislators and executives. Judges uphold the law. Where there is room for interpretation, they use their faith-formed conscience. For legislators and executives, they should vote and act according to their faith-formed consciences.

 

[redrosetea]

From what we know of JFK he wasn’t much of a Catholic to begin with…it was easy for him to sell out…He wanted the job more than he wanted to be a Catholic

 

[rlg94086]

In a pluralistic society Catholics have to render to Ceasar. This means that politicians, both legislators, jurists and those in the executive branch, can use their offices according to their moral beliefs but they have no right to impose their religious views on the populace on secular matters; that is, according to our Constitution which they have sworn to uphold.

Define “imposing religious views.”

 

[irishpatrick]

I agree with the way you have put it down BUT, blaming the left like when it rains, is like a kid trying to tell the teacher the boogieman came and took my homework&^%$#. Please allow all of us to take the responsibility needed. If there is absolute perversion of the establishment clause it’s coming from Americans, not the left or the right. The ones who propose and the ones who stay silent are the same. Too many fingers pointed which equates to nothing changing.

I agree that both sides hold responsibility. However, remaining silent is not the same as doing the act…it is not good, but it is not the same. For example, if someone witnesses a crime, and then remains silent, they are not then guilty of that crime.

I feel when we start saying everyone is at fault, then really no-one is at fault because it is just way to all inclusive. If the left had not pushed towards the perversion of the establishment clause, then others would not have had anything to ignore.

 

[pnewton]

In a pluralistic society Catholics have to render to Ceasar. This means that politicians, both legislators, jurists and those in the executive branch, …

The verse meant we are to pay just taxes. That was the context.

 

[Ender]

In a pluralistic society Catholics have to render to Ceasar. This means that politicians, both legislators, jurists and those in the executive branch, can use their offices according to their moral beliefs but they have no right to impose their religious views on the populace on secular matters; that is, according to our Constitution which they have sworn to uphold.

The Constitution prevents the imposition of a religion but legislators surely have the right to enact laws consistent with their religious views, just as others have the same right to enact laws consistent with non-religious views. The idea that the Constitutional prohibition against an establishment of religion somehow disallows a religious person from voting according to his conscience is simply absurd. The establishment clause has no such meaning.

Ender

 

[robdaddyf]

Hey, he’s my Archbishop! I love that guy! He’s right about JFK’s speech. Enough said by me.

 

[rlg94086]

The Constitution prevents the imposition of a religion but legislators surely have the right to enact laws consistent with their religious views, just as others have the same right to enact laws consistent with non-religious views. The idea that the Constitutional prohibition against an establishment of religion somehow disallows a religious person from voting according to his conscience is simply absurd. The establishment clause has no such meaning.

Ender

Exactly. That’s why I asked what Beau believes “imposing a religious view” means. There is nothing wrong with voting according to your faith. If a “religious view” ends up being a shared more with the majority of the public and doesn’t infringe on someone’s right to practice their religion (or force them to practice yours), then there is no problem.

For example, banning abortion and limiting the criteria for a civil marriage have no effect on someone’s ability to practice their religion.