B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
It wasn’t the Puritans who barred parochial schools, either.
That seems to be an unverified comment. Secularists do not favor ‘no religion’ – actually it is closer to ‘any religion’.
Archbishop Chaput: "Systematic Discrimination Against Church Now Seems Inevitable
- Status
A
Alan55
Guest
While martyrdom may be a fact of life in some Muslim countries or in India, for examples, it is pretty unlikely in the U.S. or western Europe in our lifetimes. This kind of talk leads to paranoid extremism. I’m all for an energetic defense and promotion of the Faith, but I think you’ve gone way too far. The challenge for us in the U.S. or in post-Christian Europe is quite different. We live in an era of secularism on the one hand and religious pluralism on the other. The Roman Empire of the New Testament era (minus the bloody persecution of Christians) is a better analogy. When the thought leaders dismiss your religion as insignificant, how do you respond? I say meditate on St. Paul and the early Church fathers.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Ah…you are talking about pre-US history. Yes, the British colonies didn’t have freedom of religion. That became “the past” about 212 years ago. Now, look at US History and think about the decline of tolerance of religious expression…especially in the last 50 years.
Beau Ouiville:
That is exactly the sort of rhetoric secularizers are using to push God out of the public sphere. Labeling any public religious expression as an “attempt to foist religion down the public’s throat” is the primary method they use. Thank you for illustrating the Archbishop’s points so eloquently.
C
canadianguy1143
Guest
E
estesbob
Guest
Such rhetoric does not surprise me when it comes from a non-Catholic. But when you see a Catholic espousing that you generally know two things:
- They disagree with the Church about core moral teachings
- They vote Democrat
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
… and you misunderstood it.
Folks that say their rights are being contravened by an attempt to ‘remove religion from the public sphere’ do not understand freedom of religion. It happens to be for all. The constitution also bars public support of religion. Some folks need to remember that.
L
LRThunder
Guest
Yes and no. While there hasn’t been an organized attempt by the federal government to outlaw religious freedom, there have been attempts by local cities or states to persecute various religions. The KKK managed to pressure the Oregon legislature to ban parochial schools (although I think this was overturned).
And my example wasn’t irrelevant. Russia went from a heavily Orthodox country to a heavily secularized country in the 1920’s and with it came brutal religious persecution, an obvious counterpoint to the premise that secularization brings about religious freedom.
The U.S. is the exception to that premise, not the rule, given the amendment guaranteeing the free exercise of religion.
L
LRThunder
Guest
And another thing…I doubt Catholics in Connecticut thought secularization of society meant more religious freedom last year. That was when the Connecticut state legislature attempted to wrest control of parishes from the pastors and bishops to lay councils. Fortunately, the bill was defeated before it could even get to the governor’s square.
D
DawnInTexas
Guest
The scales will tip-and Justice will pour out. (Whether the sceptics who believe all is okay in the world, believe it or not).
Christ’s Church will emerge at the end of Her Passion-more Glorified than before.
There will be 1 Church-1 Shepherd.
*
The Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.*
Pray the Rosary every day.
God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn
S
Soutane
Guest
That is exactly what the Jews said when the 3rd Reich raised it’s ugly head.Look at the pro-lifers being arrested on trumped up charges.Politicians in Canada and the US threatening to remove Tax exempt status and threatening to appoint secular oversite of religious bodies.Get your head out of the sand.What about Mormon temples and Catholic Churches being defiled in California when the homosexualists went on their rampage-martyrdom and crucifixtion come in many forms literal and figurative.Naaaaah!It COULDN"T happen here.Caesar can turn from Constantine to Nero in an INSTANT.Do you know that we have pro-life prisoner of conscience who has been jailed for SEVEN years for PRAYING outside abortion clinics in Toronto.
“The Roman Empire of the New Testament era (minus the bloody persecution of Christians) is a better analogy”-tell me when that happened during the first 300 years.That is utter nonsense.It’s soooooo easy to call someone paranoid until you’re behind razor wire saying,"Whaaaaaaaaaaa…?."Soviet Union.Cambodia.Red China.Viet Nam.Iraq.Saudi Arabia-nah,It COULDN"T happen here…well…It just…COULDN"T??.
R
rlg94086
Guest
That is a totally inaccurate statement. The Constitution bars the establishment of a particular religion. There is nothing wrong with “public support of religion.”. It is by twisting the meaning of our Constitution that secularizers continue their assault on the faith of the people.
A
Alan55
Guest
The Establishment Clause has been interpreted broadly by the Supreme Court. Public funds directed to religious organizations are highly scrutinized – to say that "there is nothing wrong with ‘public support of religion’ is incorrect with respect to current jurisprudence.
Be aware that for most of U.S. history, absent the Establishment clause, government funding would have been directed to Protestant Christian organizations, many of which were anti-Catholic. Under the current political circumstances, for every dollar spent on pro-life, conservative Catholic organizations, I would expect funding also for Catholic organizations that would not be favored by conservative Catholics, not to speak of funding for evangelical Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan and other religious groups too numerous to list. Public support of religion is a two- edged sword.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Really? So, what about the following examples “public support of religion:”
- Presidential appeals for the country to pray.
- Prayer before the sessions of Congress.
- In God We Trust
- “under God”
- National holidays - Thanksgiving, Christmas
Oh, and I didn’t quote your straw man argument. I believe in Freedom of Religion, so I don’t get hung up with the “what about Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Wicca, et al” arguments.
C
Contra_Mundum_1
Guest
Maybe heads will not roll in Europe and North America but white martyrdom is common already. Many Christians in the UK do not dare be open about their faith at workplace because they are afraid, or at least very uncomfortable. I read an article this morning (forgot which paper) about the ‘problem’ of medical staff who are religious because they do not offer death to patients as a legitimate choice. What does that say? If you want to be a doctor you have to assent to anti-life practice. That is discrimination. I’m convinced that these ‘problematic doctors’ will be dealt with. People lose jobs in so many fields because their faith is a problem.
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
For instance?
Not according to a med student who is very close to me.
No, and I’m not a secularist. And none of what you mentioned is really the practice of a religion – particularly Thanksgiving.
But perhaps not by the federal courts.
E
estesbob
Guest
Christianity’s Modern-Day Martyrs: Victims of Radical Islam
abcnews.go.com/International/christian-martyrs-victims-radical-islam/story?id=9976549
R
rlg94086
Guest
You didn’t say anything about the “practice of a religion.” You mentioned “public support of religion.” Clearly, a day established by the federal government to thank God is supportive of religion. Calling for the people to pray is supportive of religion. Etcetera.
While you may not consider yourself a secularist, you clearly support the argument of secularists.
Beau Ouiville:
Federal justices educated by secularists tend to misinterpret the Establishment Clause just as well as any other secularists.
As Archbishop Chaput said… “Today’s secularizers have learned from the past. They are more adroit in their bigotry; more elegant in their public relations; more intelligent in their work to exclude the Church and individual believers from influencing the moral life of society.”
M
Mungling
Guest
Haha, now that I think about, I think I’m a good 50% of the town’s Catholic youth. Pretty darn close to it anyways. In any case, wouldn’t it be preferable to go out among the screaming masses and show that Catholics are people too instead of clustering in our own sheltered gatherings?
I would also disagree with your assertion that Catholics, Christians, or the Religious in general (in the Western world, I am aware that there are some truly horrific things happening to people of faith in the wide world beyond) will be facing execution, torture, and the like. I’m not saying it’s impossible, just unlikely.
Rather, I foresee a future where religious expression as a whole is made socially unacceptable and ultimately outlawed (for our own good, of course). Perhaps after that’s established, then some of the forms of persecution you were speaking of may come to pass.
And finally, in general I would say a secular society is a granter of religious freedom. But in truth, what we’re dealing with is beyond secular. It’s a sort fundamentalist atheism, a system of belief that’s just as intolerant as what it believes it is fighting. If this sort of thinking were to prevail, we might as well exist in a hostile theocracy, as that’s more or less what we’ll be getting.
Just my humble opinion, of course.
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
Easily said. I would not be so quick to charge federal courts with misinterpreting the Constitution. And you will note the courts have let stand the cited examples of public support of religion.
I don’t consider the victims of terroristic acts ‘martyrs’ in the religious sense of the word. Such victims often are of the same religion as the attackers. And passive victimhood is not my idea of dying for one’s faith; which is the essence of martyrdom.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Well, of course you wouldn’t.
- Status