- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
It is going to get a lot worse before it gets better-especially if Catholics continue to vote for people who are opposed to the Church.
M
MacBP
Guest
I think we need to be specific when we talking about fighting secularism. Secularism, in its true form, is great. That is a system where the state neither affirms nor denies the truth of any particular system of religious belief. The problem is that modern secularism is really a barely disguised atheism. The government assumes that teachings and beliefs of the Catholic Church (and other religious groups) are wrong and makes laws to reflect that. The former system accepts religion as an integral part of public life, the latter tolerates it as a necessary evil. The former produces freedom of religion, the latter produces freedom of worship.
S
sscott
Guest
The Catholic Church is against any form of birth control. Most other religions in the US value birth control. Just because you don’t agree with this particular issue is no reason to disrespect the President. The church does not have the right to act as a political action committee. You would not like it if somehow Muslims managed to push through Sharia Law because that is what they believe is right.
Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. You don’t want other religions to tell you what to do, you can’t tell others.
Health care is a private issue. If you go to the doctor you will have to sign a bunch of papers outlining your rights. You have the right to privacy and so do others.
I don’t see how so many people on this site think it is all right for health care to go only to the wealthy. This is a social issue. All civilized western countries have universal health coverage. What we have here is far from universal because there are so many insurance companies playing games. We also have people claiming religious exemption for not offering full insurance. It doesn’t work that way in other countries and a lot of those are predominantly Catholic. Sometimes you have to pay taxes that you don’t agree with. This is one of those places.
Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. You don’t want other religions to tell you what to do, you can’t tell others.
Health care is a private issue. If you go to the doctor you will have to sign a bunch of papers outlining your rights. You have the right to privacy and so do others.
I don’t see how so many people on this site think it is all right for health care to go only to the wealthy. This is a social issue. All civilized western countries have universal health coverage. What we have here is far from universal because there are so many insurance companies playing games. We also have people claiming religious exemption for not offering full insurance. It doesn’t work that way in other countries and a lot of those are predominantly Catholic. Sometimes you have to pay taxes that you don’t agree with. This is one of those places.
M
mkoopman
Guest
I believe this issue might be better consolidated under the concept of secular humanism and how this philosophical root has been dissolved in the poison of a death culture. Look at the declaration of rights of the U.N. and then bear witness to the opportunistic pragmatics that are the fruit of a humanism with no relationship to a Creator God. The wealth of the materialist is a parody of the providential love of Jesus; the element of stewardship that should be represented is swallowed into a selfish love of a man who desires to be God and not consummed by the selfless outpouring of the True Man-God. Place the face of secularism within this mask of relativism and then explain how modern securalist thought is a benefit to the human person? This is especially true for the weak and unborn person.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Well I think you’re confusing so called “civil rights” here which the Church unfortunately has to live with at the moment with what are really fundamental principles. Also, it’s beside the point of what I’m going to talk about, but if health care is such a “private” issue, then why is the government so involved with it, why does the Church campaign tirelessly for both accessible and moral health care for all people? I think this public vs private thing is yet another Enlightenment philosophical construct born out of the inside-outside dichotomy and it isn’t real.
Now to my point: governments do have an obligation towards the Catholic Church to recognize it and protect it.
You’re right, we wouldn’t like it if Muslims pushed through Sharia law, but the point is, they’re wrong, the Church is right, and the government does have a right and duty to (within specific and clear limits) respect, protect and promote that.
(new thought)If a government were to outlaw contraception in the name of Catholic teaching, this would be perfectly morally permissible according to Catholic teaching and, in fact, would be an unfettered moral good, even though there may be millions of people who live in this hypothetical country that don’t believe contraception is wrong. Sure, they might want it, they might think it’s ok with God, but they’re wrong, and a government is perfectly within its rights to, yes, deprive them of contraception according to Catholic teaching.
A government could, furthermore, criminalize/prohibit public proselytization/“evangelism” by non-Catholics of people towards non-Catholic religions, and this would be perfectly within Catholic teaching. A government could not morally prohibit the free exercise of non-Catholic religion according to Catholic teaching, but governments are in no way required to so much as passively facilitate non-Catholic religions, they just can’t say, “It is illegal to be a Buddhist and if you worship Buddha you will go to jail.” In the same way, a government could outlaw fomenting of things against the natural law, like, the government can, morally, make it illegal for people to go around in public saying things like, “THE TRINITY IS A LIE. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE WHORE OF BABYLON. ABORTION IS GOOD.” even if such is a sincerely held belief of some religious group. It would not be morally permissible for the government to, for example, go to an Episcopal church and say, “Stop, you can’t teach that the Pope isn’t really the Vicar of Christ,” but it would be perfectly morally legitimate for the government to say that if they’re on the sidewalk with it plastered on sandwich boards and to enforce this with criminal charges and punishment.
In short, people have rights, but error does not. Government has a responsibility to recognize, protect and promote Catholicism, but the government does not have a right to prevent the free exercise of non-Catholic religions*. Is this selective, biased and prejudicial? Absolutely. But it is perfectly within Catholic teaching. Vatican II leaves the traditional teaching–that is to say, “whatever we didn’t explicitly talk about here cause it’s already established,” that teaching—untouched.
*public campaigning for against-natural-law behaviors does not count as exercise of religion, nor does access to contraception, blah blah, etc.
Now I realize all of what I have said above is, for now, a pipe dream and it goes against what’s stuffed in our brains since our time as public school Kindergarteners. But it’s the truth and it’s within the government’s rights and responsibilities. We just have to create a Catholic society which, yes, is our obligation or, if you prefer a slightly-different-but-ultimately-equivalent take on things, is a natural byproduct of our evangelizing the world.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
tldr?
Church campaigning against contraception is not in any way equivalent to Muslims campaigning for the establishment of Sharia law.
Church campaigning against contraception is not in any way equivalent to Muslims campaigning for the establishment of Sharia law.
S
sscott
Guest
It’s exactly equivalent. It is the law of one religion that is sure it knows the word of God campaigning to force its beliefs on others who don’t agree with them. Don’t you think that some Muslims think that Sharia law is the only moral way to rule society, just as the Catholics think that church law is the only way. Both religions think they have a line to God . I’m also sure that both think the other is dead wrong.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
But it doesn’t matter, they’re wrong. If they want to practice their beliefs they most certainly are morally permitted to do so, but they are not morally entitled in any way to go stomping around with it in public. Do you believe they are wrong or not? I’m not questioning your faith, just what you’re saying.
“Secular government” as we understand it today is fake, it isn’t real, it’s a construct that will only last as long as it’s comfortable to keep our heads in the sand and avoid reality.
D
Dawnia
Guest
The Church and it’s members have every right to act on their behalf. In this country, religious belief is protected, regardless of whether you or I agree with those beliefs or not. Our legal system weights the rights of individuals against the interests of the government. The government overstepped it’s authority and it got put in it’s place as it should have.
Health care is no longer private, when you’re asking someone else to foot the bill. What insurance plan employers wish to provide as a benefit for employment should be left up to the employer. No one is forced to work at a job, nor take advantage of the benefits offered. It’s pretty sucky to whine and complain about not getting coverage of elective drugs/proceedures when millions don’t have insurance at all and have to pay for every dime of their care out of pocket.
U
Usige
Guest
The first amendment does not guarantee freedom from religion. The establishment clause prohibits the state from setting up or promoting a specific religion. The first also says that the government cannot pass any law prohibiting the free exercise. The only exception is when the free exercise could, through overt practice, cause public harm (e.g. no human sacrifice).
In this case it is not the government that is promoting a religion, but a company. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits groups or companies from establishing rules or procedures based on their religious beliefs. On the other hand the government forcing actions that directly restrict free exercise (e.g. undermines religious expression) must show how the law prevents undue harm to the public. The government is free to provide contraception themselves without impeding the free exercise clause.
No where in the Constitution will you find a right to restrict religious expression simply because non adherents find it onerous.
C
CorinneV
Guest
The Catholic Church is against any form of birth control. Most other religions in the US value birth control. Just because you don’t agree with this particular issue is no reason to disrespect the President. The church does not have the right to act as a political action committee.
Dear SScott,
As good American citizens, we *should * disrespect the president, if by ‘disrespect’ you mean ‘oppose.’
I disagree with the president regarding this particular issue, and I am going to ‘disrespect’ the president all I want. He’s disrespecting me as a Catholic, so I disrespect him right back. He’s merely the president, just Mr. Obama, and he is not entitled to special deference when he’s wrong.
The president is so lame on this issue, he has never presented data to show that women who are employed are not able to or can’t afford to purchase contraceptives if they wish to.
If the President can go to churches to campaign, which he has done many times, then the church has a right to comment on political issues.
M
mkoopman
Guest
This is the purpose for the redefining of atheism as a rejection philosopy. Interpolating an ontology which permutes the forcing of atheist tenets upon the public as a form of dictate that is separate from establishment. With the application of revisionist history denying that the “No God Religion” has existed in cultures through recorded history.we have the sin qua non of perestroika.
What a fine orchestration you have organ-eyes’d. Your commie-ents please.
J
JimG
Guest
The government seems to interpret the first amendment guarantee of religious liberty as freedom to practice whatever religion you wish, as long as it does not conflict with the tenets of the state religion of secularism. The state religion, for example, views contraception as a great good which can and must be imposed by the state and required by federal mandate of religious employers. If your religion views contraception as a moral evil, which it is, then your religion must give way to the state religion.
D
Dawnia
Guest
Plus you’re only allowed to practice your religion in your church and at home. Outside of those two places, you can only practice your religion where it doesn’t offend anyone.
E
estesbob
Guest
The Catholic Church has not called for banning contraception. It merely objects to forcing people to pay for it who object to it.
I am somewhat amused at the change in the over the top rhetoric we have seen in the last few years. It used to be Catholics were accused of wanting to impose a theocracy. Now we are told our opposition to contraception and abortion is the moral equivalent to supporting the imposition of Sharia law. Makes one wonder why they are so afraid of the Little Sisters of the Poor. Perhaps they are afraid they will beat them with their rosaries?
Z
zz912
Guest
You really should spend some more time studying this issue, because you simply don’t understand what’s going on. A private company refusing to pay for certain abortifacients and birth control in no way is imposing any beliefs on anyone, even their employees. The employees, and everyone else, is still quite free to go to Wal-mart, Target, Walgreens, or a 100 other drug stores and pharmacies and purchase what they want.
M
mkoopman
Guest
Good observations. I should like to point out that forcing an employer to provide direct material support for abortificients is mandating a form of human sacrifice. So, the government is out to use force against a person with a moral objection to provision of direct material support for human sacrifice. The government enforces the offering up one’s own child because of the onerous task of bridging the income gap.
How will those who kill the human person that was concieved come to understand this human sacrifice practice when personal or final judgement comes upon this idol worshiping adherent of the “medical procedure” practice of human sacrifice? Does labeling the taking of a human life as a “medical procedure” modify this practice in some way to change it from human sacrifice?
It seems wonderful to me to think that employers should be well disposed to help in eliminating employee’s children. Let us thank God for the well formed logic of Obama and company. Holler out about those employers who would resist the taking your child’s life and move rather towards accomodating a family wage.
Why do you think these opportunistic investors like this administration so well? They will have you fight for your right to have your employer kill off your children so that you can “be happy” on an unfit wage. Go ahead, fight for your “reproductive rights.”
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
They go after nuns because they can and because nuns won’t issue a fatwa against them.
Listen, a lot of the same voices who cry for free condoms and gay “marriage” may compare humble Catholic teaching to sharia law in order to bolster their freebies, but they’ll also make sure to defend Islam tooth and nail.
M
mikekle
Guest
I guarantee you, right now, someone from another faith is saying the exact same thing about catholics, they truly think we are dead wrong, so its all relative.
Also keep in mind, Govt is actually closer to siding with Muslim laws and beliefs versus christians…the bible also warned us that eventually christianity would be close to illegal to practice in society, people would have to attend mass in secret, for fear of persecution, and being thrown in jail for their beliefs. He said many will be tortured and killed becuase of his name, but we must be strong in this and never deny our beliefs, they can only do so much, they cant take your soul away!
I believe this great deception is fairly close too, Ive heard some kind of discovery will be made following a natural disaster, like an earthquake, that will supposedly point to something other than God being responsible for our creation, and the elect will be fooled, the govts will be fooled, and probably shortly after, they will consider it wrong to worship God, since we have this new proof that shows something else is true…It frightens me to think of this time period, but I can see it happening in our lifetimes…society is pretty close to considering christians to be criminals anyway.
- Status