Catholic, Orthodox leaders speak out against gay pride parade

[lileli]

Have we learned nothing from history or from current countries that allow religion to dictate public policy? I sometimes believe that some of you would be completely fine living in a theocracy. Thank God for separation of church and state. Pay to Cesar what is of Cesar and to God what is of God. Human rights should never be infringed.

 

[unstoppable_II]

Yes, it is part of the freedom of association/assembly/speech.

No, they are not. You are essentially denying another human being rights, which you refuse to acknowledge. In short, you don’t believe in natural rights.

Don’t tell me what I believe.

 

[unstoppable_II]

Have we learned nothing from history or from current countries that allow religion to dictate public policy?

If we have learned anything from history, it’s that we have over-learned a lot of things. Most of it is a result of judging yesterday by today’s standards. How would you like to be judged by future standards?

…Thank God for separation of church and state…

There is no such thing as “separation of church and state.” No person is two persons: one at home and one everywhere else. When he enters the voting booth, he takes with him all his beliefs, both good and bad. If you don’t believe me, ask a number of people to define it [without coaching them]. My bet is they will all have their own definition.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The topic, not each other please.

 

[ffg]

Yes, it is part of the freedom of association/assembly/speech.

Ok, yeah I figured, but didn’t want to assume.

This could be a really simple response, but considering what’s been laid out here, it seems that detail will help.

When God made Man, he made man with the ability to decide.

Something humans decide in almost all cultures is that they want to assign folks (governments and associated departments) with the responsibility to decide on the rules and run the logistics for the larger society. Some societies might have a strong arm that pushes to the front of the pack, but that’s not the situation with the subject.

Those decisions are not always pleasing to all people in society. However, the alternative is either more hands in the cookie jar where everyone’s hand is stuck, no cookies for anybody (assembly being one), or no cookie jar where cookie crumbs are all over the floor, and there is just a big mess (chaos).

Assembly is one of those things that society has to be involved in for security, health / nourishment, traffic adjustments, emergency routes, etc…

So, with all the organization and assistance necessary from government to pull off assembly, I can only hope that you might see how humans are the source of the decision to allow assembly.

It is not a right from God to disrupt lives so I can stand around with my like minded friends, it is thanks to the rest of society for allowing it, if they write it into law.

Therefore, it is absolutely societies right to cancel one.

Obviously none of this brings in the moral issue, right and wrong in God’s eyes, which is a source for laws created by man.

Take care,

Mike

 

[Rohzek]

Ok, yeah I figured, but didn’t want to assume.

This could be a really simple response, but considering what’s been laid out here, it seems that detail will help.

When God made Man, he made man with the ability to decide.

Something humans decide in almost all cultures is that they want to assign folks (governments and associated departments) with the responsibility to decide on the rules and run the logistics for the larger society. Some societies might have a strong arm that pushes to the front of the pack, but that’s not the situation with the subject.

Those decisions are not always pleasing to all people in society. However, the alternative is either more hands in the cookie jar where everyone’s hand is stuck, no cookies for anybody (assembly being one), or no cookie jar where cookie crumbs are all over the floor, and there is just a big mess (chaos).

Assembly is one of those things that society has to be involved in for security, health / nourishment, traffic adjustments, emergency routes, etc…

So, with all the organization and assistance necessary from government to pull off assembly, I can only hope that you might see how humans are the source of the decision to allow assembly.

It is not a right from God to disrupt lives so I can stand around with my like minded friends, it is thanks to the rest of society for allowing it, if they write it into law.

Therefore, it is absolutely societies right to cancel one.

Obviously none of this brings in the moral issue, right and wrong in God’s eyes, which is a source for laws created by man.

Take care,

Mike

The bishops did not object to the parade because of logistics. The bishops objected due to subject matter.

And rights do not flow from society. They are not socially constructed, as you assert. If they were socially constructed, then you have two problems: moral relativism and a poverty of stimulus. Rights are innate and part of a person’s individuality and most basic essence.

Your cookie jar analogy does not apply here. A gay pride parade does not cause chaos in the society. The government has no justification from impinging upon the demonstrators. They cancelled the parade because they didn’t like the message.

 

[Trident_H]

Unfortunately, it never seems to work out that way. Historian Paul Johnson was sympathetic to the original homosexual cause and bought into their rhetoric:

In short, nature abhors a vacuum.

Well look I don’t expect special favors and I don’t like the extremists in any camp, but being locked up for being in love was a bit harsh. I don’t like this getting political. I just want to be left alone. I wish those guys who always want to push this into something it never should have been would just cool it, but it’s sometimes hard to know when to stop. I mean if someone hadn’t pushed so hard would the rights that we have even exist? I don’t know for sure, but I doubt it.

Peace.

 

[adrift]

Why would a need a church document for something that is purely logical? And no, its not purely secular either. I invoked the example of Christ from the very beginning. And its a position that John Chrysostom and Augustine both held. Forcing sinners to do good is not in accordance with God’s law. One must make a sinner good by persuasion.

You are faceless person making a claim that you obviously cannot back up.

As for ad hominem, I reject such a charge. And if it really is, then so is your accusation that I don’t believe in any sort of public order or law whatsoever. You basically labelled me an anarchist. I didn’t take it as ad hominem, but rather as an intellectual contention with my own arguments. I answered you, and laid out what I think your own position logically concludes to.

An ad hominem attacks a person and not their statement. Your statement that

You don’t understand the Enlightenment too well, nor human rights in general.

is a direct attack on me not what I wrote. It is your opinion what you believe I understand. It was an unnecessary comment.

 

[Rohzek]

You are faceless person making a claim that you obviously cannot back up.

An ad hominem attacks a person and not their statement. Your statement that is a direct attack on me not what I wrote. It is your opinion what you believe I understand. It was an unnecessary comment.

You’re taking one part of a post of mine and placing it out of context. It was not a personal attack. Reread the entirety of my post. Furthermore, you’re advocating a position that clearly violates the right to assembly and associate in public. That’s a violation of human rights. If you don’t like what I say, then tell me how I am wrong instead of taking it personally.

Actually, I can back up my claim. And here it is from Augustine’s 23rd letter to Bishop Maximus:

Neque id agam cum miles praesens est, ne quis vestrum arbitretur tumultuosius me agere voluisse, quam ratio pacis desiderat; sed post abscessum militis, ut omnes qui nos audiunt intelligant non hoc esse propositi mei ut inviti homines ad cujusquam communionem cogantur, sed ut quietissime quaerentibus veritas innotescat. Cessabit a nostris partibus terror temporalium potestatum

Nor shall I impel (anyone) with the present soldiers, lest any of you believe me to wish violence, contrary to what the account of peace demands. Only after the soldiers depart, might all who hear me understand that this is not my intention: that is to have unwilling people driven together into communion. Rather I believe that truth should become known in searching (for it) peacefully. There will cease on our part the fear of temporal power.

In this case, Augustine was willing to let the Donatists have their public say and debate without fear of repercussions from the civil authorities, which is the appropriate reaction. The bishops of the Ukraine neglected to follow Augustine’s example.

And from John Chrysostom in On the Priesthood Book II:

For Christians above all men are forbidden to correct the stumblings of sinners by force…it is necessary to make a man better not by force but by persuasion. We neither have authority granted us by law to restrain sinners, nor, if it were, should we know how to use it, since God gives the crown to those who are kept from evil, not by force, but by choice.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf109/Page_41.html

 

[ffg]

The bishops did not object to the parade because of logistics. The bishops objected due to subject matter.

And rights do not flow from society. They are not socially constructed, as you assert. If they were socially constructed, then you have two problems: moral relativism and a poverty of stimulus. Rights are innate and part of a person’s individuality and most basic essence.

Your cookie jar analogy does not apply here. A gay pride parade does not cause chaos in the society. The government has no justification from impinging upon the demonstrators. They cancelled the parade because they didn’t like the message.

Thanks for the reply!

Now we are skipping subjects here. First I’ll address why I entered -

My interest was your thought that ‘assembly’ is a right from God. I detailed and exampled how it isn’t.

The chaos in the analogy would be related to ‘no government’, not the parade. I gave the answer for where the parade falls into play, it’s a cookie (I used ‘assembly’). Maybe give it a second look, in this light.

Moral Relativism - You don’t think moral relativism exists? Maybe that thought is right for you and not I. D)

With regard to flipping back to why the Bishops wrote to the powers that be -

Have you ever written or called your local, state, or federal representatives?

What do you expect the guardians of the moral code to push for in the areas that they live?

Thanks for the back and forth.

Take care,

Mike